April 3-5, 2007

Scottsdale, Arizona

The 23rd Annual OWLS Conference was held April 3-5, 2007 at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort in Scottsdale, Arizona. The purposes of OWLS are to promote professionalism, technical advancement and interdisciplinary communication within the field of wildlife lands, preservation and enhancement. OWLS is an affiliate of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the President of OWLS acts as the liaison to AFWA and the representative of OWLS at AFWA and NAWCA meetings.

The 23rd Annual Conference was attended by 15 representatives of the member states. Over the course of the two days, 14 presentations were made including 2 from private conservation organizations, one by the Pima County Parks & Recreation Department and one by the Bureau of Reclamation, bringing the total representation of various organizations at the conference to 18 different, diverse groups.

The first day of the Conference began with a Welcome to Arizona by President-Elect Gene Sturla. He turned over the podium to the Mayor of Scottsdale, Mary Manross. This vibrant and conservation minded Mayor set the tone for the conference when she stated there was nothing more important than the environment in the face of population growth. She pointed out that Scottsdale, a community of 186 square miles and 270,000 people at build out, preserves one third of its land in open space. The citizens of Scottsdale voted to tax themselves 2/10 of 1% to buy desert. This forward thinking and planning has the effects of enhancing the economy through tourism, connecting wildlife corridors, providing meaningful open space and preserving boundaries. This makes Scottsdale a truly progressive city in terms of conservation.

Duane Shroufe, Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department next addressed the conference. Duane graduated from Michigan State 1967 and became Deputy Director in 1982. For the past 19 years he has been Director. Director Shroufe outlined some of the history and problems facing Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). Arizona accepted the heritage database from The Nature Conservancy (TND) and at the same time they created their first non-game program. The citizens of Arizona passed a referendum on lottery sales in 1991, which provides $10 million per year for AGFD. The Valley of the Sun, where Phoenix is located, is 120 miles wide. Growth is basically uncontrolled. Privately owned land in Arizona accounts for approximately 16% of the land base. As a state agency, Arizona Game and Fish only controls about a quarter million acres. Director Shroufe felt that in view of the problems of development and growth, organizations like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) and the Organization of Wildlife Lands and Realty Specialists (OWLS, an AFWA affiliate) were exceptionally important. Looking around the room he noted representatives from 15 states, 2 persons from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and representatives from third parties such as the Trust for Public Land (TPL) and the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). There is a need to know what everyone is doing and to not "reinvent the wheel".

In Arizona, the biggest challenges came from the need to satisfy everyone. Taking away any portion of the 16% of land in private hands is very political. Like everywhere, it is difficult to get acquisition money. Director Shroufe suggested that realty specialists talk in terms of wildlife management in order to secure acquisition money.

Director Shroufe ended by detailing the successes of AGFD. He noted the Heritage funding through the lottery and thatAGFD uses no general fund revenue. He revealed that 8% of the state’s Indian gaming goes to AZGF. This accounts for $7 million dollars annually and is expected to provide $13 million when fully built. He was also expecting approval of a small hike in sales tax 2008. As he put it, public support becomes political support. Public support was built on the efficiency, effectiveness and dedication of the AGFD employees.

David Weedman, Aquatic Habitat Coordinator, Habitat Branch, AGFD, made the first substantive presentation called “Fossil Creek Renovation/Restoration – Decommissioning and Restoring Full Flows and Native Fish Species to the Stream Channel. In Arizona, aquatic habitats are rare and partnership and cooperation are necessary to protect anything. The fascinating geologic and historical background of the project highlighted its challenges. Fossil Creek is in central Arizona and is a tributary to the Verde River. Since 1909, it has been diverted for the Childs-Irving hydropower projects leaving only about ½ cubic feet per second flow. It is fed by 20 spring openings, but it only flows with rain. Completing this picture is that the water itself has a high calcium carbonate component. For those of us in attendance, the pictures showed amazing formations or dams called travertine caused by the deposits of this calcium carbonate.

The challenge was to form a Collaborative partnership in the decommissioning of these projects. The story began with FERC as part of the 1992 relicensing. Ultimately, FERC decided in a 1997 FERC Environmental Assessment that the project should be relicensed. In September of 1998 a group of Environmental Partners joined together. In October of 1998 the Arizona Power System began negotiate with the Environmental Partners. In November of 1999 they reached an Agreement in Principle that committed to return full flows to Fossil Creek by December 31, 2004. From 1999 to 2003 there was fight to make sure the project was not relicensed. Finally in 2003 FERC agreed to decommission the plants. Native Fish Restoration began in 2004 with the partners, including the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Public Service, Arizona University and the United States Bureau of Reclamation.

There were numerous native species found in the creek including the speckled dace, the longfin dace, desert suckers, the sonoran sucker, and the roundtail and headwater chubs. The reclamation project will cause the previous ½ cfs flow to be restored to 43 cfs. Challenges include the invasive species now inhabiting the creek, such as smallmouth bass, yellow bullhead, green sunfish and crayfish. The further down the creek you go, the more invasives there are. The process was to create a fish barrier to stop invasives, salvage native fish, remove any non-native fish and finally to repatriate the native fish.

The reclamation was successfully completed and Fossil Creek is currently closed to fishing so that the native species can recover. Subsequent surveys have found no non-native species. This is a high visibility project that has promoted Watchable Wildlife. A unique feature is that the creek is a popular snorkeling site.

Ted McKinney, Ph.D., a Research Biologist for the Research Branch of Arizona Game and Fish Department, next discussed Habitat Fragmentation and the Requirements of Desert Bighorn Sheep and the interaction of Mountain Lions in Urban Areas.

The desert bighorn sheep, a distinct subset of bighorn sheep, has increased in abundance due to management efforts. The Desert Bighorn is distributed over 6 western states and Mexico. The Desert Bighorn Sheep occupy distinct life zones, but those zones are always rough, dry country. The Desert Bighorn arrived in the southwest about 9-12 thousand years ago, but were found in very low numbers until the early 1900's. At one time there were about 1 million, but now there are again less than 20,000. Most populations are less than 100 animals. In Arizona, populations have fluctuated from 2,800 to 800. There are about 60 populations, but only 7 or 8 have more than 100 animals. Across their distribution, herds can range from 25 to1600 animals.

The biggest impact now to the Desert Bighorn is from habitat fragmentation. Desert Bighorns live in a naturally fragmented pattern. They prefer the roughest country. Translocation has been the major management tool, but there is a less than 50 % success rate. Studies of this lack of success has yielded important information. For up to 1 year they may search for escape terrain. While searching, mountain lions account for a lot of kills.

A Desert Bighorn needs four things to survive. First, they need escape slopes of over 60%. More escape cover means larger populations. They spend most pf their lives within 300 yards of escape cover, with females tending not to move as much as rams. Second, they need food. Their diets vary spatially and temporally. Precipitation patterns have effects on forage and diet quality and, consequently, on nutritional status of diets and lamb production. Drought will cause a population decline, but not dramatic.

Thirdly, the Desert Bighorn needs water. Many researchers believe the Desert Bighorn can survive without free form water. It seems some populations are not attracted to water at all. However, it is clear that artificial water may help some bighorns. It seems the key is the proximity to escape cover. Artificial water is most beneficial within 300 yards of escape cover. Lastly, the Desert Bighorn needs visibility. The sheep want good visibility.

Thus, the fragmentation in question is actually not in the form of deforestation, but rather shrub encroachment. In the world of the Desert Bighorn, shrubs are the worst form of habitat fragmentation, surpassing fences, highways, railroads and large urban populations. As an example, researchers along US Highway 93 used GPS radio collars and located individuals along the right of way 17 miles south of Hoover Dam. The highway appeared to act as a barrier. However, there were movements across the right of way at natural locations where they could cross from escape terrain to escape terrain.

The lesson for real estate professionals is to recognize movement corridors. As part of a conservation and management strategy, real estate professionals need to ensure connectivity and limit barriers.

Mr. McKinney continued his part of the program with a discussion of Mountain Lions. Mountain Lion attacks have been increasing since 1970. This is probably because of a growing human population and a growing mountain lion population. Between 1890 and 1990, there were 16 fatal encounters with mountain lions, 98 non-fatal, encounters and 157 close encounters. Since 1990, this figure has more than doubled.

The problem is one that involves educating the public about mountain lions to develop a greater understanding of the factors affecting human-mountain lion interactions. Many alleged sightings are actually deer, cats, javelina, etc. The problem is that mountain lions can be present, and not seen. Mountain lions have historically been thought to inhabit pinon-juniper and ponderosa pine forests. However, mountain lions do use urban and non-urban areas differently.

Researchers tracked mountain lions every 7 hours for 2 years. They were able to follow 15 adults (4 female and 11 male). All stayed less than five miles from humans and 7 stayed within the city limits. Of these 17 mountain lions, only 5 were ever seen and of those, 3 were killed by hunters. The lesson is that mountain lions do not change their behavior based on human disturbance. They also do not necessarily avoid occasional contact.

As realty specialists, we need to be aware of the habitat needs of the species for which we acquire habitat. We also need to be aware of how those acquisitions fit into the larger landscape.

The Manager of Maricopa County's Desert Outdoor Center at Lake Pleasant, Rich Glinski, next spoke about Raptor Conservation in Arizona Parks. As a general introduction, he noted that wildlife realty involves two separate things: the fun wildlife stuff and acquisition of habitat. By raptor conservation in parks, he means any public recreational land. Parks and wildlife areas constitute 13% of Arizona. By contrast, 17.6% of Arizona is in private ownership.

Arizona has a great deal of topographic diversity. It also has a great raptor diversity, with 43 species being present. Black hawks inhabit cottonwood habitat, gray hawks inhabit mesquite forest. Bald eagles (of which there are 40 known pairs) utilize water, while the harris' hawk is an urban resident. There are so many raptors found in Arizona that in Tucson in Pima County there is a restriction that no building can take place on 80% of a tract of land if pygmy owls are around. Interestingly, Rich noted that golf courses have a lot of raptors.

Specifically turning to raptors in parks, Rich stressed the need for good urban design. He mentioned how it was important to link habitats, such as mountain ranges. He noted how this could be done through uses such as golf courses, which make good corridors. He also noted that low density residential lots may also be good. Pygmy owls, for instance, seems to like larger, less dense, lots.

The message for real estate professionals involved the need to be sensitive to the stakeholders and public in making wildlife realty decisions. Consider all management options, educate the public and the agencies, and think critically about what it is the agency is trying to accomplish. Don't be afraid to use surveys. The failure to do this difficult work can result in land closures and costly political battles to enforce those needs.

The last presentation of the day was by Roxanne Thomas, Science and Policy Analyst, from the Environmental Law Institute from Washington, D.C. The ELI conducts unbiased research that supports biodiversity and organizes conservation goals around biodiversity. ELI reacts to biological concerns about faster than average extinction rates and habitat destruction, degradation and fragmentation. They feel that land use decisions are the biggest threat to the environment: and also the best chance for conservation. One hundred thirty ballot measures were proposed in 2006 and 80% passed. Thus, the big questions become which lands are important.

In order to determine how to best help acquisitions programs, ELI has examined acquisition programs around the country and rated them based on various criteria. For instance, each program was rated on its program authority. Whether they had a specific, proxy or general biodiversity mandate affected their rating and their effectiveness. Likewise, the power to prioritize being one systematic identification or left silent was evaluated. Of significance to real estate managers, most programs have general mandates and most have a systematic ranking. Six programs fell under specific authority and had a systematic ranking system. All the evaluated programs had specific funding such as bonds or taxes.

Evening activities included some foolhardy souls hiking in the night in the Sonoran Desert and meeting local wildlife. The beauty of the desert and the closeness of the wildlife such as spotted rattlesnakes and coyotes were truly fascinating in such close proximity to an urban setting. Some persons chose to remain in quieter, or at least less wild settings with their families. The Scottsdale resort had three pools, five restaurants a spa, golfing, tennis a fitness center and was close to the tourist areas of Scottsdale, providing dining and shopping. Close by were nature areas and museums and, of course, the City of Phoenix was within easy driving distance. The Valley of the Sun lived up to its name for the OWLS Conference!

The second day included a full slate of presentations. The first was by Gary Cochran from Florida. While this may seem odd, Gary noted that Florida and Arizona had much in common. If Florida didn't have so much water, it would be a desert, they both have cowboys and, of course, they both have big cats.

His presentation began with a very enlightening video of the Babcock Ranch Preserve, the subject of Gary's presentation entitled The Babcock Ranch Preserve Project ;A Unique Florida Conservation Legacy. This project represents a fine example of working landscapes.

A short history of the project started with the planning. The ranch was identified as part of South Florida's Multi-Species Recovery Plan. The project itself was in fact a subset of the Florida Panther Ecoscape concept carried out by a subteam of the panther project. The Project essentially sought to link Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico. In terms of size, the Project encompassed 92,000 acres owned by the Babcock family from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. When the patriarch died, the family faced a challenge. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission requested the Florida Legislature to provide $310 million – more that all other Florida Forever projects for the year! A key partner was Lee County, Florida, which weighed in with $40 million of its own money. After two years of negotiations with the Babcock's attorney, the Project was delineated. A private developer would acquire the ranch and would transfer 73,239 acres to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. A conservation Easement would be placed on 302 acres and the balance of the property would be developed.

A key concept of this Project was that of working landscapes. Prior to the acquisition, the Babcock Ranch was a working ranch. Cattle were grazed. Forests were managed. The ranch included an eco-tourism lodge. There were hunting leases in place for quail, deer and turkey. A major justification of the Project was to protect water recharge and it was intended that the land would continue to be used as a model of Florida Ranching, not become developed. While hydrologic restoration was to restore historical hydrology, it was not intended that the ranch would become a primitive wild area. A limited liability corporation was formed to manage the ranch under a Sustainable Management Model through a multi-party Management agreement. The major proviso was that the Project be self-sustaining. Thus, the Babcock Ranch Board of Trustees makes sure that the Ranch conserves the environment and the rich heritage of ranching that existed in Florida for years. This concept of keeping the good while conserving for the future is one which will surely catch on in the conservation movement.

Following the working landscape discussion was a presentation dealing not with private development on one tract, but with public planning of private development on a County-wide basis. Christine Curtis, Senior Acquisition Specialist for Pima County Parks & Recreation in Arizona and Kerry Baldwin, Natural Resources Division Manager for Pima County Parks and Recreation, discussed the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. The Sonoran desert is a high value ecosystem that stretches from southern California across Arizona. The Plan is a long-term vision for protecting the natural and cultural heritage of the Sonoran Desert in the face of the tremendous expansion of Tuscon. The Plan set up a Conservation Lands System where set-asides that were off-limits to development were tied to the Conservation Lands Systems land types. One of the goals was to keep development where the services were.

The land types were premised on a biological basis with a goal of protecting the full spectrum of plants and animals native to Pima County through maintaining ecosystem structure and function. This was not simply an endangered species plan focused on individual species. It was, instead an ecosystem plan.

Christine utilized numerous maps in her presentation and indicated how important these were to their work. She said she could not overemphasize the need for Geographic Information Systems. She noted that the first year the system had 25 layers. Now there are over 600.

The presentation stressed public involvement at all levels. At a very basic level, all maps related to the plan were available to public. The Plan itself was done in connection with the Endangered Species Act Multi Species Conservation Plan. This was developed with public input working with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the goals identified through this part of the plan was to acquire land now to mitigate for build out plans in the future. It was noted that tie ins to the Endangered Species Act can help with funding in the short term, but that funding becomes uncertain if a species becomes delisted and the funding was tied into the plan.

Pima County follows a similar process in planning its public works projects. Different agencies are involved in different ways. Transfers of development rights are utilized to keep development in check. The Pima County Department of Transportation follows environmentally sensitive roadway design guidelines. Another agency heavily involved in implementing the Plan was the Regional Flood Control District. They were able to help fund acquisition through the Floodprone Land Acquisition Program. This program was designed to help wastewater management and reuse of effluent. By acquiring the land, the county would not need to provide treatment where developments should not take place. Also heavily involved was the Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office. It was a tenet of the Plan that conservation would include cultural and historic resources in a manner reminiscent of the working landscapes. For wildlife real estate professionals there is a lesson to be learned to look at non-traditional partners.

On the practical side, Ms. Curtis was an attorney and took time to leave everyone with some lessons learned from the implementation of the Sonoran Desert Plan. First, a real estate professional needs to get inside the head of the seller. Both parties need to feel they got what they wanted or needed. Second, she stressed being careful about legal restrictions over the use of funding such as bond money. Pima County had management agreements, but could not lease back property because that would jeopardize the tax exempt status of the acquisition bonds. Third, be in the process for the long haul. The identification of lands for acquisition took 5 years. During that time, a professional cannot sweat the small stuff.

Continuing with lessons from the Sonoran Desert, Randy Babb, Information and Education Program Manager, Mesa Regional Office of the Arizona Game and Fish Department presented Human and Wildlife Values of Natural Areas Within and Adjacent to Urban Areas in Arizona's Sonoran Desert. Randy pointed out that the Sonoran desert was relatively young at 9,600 years. It was also warmer than other deserts and, ironically, moister. This was due to the fact that the Sonoran Desert is not landlocked.

The Sonoran Desert also had few endemic species because it was so young. However, it was the most rapidly disappearing desert. Over half of the Arizona population lives in Maricopa County. The three largest metropolitan areas in Arizona (Phoenix, Tucson and Yuma) are in the desert. The people who inhabit these cities want quality of life and set asides. They also have an interest in wildlife. These set asides can be any type of land.

Larger mammals are absent in urban areas, but can be abundant in urban fringe habitats. A good example of this are coyotes. Javelina are the second most common large vertebrate in Arizona. The biggest problem with both animals is feeding and making the animals habituated. Smaller mammals are much more ubiquitous. Mice and kangaroo rats are very prevalent, as they can metabolically manufacture water. Wood rats build big nests that can be occupied for millennia by successive generations. Ground squirrels, rock squirrels and rabbits are very prevalent.

Many species of birds could be found. Peregrine falcons were the most tolerant raptors. Others that adapted to human disturbance included red-tailed hawks, great horned owls, screech owls, elf owls and kestrels. Harris hawks were not found in urban areas, but used fringe areas.

Finally, reptiles and amphibians do very well in desert habitats near human populations. Tree lizards, desert spiny lizards, banded Geckos and Gila monsters all live in and around homes in the Sonoran desert. No discussion of desert wildlife would be complete without mention of ground snakes, gopher snakes and rattlesnakes such as the western diamondback.

The message was that desert wildlife was exceptionally tolerant of people. Just using a modicum of consideration when developing can preserve this wildlife. Essentially, leaving open space around the footprint of the home or other building provided habitat.

John Gunn, the Park Supervisor for the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, Maricopa County Parks & Recreation Department, spoke next regarding ongoing management at the ranch six years after its acquisition. The park covers three square miles and cost $21 million. The park was started in 2001 as State Parks bought the ranch and then entered into an agreement for management. The mission statement for the Ranch focuses on recreational activities, while protecting resources. The vision statement focuses on ecological processes.

Given the differences in mission and vision, as well as the fact that Spur Cross defines the northern limit of development, it should be no surprise that Off Road Vehicles were initially an issue. However, the competing interests were ultimately balanced, including a need to conserve archaeological resources. A strong public education effort was made. A consultant was called in to make a master plan. This plan allows for limited commercial use for horses to use one trail so they could get into Tonto National Forest. However, the park no longer allows off-road access. However, visitors can now take one of more than 200 interpretive hikes per year.

This particular project also involved the fascinating issues surrounding water in the west. This issue is very complex in and of itself. However, in this case, the issue is complicated by the fact the watershed is not adjudicated meaning the rights of all the competing users have not yet been determined. Bottled water is big business and on this ranch is a big deal. The rancher took out water and sold it. In doing so he dried up the whole creek and killed all native fish. Part of the challenge will be reestablishing this creek and the natural hydrology.

Overall, this project showed a great use information and education to garner public support. Removal of exotics was seen as an opportunity for education. There is a move to rehabilitate historical buildings. A recognition was made that if a site is clean, people don’t want to be the first to litter. Thus, litter, which used to be a big problem, was alleviated and law enforcement is now contracted to the Maricopa County Sheriff Department. As a final example of what can be accomplished with local support, John showed a mural painted by local artists on the outside wall of the field office. This mural turned an otherwise functional, but uninteresting, building into a work of art.

Michael Patrick, Project Manager, Arizona/Utah Team, The Trust for Public Land and Steve Haas, Arizona State Parks, Manager of Sonoita Creek Natural Area next tag-teamed a presentation about another project with significant support: the Coal Mine Springs Acquisition. The Coal Mine Springs Acquisition added to protections already provided to the Sonoita Creek Watershed. In 1994, Sonoita Creek State Natural Area became the State's first Natural Area encompassing 5000 acres. In 1996, the Patagonia (Lake) Sonoita Preserve protected 2 miles of creek through the efforts of The Nature Conservancy. In 2003, four miles of the Sonoita Creek corridor was acquired by State Parks.

The Coal Mine Springs acquisition project added to these developments in two phases: Phase I of 2,628 acres in 2004 and Phase II of 874 acres in 2006. There is currently in the works a third phase protecting 800 additional acres.

The Coal Mine Spring acquisition protected Coal Mine Spring and Ash Canyon. This was made possible through the efforts of a diverse group of partners. The landowner was instrumental. First United Realty is very proud of its involvement and the project would not have worked without the significant contribution to the land value made by the owner. Of course, Arizona State Parks was a driving force, providing money from the 1990 voter approved Heritage Fund, where Arizona Game and Fish gets money from lottery funds. In addition, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service supported the acquisition. Finally, the Trust for Public Land spearheaded the effort. The whole area is a Wildlife Management Area and State Parks helps to manage it.

Steve Haas showed photographs and described the spring. The water does not fluctuate much and cottonwoods were very evident. The Gila Topminnow, one of the first fish to appear on the Endangered Species list inhabits the waters. The protection of Coal Mine Springs is crucial to protection of downstream populations of the Gila Topminnow. In order to garner support for the acquisition, the interests of numerous groups were served. Five acres were being acquired to protect a bat cave. Twenty miles of trail, three back-country campsites and guided trail hikes make the Natural Area accessible. So successful has the acquisition been, the biggest management issue is cows!

Both this and the previous project highlighted how complex acquisitions are and have become. It is no longer possible to simply acquire a piece of land to keep it out of development. Now diverse and sometimes hostile user groups need to feel a stake in the acquisition. They need to support it, if in no other way than not throwing trash out. This support needs to be grown and nurtured.

Norris Dodd, Research Biologist, Research Branch, Arizona Game and Fish, next gave a presentation on a different note. He moved away from the social aspects of acquisition into the realm of science. He discussed promoting safe passage and wildlife permeability across Arizona's highways. As he stated, it is unquestionable that highways have a great impact on wildlife. He recounted how there are 1.3 million deer per day killed on the highways. How there is an area the size of Georgia under concrete. He noted the road effect zone where animals refuse to enter. Finally, he described the indirect impacts related to permeability and connectivity. Specifically, he noted the inability or unwillingness of elk to migrate across highways safely. He described his project as examining different types of wildlife corridors to allow animals to cross over or under highways.

His research project took place on State Route 260 about 80 miles north of Phoenix. In this area the road goes from a narrow 2 lane to a divided four lane. The big issue is speed. In some areas there were as many as six elk collisions per mile per year. His research identified linkage areas in the study area, integrated this identification into long-term planning and allowed Arizona Department of Transportation to plan site specific measures. Ultimately, 11 wildlife underpasses and 6 bridges were planned to be constructed over the 17 mile project area. Because the highway would be constructed in phases, is allowed study and adaptive management.

The project placed video cameras at the underpasses to monitor the use by animals. A four camera system was used to record not just use of the underpass, but near misses and why. It was learned that although traffic noise had a negative impact on crossings in other areas, traffic volumes had no impact on crossing at underpasses. It was also learned that an earthen sided underpass was preferred by elk over a concrete chute. Based on these findings, ADOT redid the balance of the project to get rid of concrete walls. When they did, more than half of animals pass through the underpasses. If was also learned the animals preferred a straight passage where they could see the other side and what was ahead. Finally, fencing on either side of the underpass significantly increased use of the structures.

Because there is no traffic impact at underpasses, it is likely more structures will be built to make highway more permeable. To prevent elk from being killed by crossing between the structures, it was tested to use detection equipment telling motorists that elk are being detected. Interestingly, it was found that simply reducing speed had a very positive effect on reducing the number of car/elk collisions.

Finally, Patti Aaron, Biologist with the Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada wrapped up the formal presentations by giving everyone a taste for the challenges facing the Lower Colorado River. The importance of the Lower Colorado could be summed up by the Mark Twain quote, "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting."

The Lower Colorado consists of 400 miles of river, being managed pursuant to a 50 year conservation program by 56 stakeholders or partners. These partners make up a steering committee that has oversight. However, the decisions of the steering committee must be very transparent. In terms of wildlife, the goals are to maintain habitat to keep species from being listed as endangered and to cover incidental takes. Funding has been set aside in the amount of $626 million over 50 years. Two thirds of that money is for habitat creation with a 50/50 cost share. Priorities are given to restoration and to augment fish populations. An interest bearing fund of $25million is made available to land managers. Because of the size and temporal span of this project, there is a great possibility for adaptive management. As projects are completed, they can be evaluated and fine-tuned for the next phase.

The challenges for the Bureau of Reclamation seem nearly insurmountable. There is a need to control salt cedar, an invasive species, on approximately 100,000 acres. In addition there is wildfire management, management of salts building up on top of soils due to lack of flooding and the challenge of simply getting to isolated backwaters. Such large problems call for large solutions. Two projects were highlighted. One was a dredging project where the Bureau dredged backwaters and used the dredged material for growing trees. Another was shown where a lake was drained and allowed to naturally recharge. None of the project involved land acquisition as the Bureau of Reclamation was not authorized to acquire resources. Once again, the lesson for real estate professionals was the level of complexity of the projects and the political nature of the decision making driving the process.

The second day's activities were capped off by the OWLS banquet. This was a family affair with many of the attendee's spouses partaking of the world-class southwestern cuisine. President John Gregory (TN) handed over the Owl Painting (seen in the background in the picture) to the new President, Gene Sturla from Arizona. Did you ever see such a bunch of happy looking guys NOT on the wall of a Post Office?

The third and final day ended with a field trip to the Lower Gila River Base and Meridian Wildlife Area. It was within easy driving distance of Scottsdale, in the shadow of a NASCAR raceway. The base was a survey point as old as the Spanish occupation of the land. It was the point from which the whole state of Arizona was surveyed. A truly historical spot which, interestingly, was protected more by the obscurity of the site than anything else. It was absolutely open, with no fence or restricting signage. Yet, if you did not know it was there, you would be hard pressed to find it.

The Meridian Wildlife Area was a lush green example of what good wildlife habitat management can do in a desert. The Lower Gila River was essentially a wildlife oasis of water in a sea of creosote bushes. Although plagued by salt cedar, there was ample space for folks to hike, launch a canoe or even, hunt. Despite a problem with a local effluent and storm water control project, the Wildlife Area represented the best of water management and habitat management techniques. The water was home to warm water fisheries and javelina inhabited the desert. As real estate professionals, we can only hope to acquire land with such rich and diverse wildlife resources.

All in all, the conference was a rousing success. We look forward to 2008 in Florida!