Biological Evaluation
New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Environmental Impact Statement
December 2019
MISSION STATEMENT Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future The Department of the Interior (DOI) conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. The mission of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission is to investigate, conserve, protect, and develop the water resources and stream systems of New Mexico and carry out plans and programs for beneficial uses in the state, all in accordance with law.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit amsl above mean sea level ASNF Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests ASR aquifer storage and recovery AWSA Arizona Water Settlements Act AZ Arizona AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AZHGIS Arizona Heritage Geographic Information System BA biological assessment BE biological evaluation BISON-M Biota Information System of New Mexico BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice CAP Central Arizona Project CEQ Council on Environmental Quality cfs cubic feet per second cm/s centimeters per second COA Conservation Opportunity Area CUFA Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement DCH Designated Critical Habitat ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System EFC environmental flow conditions EIS environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act FMI Freeport McMoRan, Inc. ft/s feet per second GIS geographic information system GNF Gila National Forest HDMS Heritage Data Management System LF linear feet IBA Important Bird Area IHA Indicators of Hydrological Alteration IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation ISC New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature Joint Leads U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project i Acronyms and Abbreviations
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEI Mussetter Engineering MIS Management Indicator Species NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NM New Mexico NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NM Unit New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project NWI National Wetlands Inventory PCH Proposed Critical Habitat PR&Gs Agency Specific Procedures for Implementing the Council on Environmental Quality’s Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies Reclamation United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need SSPA S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc. SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants SWReGAP Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project U.S. United States USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WCA Wildlife Conservation Act W-S West Side
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project ii Contents
CONTENTS Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... i Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Description of the Project Area ...... 1 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 5 2.1 NM Unit Alternatives ...... 5 2.1.1 Conservation Measures Incorporated into the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 5 2.2 Methods of Analysis ...... 17 2.2.1 Description of the Analysis Area ...... 17 2.2.2 Impact Methods and Terminology...... 19 Chapter 3 Species Evaluated ...... 25 3.1 Special Status Plant Species ...... 25 3.2 Special Status Wildlife Species ...... 26 3.3 Management Indicator Species ...... 30 Chapter 4 Environmental Baseline ...... 33 4.1 Vegetation ...... 33 4.1.1 Wetland and Riparian Areas ...... 35 4.1.2 Noxious Weeds ...... 35 4.1.3 Special Status Plant Species ...... 37 4.2 Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 40 4.2.1 Aquatic Wildlife Habitat ...... 40 4.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat ...... 43 4.2.3 General Wildlife Species ...... 44 4.2.4 Conservation Areas...... 44 4.2.5 Neotropical Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles ...... 46 4.2.6 Special Status Wildlife Species ...... 46 4.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 69 Chapter 5 Effects of the Action ...... 79 5.1 Vegetation ...... 79 5.1.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative ...... 79 5.1.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 82 5.1.3 Analysis of Action Alternatives ...... 84 5.2 Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 98 5.2.1 Alternative A, No Action ...... 98 5.2.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 104 5.2.3 Analysis of Action Alternatives ...... 118 5.2.4 Special Status Species ...... 130 5.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species ...... 140 Chapter 6 Literature Cited ...... 176
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project iii Contents
Appendices
Appendix A. Project Mapbook Appendix B. Project Components by Alternative Appendix C. GIS Methods Appendix D. Special Status Species Database Appendix E. Special Status Species Occurrence Appendix F. Landcover Database Report Appendix G. Hydrologic Analysis Supporting Tables Appendix H. Best Management Practices
Figures
Figure 1-1. New Mexico Unit project vicinity...... 3
Tables
Table 2-1. Cliff-Gila Location Alternatives Summary ...... 7 Table 2-2. Virden Valley Location Alternatives Summary ...... 11 Table 2-3. San Francisco River Alternatives Summary ...... 13 Table 2-4. Total AWSA Average Annual Storage, Diversion, Return Flows, and Total Consumptive Use by Action Alternative ...... 15 Table 3-1. Sensitive Wildlife Species Evaluated with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area by Project Location ...... 27 Table 3-2. USFS Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species ...... 30 Table 4-1. SWReGAP Landcover Types in the Analysis Area ...... 33 Table 4-2. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland and Riparian Types in the Analysis Area ...... 36 Table 4-3. Special Status Plant Species Known to Occur or Have the Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area ...... 38 Table 4-4. Special Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area ...... 48 Table 5-1. SWReGAP Land Cover Impacts within the Upper Gila Analysis Area ...... 85 Table 5-2. SWReGAP Land Cover Impacts within the Virden Valley Analysis Area ...... 86 Table 5-3. SWReGAP Land Cover Impacts within the San Francisco River Analysis Area ...... 87 Table 5-4. Upper Gila Analysis Area Riparian/Wetland Direct Impacts ...... 91 Table 5-5. Virden Valley Analysis Area Riparian/Wetland Direct Impacts ...... 92 Table 5-6. San Francisco River Analysis Area Riparian/Wetland Direct Impacts ...... 93 Table 5-7. Vegetation Potentially Impacted by Drawdown related to the Production Wells in the Upper Gila Analysis Area (Alternative B) ...... 94 Table 5-8. Acres of Short- and Long-Term Direct Disturbance to Special Status Plant Species Habitat ...... 95
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project iv Contents
Table 5-9. Seasonal Surface Water Flow Alterations Impacts on Wildlife Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 111 Table 5-10. Acres of Potential Impacts on Management Indicator Species ...... 137 Table 5-11. Critical Habitat Impacts by Action Alternative ...... 141 Table 5-12. National Wetland Inventory Categories Used as a Proxy for Species Habitat ...... 144 Table 5-13. Habitat Acres Impacted by Action Alternative for ESA-listed Species ...... 144 Table 5-14. Modeled Swim Performance Thresholds for Loach Minnow and Spikedace ...... 155 Table 5-15. Upper Gila Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative B ...... 156 Table 5-16. San Francisco River Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative B ...... 157 Table 5-17. Upper Gila Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative C ...... 159 Table 5-18. San Francisco River Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative C ...... 162 Table 5-19. Upper Gila Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative E ...... 164 Table 5-20. San Francisco River Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative E ...... 165 Table 5-21. Narrow-headed Gartersnake Proposed Critical Habitat Impacts by Action Alternative ...... 169 Table 5-22. Northern Mexican Gartersnake Proposed Critical Habitat Impacts by Alternative ...... 169
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project v Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 (AWSA) (Public Law 108-451), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (ISC), together known as the Joint Leads, have prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project (herein called the NM Unit).
The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to support the analysis of potential biological impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives analyzed in the EIS. This evaluation is consistent with the Agency Specific Procedures for Implementing the Council on Environmental Quality’s Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies (PR&Gs; Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] 2014).
Additionally, this BE analyzes potential impacts on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona, and the Regional Forester Sensitive Species for the Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. This also covers Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) for the State of Arizona and the State of New Mexico threatened and endangered species. This BE addresses potential effects of the proposed action and alternatives detailed in the NM Unit EIS.
Potential impacts from the Proposed Action affecting BLM, United States Forest Service (USFS), or New Mexico or Arizona State species that are also listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 United States Code §1531 et seq.) have been analyzed in a separate biological assessment (BA) prepared pursuant to ESA Section 7 consultation requirements. The analysis of Project-related and cumulative impacts (where applicable) to ESA-listed species is contained in the BA. This BE analyzes the potential effects of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed water delivery and storage pursuant to the terms of the AWSA and diverted in accordance with the New Mexico Consumptive Use and Forbearance Agreement (CUFA).1
The objectives of the BE are to 1) describe the project components that are being considered to carry out the Proposed Action and alternatives; 2) provide detailed information on the natural history of State listed and Federally sensitive species known or with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project; 3) describe best management practices (BMPs) and conservation measures that have been incorporated into the Proposed Action in order to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts on these species; 4) evaluate the residual impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives (accounting for avoidance and mitigation measures) on these species; and 5) provide a determination of effect for these species.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA The project area refers to the aggregate of the three distinct and geographically separated NM Unit project locations. The project area includes lands around and in portions of the Gila River and its tributaries, including the San Francisco River, in three counties in southwestern New Mexico: Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo (Figure 1-1).
Infrastructure is proposed in the following areas: • the Upper Gila location in Grant County (along the Gila River in the Cliff-Gila Valley) (Appendix A, Figure A.1 Cliff-Gila Project Location),
1 http://www.ose.state.nm.us/Basins/Colorado/AWSA/Legal_Documents/2005_CUFA.pdf.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 1 Chapter 1. Introduction
• the Virden Valley location in Hidalgo County (along the Gila River in the Virden Valley) (Appendix A, Figure A.2 Virden Valley Project Location), and • the San Francisco River location in Catron County (the Spurgeon, Thomason Flat, and West Side [W-S] Diversions near Alma and the east and west side ditches at Pleasanton) (Appendix A, Figure A.3 San Francisco River Project Location).
Collectively, these three locations are referred to as the project area.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 2 Chapter 1. Introduction
Figure 1-1. New Mexico Unit project vicinity.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 3 Chapter 1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 4
CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 NM UNIT ALTERNATIVES The EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives. The matrix below summarizes the elements that would be constructed under each alternative and highlights the major differences between the alternatives at the Cliff-Gila (Table 2-1), Virden Valley (Table 2-2), and San Francisco River (Table 2-3) locations. Table 2-4 shows total AWSA average annual storage, diversion, return flows, and total consumptive use quantities for each alternative. Alternative A outlines the existing facilities and the methods of diverting and conveying water. The NM Unit EIS provides a detailed discussion for each of the action alternatives, including the proposed diversion methods and structures, wells, storage, conveyance, power, and operations. One or more analyzed project elements from the three project locations under any action alternative could be advanced separately under a Record of Decision by the Secretary of the Interior.
Map figures showing project components for the Cliff-Gila, Virden Valley, and San Francisco River locations for all alternatives are included in Appendix B.
2.1.1 Conservation Measures Incorporated into the Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed action and alternatives include proposed measures for impact avoidance and minimization that pertain, either directly or indirectly, to listed and sensitive species and general vegetation and wildlife resources. These conservation measures2 are part of the Proposed Action. These general (i.e., non-species specific) conservation measures are summarized below. • Designing the fixed crest weir diversion structures3 to facilitate fish passage (e.g., riffle rundown) and manage sediment following Reclamation guidelines (Reclamation 2007). The design focus is based on attributes of spikedace and loach minnow, such as swimming ability and substrate preference. • Meeting all CUFA requirements before diverting, including certain bypasses. • Further limitations in addition to CUFA. For example, the maximum instantaneous diversion rate is reduced to 125 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less at all project locations across all alternatives. • Water measurement and reporting for water diverted into storage ponds and released for consumptive use. • Diversion schedule where the greatest volume of diversions take place during the Winter/Spring Base Flow period outside of the irrigation season and species migration, breeding, and juvenile rearing periods.
These measures have been accounted for in evaluating impacts on individual species as well as in the determination of Project effects on vegetation and wildlife resources.
2 Conservation measures are developed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse effects to listed threatened and endangered species and are included in the Biological Assessment. These conservation measures would avoid or minimize adverse effects to multiple species and are thus applicable to vegetation and wildlife resources. 3 Fixed crest weir diversions are proposed at the Cliff-Gila project location for Alternative B and the San Francisco River project location for Alternatives B and E.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 5 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 6 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Table 2-1. Cliff-Gila Location Alternatives Summary
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Cliff-Gila: Diversion Diversion Type • Three sediment push-up diversions at the existing • One fixed crest weir diversion with 60-foot-long • Three rock vane weir semi- • Not Applicable • Pneumatically adjustable Obermeyer gate Upper Gila, Fort West, and Gila Farms Ditch engineered fill riffle rundown, replacing existing Upper permanent diversions (no diversion, replacing existing Upper Gila headings for diverting adjudicated water only Gila, Fort West, and Gila Farms push-up diversions for engineered fill) to replace sediment Diversion for diverting AWSA and • No permanent gates diverting AWSA and adjudicated water. push-up diversions at the existing adjudicated water. Upper Gila, Fort West, and Gila • The existing Fort West and Gila Farms Farms Ditch headings for diverting push-up diversions would continue to be AWSA and adjudicated water used at the current locations for adjudicated water only. Location • Private property: approximate location at existing • Private property: approximately 500 feet above the • Private property: approximate location • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B Upper Gila, Fort West, and Gila Farms Ditch headings location of the existing Upper Gila push-up diversion at existing Upper Gila, Fort West, and Gila Farms Ditch headings Diversion • Variable, push-up diversions alter local channel • Diversion dimension: 155-foot, concrete weir wall • Each of the 3 diversion structures would • Not Applicable • Concrete sill constructed at streambed Structure geometry • 60-foot-long riffle-run; 3 feet above the riverbed be constructed from rocks arranged in level for the Obermeyer gates, Dimensions • 20-foot-wide depressed notch: 1 foot above the active “V” shape with the narrow point of the approximately 35 feet. channel structure facing the stream flow. • Three hinged steel gates 10 feet wide, • Cutoff wall: Approximately 20 feet deep and 1,200 feet • The wide end of the structure would hydraulic depth 6.5 feet attached to the across the floodplain including the diversion structure. span approximately 90 feet across the concrete sill raised and lowered with floodplain to raise the water surface pneumatic bladders. Drop height of 2 feet elevation to allow water to divert into when the gate is down. ditches. • Cutoff wall: Approximately 20 feet deep • The structure would extend and 1,200 feet across the floodplain approximately 90-feet down the river. including the diversion structure. • The top of the rock would be approximately 2 feet above the deepest part of the existing river channel. Intake and • No gate-controlled intakes • Gate-controlled intakes on the west side • No gate-controlled intakes at the • Not Applicable • Gate-controlled intakes on the west side Conveyance • Siphon 8 × 8–foot box culvert at the diversion structure to diversion structures. take water to other side of river • Existing headgates in ditches would be used for control and metering. Cliff-Gila: Conveyance From Diversion to • Existing ditch configuration, 30 cfs capacity • 3,200 linear feet (LF) buried pipe extension of Upper • Use existing ditch configurations and • Not Applicable • One 8 × 8–foot precast concrete box Upper Gila Ditch • No new buried pipeline needed to connect diversion Gila Ditch would be constructed capacities culvert about 4,200 LF to carry diverted • 50 cfs capacity • No buried pipeline extension water only to the west side • Use existing ditch configurations and capacities • No buried pipeline extension Upper Gila Ditch • No improvements to unlined earthen ditch • Approximately 9,700 LF of existing ditch would be • Unlined earthen ditch • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B widened and lined with shotcrete • 50 cfs capacity From Diversion to • No equivalent facility required • New 4,200 LF lined with shotcrete extension of the Fort • Existing ditch configurations and • Not Applicable • No connection to the new diversion the Fort • Diversion directly from river West Ditch from the culvert at the diversion to the capacities West Ditch existing ditch Spar Canyon • No equivalent facilities • 520 LF, 48-inch siphon constructed at Spar Canyon as • No equivalent facilities • Not Applicable • No siphon Siphon part of the Fort West Extension Existing Fort West • No improvements to unlined earthen ditch • Approximately 16,000 LF of the existing Fort West Ditch • unlined earthen ditch • Not Applicable • Unlined earthen ditch Ditch to the Gila from the end point of the extension to the start point of Farms Connector the Gila Farms Connector would be widened and lined with shotcrete • 75 cfs capacity Gila Farms • No improvements to unlined earthen ditch • Reconstruct (widen) and line (shotcrete) connector • No change to connector ditch • Not Applicable • No change to connector ditch Connector Ditch (2,500 feet) between Fort West Ditch and Gila Farms Reconstruction • 25 cfs capacity McMillen Ditch • No improvements to unlined earthen ditch • Reconstruct (widen) 9,700 LF portion of McMillen Ditch • Use existing ditch configurations and • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B Reconstruction • 13 cfs capacity, unlined capacities
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 7 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Cliff-Gila Storage Storage Overview • No new storage for AWSA water • Four gravity-fed, clay-lined storage ponds (4P, 5P, 7P, • Same as Alternative B • Not Applicable • Two pump-fed, unlined ponds (2P and and 8P) in the valley 3P) as aquifer storage and recovery • Pond surface area, 4P=30 acres, 5P=38 acres, (ASR) basins and surface storage in Winn 7P=25 acres, 8P=94 acres Canyon • AWSA water storage only • One gravity-fed clay-lined pond (5P) for • Total surface storage: 1,890 acre-feet surface storage in the Cliff-Gila Valley and would be used to store AWSA water only • Total surface storage: 2,170 acre-feet Valley Ponds • No equivalent facilities • Combined capacity 1,890 acre-feet • Same as Alternative B • Not Applicable • One gravity-fed lined pond (5P) for • All ponds gravity fed for intake surface storage in the Cliff-Gila Valley • Pump facilities needed for delivery of water from 7P and • Gravity flow out 8P into the ditches • Capacity 258 acre-feet • Gravity flow out anticipated for Ponds 4P and 5P • Pond surface area: 38 acres Winn Canyon - • No equivalent facilities • No new facilities in Winn Canyon • No new facilities at Winn Canyon • Not Applicable • Ponds 2P (76 surface acres) and 3P Surface and (15 surface acres) storage/recharge with a Recharge surface storage capacity of 1,820 acre- feet. • Pump facility constructed to convey water from the Upper Gila Ditch and recirculate water from ASR wells into storage. Winn Canyon - • No equivalent facilities • No new facilities at Winn Canyon • No new facilities at Winn Canyon • Not Applicable • Capacity of the existing flood control basin Components at 2P would be increased by excavating upstream of the existing flood-sediment control dam. • The flood-sediment control dam will require upgrades to meet current dam safety standards. • Excavation downstream of 2P and construction of an embankment dam would create the storage capacity in 3P. • Discharge lines from Winn Canyon ponds into Upper Gila Ditch would be gravity fed through 30-inch lines. • The 2P embankment would be approximately 57 feet high: length 4,500 feet, width 930 feet. • The 3P embankment would be approximately 35 feet high: length 1,110 feet, width 770 feet. • A portion of the infiltrated water from the Winn Canyon pond would be recirculated back into Winn Canyon ponds. Cliff-Gila: Wells ASR Wells below • No equivalent facilities • No ASR wells • No ASR wells • Not Applicable • 3 ASR wells, 60 feet deep, 500 gallons per Winn Canyon minute capacity • Released to Upper Gila Ditch, recirculated to Winn Canyon ponds, surface storage, or pressurized for sprinkler/drip irrigation Production Wells • No equivalent facilities • 5 wells, 120 feet deep, 500 gallons per minute capacity • No production wells for AWSA water • Not Applicable • No production wells for AWSA water for direct AWSA diversions and offsets. Primarily for pressurized for sprinkler or drip irrigation but could be directed to ditches or surface storage.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 8 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Cliff-Gila: Power Power Source • No changes to existing facilities • Tie into existing local power for proposed facilities • Similar to Alternative B: but less power • Not Applicable • Use existing local power infrastructure and needed. Use existing local power facilities with any needed upgrades infrastructure and facilities with any • On west side of the valley, needed upgrades. construct/rehabilitate 3-phase line from Cliff Substation to Winn Pumping Station • Obermeyer diversion would require operational and backup power Power Lines • No changes to existing facilities • Final power needs and final footprint of power lines • Same as Alternative B • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B would be developed as the project design is refined in collaboration with the local utility • Existing power lines available near all proposed facilities Cliff-Gila Construction Access • Not applicable • Local roads, minor improvements • Same as Alternative B • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B Material/ • Not applicable • Use proposed mapped clay sources for ponds • Mapped clay sources • Not Applicable • Excavation for embankment upstream of Disposal • No disposal sites required Winn • Use proposed mapped local disposal and clay sources for ponds Cliff-Gila Operational Assumptions • No AWSA water diverted, • Divert both adjudicated water and AWSA water • Same as Alternative B • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B • “Live ditch” operations would continue • Push-up diversions not removed • Ditches flow constantly • CUFA requirement not applicable • Maximum AWSA diversion rate: 125 cfs • Maximum AWSA diversion rate: 125 cfs • Not Applicable • Maximum AWSA diversion rate: 50 cfs • No AWSA water diverted • Average annual AWSA diversion: 1,969 acre-feet • Average annual AWSA diversion: • Not Applicable • Average annual AWSA diversion: 1,825 acre-feet 1,329 acre-feet • No AWSA return flows • Average annual return flow: 588 acre-feet • Average annual return flow: 636 acre- • Not Applicable • Average annual return flow: 445 acre-feet feet • Consumptive use limited to existing adjudicated • Average annual total consumptive use: 1,425 acre-feet • Average annual consumptive use: • Not Applicable • Average annual total consumptive use: water use. No AWSA consumptive use 1,321 acre-feet 927 acre-feet
Source: NM Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Reclamation and ISC 2019)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 9 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 10 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Table 2-2. Virden Valley Location Alternatives Summary
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Virden Diversion • No AWSA water diverted • Use existing Sunset and New • Same as • Same as • Same as through existing permanent Model Diversion structures Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B diversion structures with no modifications for • 35 cfs capacity diversion of AWSA water and Decree water Virden Conveyance • No change to existing • Use existing canals with no • Same as • Same as • Same as conveyance modifications Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B • 35 cfs capacity Virden Storage • No equivalent facilities • Two clay-lined, gravity-fed • Same as • Same as • Same as storage ponds (10P and 11P) Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B with total capacity of 551 acre- feet in Virden Valley adjacent to the Sunset and New Model canals. Each pond approximately 20 acres. • Pump facilities for delivery of water from ponds back into canals Virden Power • No changes to existing • Existing power lines can • Same as • Same as • Same as facilities provide the 3-phase power to Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B address the electric load for the proposed lift pumps at Ponds 10P and 11P. Power for Pond 10P would require a 500-foot extension from the existing power line. Power for Pond 11P would require potential realignment of approximately 2,100 feet of existing line.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 11 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
Virden Construction Virden Access • Not applicable • Road access through existing • Same as • Same as • Same as local roads Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B Virden - Material/ • Disposal and staging areas • Same as • Same as • Same as Disposal Areas adjacent to the ponds, clay Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B material sites are mapped Virden Operational Assumptions • No AWSA water diverted • Divert both Decree water and • Same as • Same as • Same as AWSA water Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B • No AWSA water diverted • Maximum AWSA diversion • Same as • Same as • Same as rate: 20 cfs Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B • No AWSA water diverted • Average annual AWSA • Same as • Same as • Same as diversion: 481 acre-feet Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B • No additional return flows • Average annual return flow: • Same as • Same as • Same as 141 acre-feet Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B • Consumptive use limited to • Average annual total • Same as • Same as • Same as existing adjudicated water consumptive use: 349 acre- Alternative B Alternative B Alternative B use. No additional feet consumptive use.
Source: NM Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Reclamation and ISC 2019)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 12 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Table 2-3. San Francisco River Alternatives Summary
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
San Francisco Diversion Overview – • Continue to use the existing Spurgeon • New fixed crest weir with riffle rundown at Spurgeon • Continue using pushup diversion at Spurgeon (for • Not Applicable • New fixed crest weir with riffle rundown at Spurgeon Diversion Diversion and Thomason Flat push-up location replacing existing pushup diversions at adjudicated water only) to the Spurgeon Ditch #2 location replacing existing pushup diversions at Operations diversions for adjudicated water only Spurgeon and Thomason Flat for direct deliveries to • One new rock vane diversion to replace existing Spurgeon and Thomason Flat. • Continue to use existing W-S Ditch Spurgeon Ditch #2 and Thomason Flat Thomason Flat push-up diversion for diverting AWSA • New structure would provide only adjudicated water and Pleasanton East-Side Diversion • Only adjudicated water would be directed to the water to the Spurgeon Ditch #2. Structures for adjudicated water only Spurgeon Ditch #2; Thomason Flat would receive • Utilize existing W-S Ditch and Pleasanton East-Side • Thomason Flat would receive both AWSA and adjudicated and AWSA water Diversion Structures to capture releases from the Weedy adjudicated water. Reservoir. • Use existing W-S Ditch and Pleasanton East-Side Diversion Structures to capture releases from the Weedy reservoir Diversion • No changes to existing structures • New fixed crest weir diversion with 20-foot-long • One new rock vane weir diversion to replace sediment • Not Applicable • New fixed crest weir diversion with 20-foot-long Structures engineered fill boulder riffle rundown, replacing the push-up diversion at Thomason Flat for diversion of AWSA engineered fill boulder riffle rundown at the existing existing Spurgeon Diversion and Thomason Flat and adjudicated water Spurgeon Diversion push-up diversion site, replacing push-up diversions for AWSA and adjudicated water the existing Spurgeon Diversion and Thomason Flat diversions push-up diversions. • Only adjudicated water would be directed to the Spurgeon Ditch #2. • Thomason Flat would receive adjudicated and AWSA water. Location • Current locations. All on private land • Private property at or near the site of the existing • Private land at or near the location of the existing • Not Applicable • Private property at or near the site of the existing except for the W-S diversion which is Spurgeon Ditch #2 push-up diversion site, Thomason Flat Ditch heading, south of the Pueblo Spurgeon Ditch #2 push-up diversion site on USFS land Creek confluence with the San Francisco River Dimensions • Variable, push-up diversions alter local • 55-foot reinforced concrete weir wall, 3 feet above • Each span approximately 200 feet across the floodplain, • Not Applicable • Same specifications as Alternative B channel geometry the riverbed 20 feet down river • 10-foot wide depressed notch section on the east • No cutoff walls side of the weir, 1 foot deep. The structure would be low profile, generally raising the river level by 1 foot, and the top end of the boulder riffle would be flush with the low flow notch. • Cutoff walls across the floodplain to an estimated depth of approximately 20 feet, for a total length of approximately 335 feet with diversion structure. Intake and • No gate-controlled intakes • Three gate-controlled intakes on east side. • No gate-controlled intakes at the diversion. Direct diversion • Not Applicable • Gate-controlled intakes on both west and east Conveyance • Two concrete box culvert siphons (each 4x4 feet) at of AWSA and adjudicated water into Thomason Flat and sides of the new fixed crest diversion. the diversion facility to carry diverted water to west W-S ditch. • Direct diversion of AWSA and adjudicated water side of the river. • Control and metering would occur at existing ditch into Thomason Flat and W-S Ditch. • East side diversion to Spurgeon #2 Ditch would not headgates. • Spurgeon #2 Ditch would receive only deliver AWSA water. adjudicated water. San Francisco Conveyance From Spurgeon • No pipeline • 36-inch buried pipe (approximately 2,500 LF) • Water would be diverted at the Thomason Flat Ditch • Not Applicable • 36-inch buried pipe (approximately 2,700 LF) Diversion to • Continue diverting from the river at the conveyance from Spurgeon Diversion that would heading, into the ditch. conveyance from Spurgeon Diversion that would Thomason Flat push-up diversion at the Thomason daylight at the Thomason Flat Ditch • No new conveyance infrastructure from Spurgeon. daylight at the Thomason Flat Ditch heading. Ditch Heading Flat Ditch heading • Includes a siphon (~300 feet) under Pueblo Creek. • Includes an elevated pipeline (approximately • Alignment would partially follow and require 700 feet) over Pueblo Creek. temporary closure of the existing unpaved Alma • Alignment would partially follow and require Mesa Road. temporary closure of the existing unpaved Alma Mesa Road. Thomason Flat • No improvements • Retain existing Thomason Flat Ditch capacity of • Expand Thomason Flat Ditch capacity from approximately • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B. Ditch • Ditch capacity approximately 20 cfs approximately 20 cfs. 20 cfs to 40 cfs from ditch heading to Weedy Reservoir. Improvements • No lining. • No lining. Conveyance to • Not Applicable • Not Applicable • Pumping station to lift water from Thomason Flat Ditch • Not Applicable • Pumping station to lift water from Thomason Reservoir Storage into Weedy Reservoir. Flat Ditch into Weedy Reservoir. Pleasanton West • No equivalent facilities • Not Applicable • Same as Alternative B • Not Applicable • Reconstruct and widen approximately 7,400 LF of Side Ditch the Pleasanton West Side Ditch Improvements Pleasanton Siphon • No equivalent facilities • Not Applicable. • No new siphon • Not Applicable • 36-inch, 260 LF siphon from the Pleasanton East- Side Ditch to the Pleasanton West-Side Ditch
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 13 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
San Francisco Storage Surface Storage • No equivalent facilities • No AWSA surface storage, only direct use. • Construct earthen embankment dam and unlined • Not Applicable • Construct unlined earthen embankment dam and reservoir with a storage capacity of 600 acre-feet in reservoir with a storage capacity of 1,610 acre- Weedy Canyon. feet in Weedy Canyon. Dimensions • Not Applicable • Not Applicable • Location: Approximately 600 feet from the • Not Applicable • Location: Approximately 600 feet from the San Francisco River. San Francisco River. • Dam embankment height: 112 feet. Top of active • Dam embankment height: 151 feet. Top of active conservation and spillway crest elevation: 102 feet. conservation and spillway crest elevation: Freeboard of 4 feet above probable maximum flood. 141 feet. Freeboard of 4 feet above probable • Length: Approximately 581 feet at the top of the dam maximum flood. • Footprint: Approximately 20 surface acres • Length of dam axis: Approximately 1,550 feet at the top of the dam • Footprint: Approximately 64 surface acres Spillway • Not Applicable • Not Applicable • Concrete lined: Width 125 feet, approximately • Not Applicable • Concrete lined: Width 125 feet, 740-foot 680-foot spillway to the San Francisco River channel spillway to the San Francisco River channel Outfalls • Not Applicable • Not Applicable • Outfall pipes to the San Francisco River and to • Not Applicable • Outfall pipes to the San Francisco River and to Thomason Flat Ditch Thomason Flat Ditch San Francisco Power San Francisco • Not Applicable • Not Applicable • Power for Weedy Reservoir pumps supplied by a new • Not Applicable • Power for Weedy Reservoir pumps supplied by a Reservoirs - connection and permanent easement across the valley new connection and permanent easement across Pumps and San Francisco River from the existing distribution the valley and San Francisco River from the line along U.S. Highway 180. existing distribution line along U.S. Highway 180. • Power line crossing would be routed in the temporary • Power line crossing would be routed in the construction river crossing temporary construction river crossing All San Francisco • No changes to existing facilities • Not Applicable • The final footprint of power lines would be developed as • Not Applicable • The final footprint of power lines would be Components the project design and power needs are refined in developed as the project design and power needs collaboration with the local utility are refined in collaboration with the local utility San Francisco Construction San Francisco • Not Applicable • Temporary closure of approximately 2,000 feet of • Temporary access road with culvert crossing at the San • Not Applicable • Temporary closure of 2,000 feet of Alma Mesa Road Access Alma Mesa Road from Highway 180 to Pueblo Creek Francisco River for construction access during Weedy from Highway 180 to Pueblo Creek for pipeline for pipeline construction. Reservoir construction. construction. • Temporary access road with culvert crossing at the • Temporary 60-foot-wide construction haul from borrow • Temporary access road with culvert crossing at the San Francisco River to maintain property access area to dam, restored to 24-foot-wide road following Santa Francisco River to maintain access during during pipeline construction. Removed following construction. pipeline and Weedy Reservoir construction. reopening of Alma Mesa Road. • Access pump station with new road along Thomason Flat • Temporary 60-foot-wide construction haul from • Construct temporary access road along the east side Ditch from north. borrow are to dam. Rehabilitated to 24-foot-wide road of the Thomason Flat Ditch, going south from where it • New permanent road to and across Weedy Dam. following construction. meets the temporary river crossing. After • New parking areas at each end of spillway with a • Access pump station with new road along Thomason approximately 1,000 feet, the road would be ramped pedestrian foot bridge. Flat Ditch from north. up to the ditch. The ditch would be temporarily • Permanent box culvert where Alma Mesa Road crosses • New permanent road to and across Weedy Dam. New reconstructed as a roadway approximately 15 -18 feet Weedy Canyon wash for vehicular dam access during parking areas at each end of spillway pedestrian foot wide, connecting to the Thompson Tank Road. flood events. bridge. • When this road is no longer needed, the ditch would • Permanent box culvert where Alma Mesa Road be reconstructed. crosses Weedy Canyon wash for vehicular dam access during flood events. • Saddle dam/ramped road improvement on Alma Mesa Road near the intersection with the Thompson Tank Road through the proposed borrow area. San Francisco • Not Applicable • No off-site source and material disposal areas • Source area mapped adjacent to reservoir • Not Applicable • Source area mapped adjacent to reservoir Material/ Disposal needed.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 14 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
Alternative A – No Action Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E
San Francisco Operational Assumptions • Divert only adjudicated water • Divert both adjudicated water and AWSA water • Divert both adjudicated water and AWSA water • Not Applicable • Divert both adjudicated water and AWSA water • No CUFA requirements • No diversion of AWSA water until CUFA • No diversion of AWSA water until CUFA requirements • Not Applicable • No diversion of AWSA water until CUFA requirements are first met are first met requirements are first met • No AWSA water diverted • Maximum AWSA diversion rate: 20 cfs • Maximum AWSA diversion rate: 40 cfs • Not Applicable • Maximum AWSA diversion rate: 20 cfs • No AWSA water diverted • Average annual AWSA diversion: 11 acre-feet • Average annual AWSA diversion: 879acre-feet • Not Applicable • Average annual AWSA diversion: 1,114 acre-feet • No AWSA return flows • Average annual return flow: 3 acre-feet • Average annual return flow: 657 acre-feet • Not Applicable • Average annual return flow: 908 acre-feet • Consumptive use limited to existing • Average annual consumptive use: 8 acre-feet • Average annual consumptive use: 175 acre-feet • Not Applicable • Average annual consumptive use: 183 acre-feet adjudicated water use
Source: NM Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Reclamation and ISC 2019)
Table 2-4. Total AWSA Average Annual Storage, Diversion, Return Flows, and Total Consumptive Use by Action Alternative
Alternative B – Estimate of Annual Average AWSA Water Quantities* Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Proposed Action Storage 2,338 acre-feet 3,038 acre-feet 458 acre-feet 2,803 acre-feet Diversion† 2,461 acre-feet 3,185 acre-feet 480 acre-feet 2,924 acre-feet Return Flows 732 acre-feet 1,434 acre-feet 141 acre-feet 1,494 acre-feet Total Consumptive Use‡ 1,782 acre-feet 1,845 acre-feet 349 acre-feet 1,459 acre-feet
Source: HDR (2019a) * Water quantities are calculated based on the assumption that all CUFA requirements would first be met. † Annual AWSA Diversion is the actual annual amount of water projected to be diverted under operational restrictions and infrastructure capabilities. It includes the AWSA water diverted for direct use and the AWSA water diverted and stored for later use. Diversions can be incremental; therefore, Diversion can exceed the total storage capacity ‡ The Total Consumptive Use is the sum of the AWSA consumptive use and reservoir/pond evaporation, pursuant to Paragraph 2.15 of the CUFA as required by section 304(f) of the CRBPA. The Total Consumptive Use is used to calculate the costs of the credits that the New Mexico Central Arizona Project (CAP) Entity must purchase by paying the Secretary of the Interior for the Federal Rate for the CAP water, pursuant to Section 6 of the CUFA.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 15 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 16 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 2.2.1 Description of the Analysis Area
The Analysis Area is the area where potential direct and indirect impacts on vegetation communities, wetlands, and wildlife, including special status plant and wildlife species, have the potential to occur. Direct impacts are caused by the Proposed Action and alternatives and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by or would result from the Proposed Action and occur later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably certain to occur.
The Analysis Area represents a conservative estimate of the total extent of potential for vegetation and wildlife impacts. However, not all resources would experience impacts within the entire Analysis Area, nor would all the impacts from construction and operation of the project extend across the entire breadth of the Analysis Area.
The Analysis Area includes the following components (see Figure 1-1): • Direct Impacts Area: The Direct Impacts Area includes the project location with the addition of a 0.25-mile buffer. The Direct Impacts Area extends upstream of the proposed diversion structures and includes the areas where water is anticipated to pool. This area is where there may be direct short- and long-term impacts related to development and operation of the proposed infrastructure and hydrologic impacts. • Indirect Impacts Area: This is the area upstream and downstream of the Direct Impacts Area. Upstream areas are limited to the riverine environment and are relevant for analyzing potential genetic impacts on fish. Downstream areas are limited to the riparian corridor and waterway. These areas are subject to potential impacts due to temporary drying or permanent changes in hydrological conditions due to the operation of the diversion facilities and consumptive use of water withdrawn from the system.
BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE LONGITUDINAL BUFFER
The longitudinal extent (i.e., upstream and downstream) of the Analysis Area for wildlife and vegetation resources was determined based on modeled surface water hydrological changes (HDR 2019a, 2019b) and the potential effects of the AWSA water diversion on the fish community, aquatic habitat, and riparian habitat for listed species. The potential effects would include barriers to fish migration and genetic connectivity; geomorphic changes upstream (i.e., sedimentation) and downstream (i.e., channel incision); and hydrologic changes to the volume, frequency, periodicity of flows, and water quality. The upstream limit was based on modeled sedimentation and changes in surface water flow upstream of the proposed diversions and fish data provided by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). The downstream limit of the Analysis Area was based on surface water flow modeling.
BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE LATERAL BUFFER
2.2.1.2.1 LATERAL BUFFER
Potential effects on vegetation, terrestrial, and semi-terrestrial communities may result from changes in sedimentation, changes in surface water and groundwater hydrology, habitat modification, and a change in the distribution or abundance of nonnative species. Most effects would occur in the riparian areas adjacent to the rivers; however, upland species impacts may be associated with electrical utility line routes, borrow sites, and access areas. A 0.25-mile lateral buffer around the outermost project components
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 17 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
(i.e., irrigation ditches and storage components) of the Direct Impact Area is sufficient to address construction- and operations-related impacts, such as species dispersal from construction sites, construction traffic, noise, and dust. The buffer for the Indirect Impacts Area is limited to the riparian corridor. This area would capture indirect impacts on riparian vegetation and wildlife species that may occur due to hydrologic alterations.
PROJECT LOCATION ANALYSIS AREA
The Analysis Area is subdivided into the Upper Gila Analysis Area, Virden Valley Analysis Area, San Francisco River Analysis Area, and Lower Gila Analysis Area. Each area is described below.
2.2.1.3.1 UPPER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
The Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area extends from approximately 1,640 feet upstream4 of the proposed diversion and extends downstream to the Freeport McMoRan, Inc. (FMI) diversion for Bill Evans Lake (Appendix A, Figure A.1). HDR (2019a) modeled the extent of water surface elevation increases upstream of the proposed diversion structures. Although upstream increases in surface water elevation extend approximately 2,500 feet for 50- and 100-year flood events, the upstream extent chosen for the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area was 1,640 feet, which is the extent modeled by HDR (2019a) for 2- and 1-year flood events. This was determined to be the probable extent of upstream impacts. The downstream extent is below proposed project features and irrigation ditch returns but above the FMI diversion upstream of the confluence with Mangas Creek, which represents a large input into the system.
The Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area extends from the confluence of the Middle Fork and West Fork of the Gila River downstream to the upper extent of the Direct Impacts Area within the riverine environment and from the FMI Diversion downstream to the Sunset Diversion within the riparian corridor. The upstream extent for indirect impacts was determined on the basis of potential genetic connectivity between listed fish populations in the West Fork Gila and in the Cliff-Gila Valley as documented by NMDGF in their annual October fish surveys (NMDGF 2018a).
2.2.1.3.2 VIRDEN VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA
The Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area extends from the existing Sunset Diversion downstream to the irrigation return drains immediately downstream of the New Mexico/Arizona state line (see Appendix A, Figure A.2). The irrigation return drains are the point where return flow from irrigated agricultural fields occurs.
The Indirect Impacts Area extends to the Gila River confluence with the San Francisco River within the riparian corridor. Hydrologic modeling (HDR 2019a) suggests alterations to surface water flows to the Gila River gage at Clifton (United States Geological Survey [USGS] Gage 09442000) may occur under the action alternatives.
2.2.1.3.3 SAN FRANCISCO RIVER ANALYSIS AREA
The San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area (Appendix A, Figure A.3) extends from approximately 1,400 feet upstream5 of the proposed diversion downstream to the Glenwood gage (USGS Gage 09442680). The upstream extent is determined by geomorphic analysis (HDR 2019a), which suggests an
4 Used the estimates for the 2-year and 10-year flood intervals. For larger floods, there would be minimal increases in inundated acreages. 5 Used the estimates for the 2-year and 10-year flood intervals. For larger floods, there would be minimal increases in inundated acreages.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 18 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
increase in the water surface elevation upstream of the diversion of approximately 1,400 feet for the 2-year and 10-year flood event intervals. The downstream extent is below the Pleasanton Diversion and irrigation ditch returns.
The Indirect Impacts Area extends from the Tularosa River confluence to the Clifton gage on the San Francisco River upstream of the Gila River confluence in Arizona. The upstream extent was determined on the basis of potential genetic connectivity between fish populations in the Tularosa River and downstream area near Glenwood, as documented by NMDGF in their annual October fish surveys (NMDGF 2018b). Similar to the Gila River, the downstream extent was determined by the surface water hydrologic modeling (HDR 2019a), which suggests alterations to surface water flows at the San Francisco gage at Clifton (USGS Gage 09444500) may occur under the action alternatives.
2.2.1.3.4 LOWER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
The Lower Gila Analysis Area (Appendix A, Figure A.4) does not contain a Direct Impacts Area. The Indirect Impacts Area extends from the Gila/San Francisco River confluence to the USGS gage at Calva (USGS Gage 09466500) within the riparian corridor and waterway of the Gila River mainstem in Arizona. This area is included as an Indirect Impacts Area because hydrologic modeling suggests alterations to surface water flows are carried through to the Calva gage and may occur under the action alternatives.
2.2.2 Impact Methods and Terminology
The Joint Leads documented the available literature, data, regulations, and technical approaches to assess the affected environment and potential effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives on biological resources. To address issues identified during public scoping, the Joint Leads: • Accessed the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website (USFWS 2019a) to determine the Federally listed wildlife and plant species that have the potential to occur within the project area and critical habitat data. • Analyzed fish community survey and habitat assessment data and reports from NMDGF, ISC, The Nature Conservancy, and other sources. • Conducted desktop analysis using information sources such as National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2019b), Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP 2005), and USFS, BLM, and New Mexico and Arizona special status species data and information. • Conducted field studies to document current biological conditions for vegetation and wildlife (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA] 2019a) and wetlands (SWCA 2019b), and conducted protocol surveys for listed fish species (SWCA 2019c) and herpetofauna (SWCA 2019d). • Applied the hydrologic modeling reference in Section 3.3 below to assess potential impacts on biological resources due to hydrologic alteration.
Analysis of the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives, compared with the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), during construction and operation uses the impact type descriptors below: • Beneficial—A positive change in the condition or appearance of the resource. • Adverse—A negative change that detracts from the appearance or decreases the condition of the resource.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 19 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
• Direct—An effect on a resource that is caused by the action and occurs at a particular time and place. Direct impacts are associated with proposed construction activities (e.g., ground-disturbing activities) and operations (water diversions). • Indirect—An effect on a resource that is caused by the action and that later in time or farther removed in distance is still reasonably foreseeable (e.g., increased likelihood of nonnative, invasive species moving into the area after disturbance). The Indirect Impact Areas are subject to potential impacts due to hydrologic changes. • Cumulative—Cumulative impacts are those impacts on resources that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. • Short term—Short-term impacts are temporary, generally occurring during construction. Specific time periods relating to short-term impacts have not been defined for this project but would likely be temporary during construction (generally 4 to 6 months) or for a limited time thereafter (generally 1 to 3 years). These time periods are subject to change due to funding limitations or may change based on the geographic location of construction activities. To help quantify impacts and assess differences in effects between alternatives, a short-term potential disturbance area of 50 feet around any project element was established. This area is used in the analysis, unless otherwise noted. Final disturbance areas appropriate to local conditions and resource issues would be defined before construction. • Long term—Long-term impacts are permanent, generally occurring during operations. Long-term impacts typically last beyond the construction period, and the resources impacted may not regain their pre-construction conditions for a longer period of time. A long-term potential disturbance area of 25 feet around any project element was calculated. This area is used in the analysis, unless otherwise noted. Final disturbance areas appropriate to local conditions and resource issues would be defined before construction.
Potential impacts are characterized using the intensity descriptors listed below: • Negligible or inconsequential—This indicates no measurable or observable change from current conditions. The impact on the resource would be at or below the levels of detection. • Minor or minimal—This indicates a small, detectable, or measurable change. The impact 1) may be outside the range of natural or typical variability but occur for a very brief duration, or 2) may be within the natural or typical range of variability but occur for a longer period of time. Mitigation, if implemented, would be easily applied and successful with a high degree of certainty. • Moderate—This indicates an easily discernible or measurable change. The effects would either 1) be readily apparent or would result in measurable impacts on the resource; these impacts would affect the availability or natural recovery of those environmental elements over the long term; or 2) could be substantial but of a short duration with no permanent impact on the resource. It is anticipated that mitigation, if implemented, would be successful with a high degree of certainty, based on prior examples of similar effects and documented mitigation outcomes. • Major—This indicates a large observable or measurable change. The effects would result in substantial impacts on the resource that would be readily apparent, consequential, and outside the natural or typical range of variability. Mitigation, if implemented, would be uncertain in its success, or ineffective with consequent long-term and permanent changes in the availability or natural recovery of the resource
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 20 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
The following terms are used to provide context for impacts from the Proposed Action: • Beneficial—This indicates a positive change in the condition, appearance, or function of the resource. • Adverse—This indicates a negative change that moves the resource away from or detracts from its condition, appearance, or function.
In some instances, the intensity and duration of impacts could be reduced through implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are described in terms of practicality (including cost, if available) and effectiveness (see Appendix H). Impacts remaining after mitigation are then estimated and compared across alternatives.
The short- and long-term disturbance estimates were derived using geographic information system (GIS) buffers (see Appendix C for a summary of GIS methods and data used to calculate the disturbance estimates). These numbers are for action alternative comparison purposes and do not imply that all lands were previously undisturbed. The project area is disturbed by existing ditches, temporary and permanent diversions, roads, dams, bridges, and electric power lines (overlapping disturbance areas were counted only once). Ongoing disturbances associated with temporary diversions and ongoing maintenance activities could be reduced if an action alternative is implemented. However, due to the dynamic nature of these activities (e.g., push-up diversions), these disturbances have not been quantified. Impacts associated with the action alternatives do not account for any ongoing disturbances, which could result in an overstatement of impacts.
In some instances, the use of these buffers has resulted in higher disturbance calculations than what may occur from direct disturbance in the project area due to the placement of project components (e.g., physical structures). Disturbance estimates are preliminary and subject to change with refinement of project footprints, access, construction needs, and potential resource avoidance and mitigation. For some resource analyses, other buffer distances may be applicable to be consistent with other analysis methods and regulatory standards. These are referenced on a case-by-case basis in the respective resource sections.
Due to the dynamic nature of operating procedures under the constraints of the CUFA, river flow variability, and other uncertainties, the analysis may provide a range of variability to account for these conditions. The analysis captures effects to the extent reasonably possible, based on the best available information; however, the actual timing and amount of future diversions in any given year are not, and cannot, be reflected precisely in the analysis.
The analysis accounts for the constraints inherent in implementing the CUFA; however, the capacity of the diversion and conveyance infrastructure would limit the maximum diversions allowable under the CUFA.
INDICATORS OF IMPACTS
Specific to biological resources, indicators of impacts to vegetation included: • The direct loss of riparian vegetation, or beneficial effects due to flow augmentation and implementation of conservation measures to minimize impacts from the Proposed Action and alternatives. • The amount of habitat that would be directly disturbed by project activities for each plant species. The magnitude of impact is determined by the amount of suitable habitat lost, as well as potential suitable habitat that is adjacent to and nearby the project area. NWI and SWReGAP data were used as a proxy for suitable habitat.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 21 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
• Direct adverse effects may include habitat loss or construction-related effects, such as noise disturbance and disruption of breeding seasons. Beneficial effects may be accrued due to flow augmentation and implementation of conservation measures to minimize impacts to the proposed project. The magnitude of this direct impact would be determined by the amount of suitable habitat lost relative to other potentially suitable habitat that is adjacent to and nearby the project area. • Indirect effects through habitat alteration, including habitat fragmentation, habitat conversion, water flow regime changes, soil erosion and compaction, and increased human presence and disturbance. o Habitat fragmentation—A qualitative assessment of how the project activities would impact habitat connectivity for a species, both within the project area and between the project area and surrounding landscapes. This assessment would consider suitable habitats within these areas and suitable corridors that the species may use for travel between these habitats. o Habitat conversion—A qualitative assessment of the likelihood of the introduction of nonnative plant and animal species as a result of project construction and other related activities. o Water flow regimes—An assessment of how the project activities would alter existing surface water and groundwater flow regimes within the project Analysis Area. • Direct project effects can occur through project construction and other activities that increase human presence and disturbance, which can increase noise and vibration and artificial lighting. This impact is dependent on the types and amount of project-related equipment and vehicles.
INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION
The purpose of this BE is to support the analysis of potential biological impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives analyzed in the EIS. The CEQ’s implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require that, in an EIS, a Federal agency identify relevant information that may be incomplete or unavailable for an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1502.22). Knowledge and information are, and necessarily always remain, incomplete, particularly with complex ecosystems considered at various scales. In developing this EIS, the best available information pertinent to analyzing impacts and decisions to be made is used. Considerable effort was made to acquire and convert resource data into GIS or other digital formats for use in the EIS. Certain information was unavailable because resource inventories have either not been conducted or are incomplete. Types of data that are incomplete or unavailable include the following: • Existing ongoing disturbance estimates under Alternative A, due to the dynamic nature of these activities (e.g., push-up diversions). • Best available science is used for all analyses, but occurrence records and scientific knowledge can be incomplete, inaccessible, or outdated. Analysis of impacts on fisheries relies heavily on the dataset provided by NMDGF, dating back to 1988. Additional studies and analyses were completed by The Nature Conservancy, Reclamation, and the ISC. Review and analysis rely on published manuscripts to the extent available. • Pedestrian surveys of vegetation, wetland, wildlife, and focused species surveys were limited to species that could be observed during time and season of the survey, and surveys could exclude some species (i.e., nocturnal species, cryptic species). Landowner access was not provided for portions of the Direct Impacts Areas in the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and San Francisco River Analysis Areas.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 22 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
• Species-specific surveys may not observe target species, even if present. Results of the surveys are but one part of the analysis, which may also include suitability of habitat, outside scientific knowledge, or occurrence records. • Areas mapped by NWI data have not been ground-truthed and may not contain suitable habitat, or the vegetation may be different than that mapped by NWI. However, each habitat category indicates species that might be expected to be present. • Extensive modeling on groundwater surface water interactions is not available. Analysis is completed using surface water (HDR 2019a) and groundwater (HDR 2019c) modeling and existing studies that look at groundwater and surface water interactions (Gori et al. 2014), flow diversion impacts on groundwater (Hathaway et al. 2016; S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc. [SSPA] 2014), and groundwater studies (Stone and Samson 2014).
For these resources, estimates were made concerning the number, type, and significance of these resources, based on previous surveys and existing knowledge using approaches or methods accepted in the scientific community. In addition, some impacts cannot be quantified given the proposed management actions. Where this gap occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 23 Chapter 2. Proposed Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 24
CHAPTER 3 SPECIES EVALUATED The species evaluated in this biological evaluation were identified from various sources, including the USFWS IPaC planning tool (USFWS 2019a), the State of New Mexico’s State Endangered Plant Species List (New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 2019), State of New Mexico’s Biota Information System (BISON-M) list (BISON-M 2019), the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) (Arizona Heritage Geographic Information System [AZHGIS] 2019), the USFS sensitive-species lists for Gila and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (USFS 2013a, 2013b), and the BLM sensitive-species list for the Las Cruces and Gila District Offices (BLM 2017, 2018, 2019a). The species database list is found in Appendix D.
There are no direct impacts on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona, and no anticipated indirect impacts. The Fort West Extension Ditch and portions of the Thomason Flat pipeline would cross approximately 1,200 feet of the Gila National Forest. There are no direct impacts on BLM lands in New Mexico or Arizona and no anticipated indirect impacts from the construction of the project. See Appendix A, Figures A.1 through A.4 for the location of USFS and BLM lands in relation to the Analysis Area.
3.1 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES A total of 79 special status plant species were analyzed for the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (Appendix E, Table E.1: BLM, USFS, State of New Mexico, and USFWS Special Status Plant Species). Special Status Plant Species include species listed on the following sources: the ESA Threatened and Endangered Species lists for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico, and Graham and Greenlee Counties, Arizona; BLM Sensitive species documented as verified or that have the potential to occur on lands administered by the BLM’s Las Cruces District Office in New Mexico or that are verified to occur or have potential or historic occurrences on lands administered by the BLM Gila District Office in Arizona; the Gila National Forest Sensitive Species List and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species List; and New Mexico State Endangered Plant Species for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New Mexico. Of these 79 species, seven species have the potential to occur (see Appendix E, Table E.1). These 79 special status plant species are listed in Appendix E, Table E.1.
There are two ESA-listed plant species—Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) and Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus)—both of which are unlikely to occur in the Analysis Area because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of these species, or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both. These species are not discussed further.
A total of 44 BLM Sensitive Species were evaluated for their potential to occur in BLM-administered land in the Analysis Area, found within portions of the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. Of these 44 species, four species were determined to potentially occur because the Analysis Area is within the range of these species, and suitable habitat is present: night-blooming cereus (Peniocereus greggii var. greggii), Parish’s alkali grass (Puccinellia parishii), Clifton rock daisy (Perityle ambrosiifolia), and Pima Indian mallow (Abutilon parishii). No new project features would be conducted on BLM administered lands. While there would be no direct impacts to BLM sensitive species on BLM administered lands, these species are evaluated for direct and indirect impacts.
Thirty-three USFS Sensitive Species were evaluated for their potential to occur on USFS-administered lands in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Of these 33 species, only Parish’s alkali grass, Arizona alum root (Heuchera glomerulata), and Greene milkweed (Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis) were determined to potentially occur in the Analysis Area because the Analysis Area is within the range of these species and suitable habitat is present.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 25 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
Sixteen New Mexico State Endangered plant species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the entire Analysis Area. Of the 16 species, 3 have the potential to occur, including night-blooming cereus, Parish’s alkali grass, and Wilcox’s pincushion cactus (Mammillaria wrightii var. wilcoxii). The remaining sensitive plant species have been excluded from analysis because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of these species, or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both.
3.2 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES A total of 174 special status wildlife species and subspecies were analyzed for their potential to occur in the Analysis Area.6 The 174 species were listed as occurring or potentially occurring in the following documents: the ESA Threatened and Endangered Species lists for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New Mexico and Greenlee and Graham Counties in Arizona; BLM Sensitive species documented as verified or having the potential to occur within lands administered by the BLM’s Las Cruces District Office in New Mexico and Gila District Office in Arizona; the Gila and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species List; and State of New Mexico Threatened and Endangered Species lists for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties. Of these 174 species, 71 have the potential to occur or are known to occur within at least one portion of the Analysis Area (Table 3-1). The remaining special status wildlife species have been excluded from analysis because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of the species, or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both. All special status wildlife species analyzed are listed in Appendix E, Table E.2.
Twenty-eight Federally listed, proposed, and experimental population species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the Analysis Area. Of the 28 species, 14 species have the potential to occur or are known to occur on some portion of the Analysis Area.
Seventy-nine BLM Sensitive Species for the Las Cruces District Office in New Mexico and Gila District Office in Arizona were evaluated for their potential to occur in the BLM-administered land in the Analysis Area, found within portions of the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. Thirty-five of those 79 species have the potential to occur or are known to occur on some portion of the Analysis Area. No new project features would be conducted on BLM administered lands. While there would be no direct impacts to BLM sensitive species on BLM administered lands, these species are evaluated for direct and indirect impacts.
Sixty-five USFS Sensitive Species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the USFS-administered lands in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Of these 65 species, 28 species have the potential to occur or are known to occur on some portion of the Analysis Area.
Sixty-two New Mexico State Threatened/Endangered Species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the Analysis Area. Of the 62 species, 31 species have the potential to occur or are known to occur on some portion of the Analysis Area.
6 The various agency species lists evaluated in this document include species and their subspecies, so actual counts may vary. These species include Arizona Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) and Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), Gunnison’s prairie dog [Montane Population] (Cynomys gunnisoni) and Gunnison’s prairie dog [Prairie Population] (Cynomys gunnisoni), Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) and reticulate Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum suspectum), New Mexico talussnail [Florida Mountains] (Sonorella hachitana flora) and New Mexico talussnail (Sonorella hachitana).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 26 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
Table 3-1. Sensitive Wildlife Species Evaluated with Potential to Occur in the Analysis Area by Project Location
San Francisco Virden Group Name Status* Upper Gila Lower Gila River Valley Amphibians Arizona toad AZ:BLM, NM:BLM X X X X (Anaxyrus microscaphus)
Chiricahua leopard frog USFWS Threatened X X X X (Rana chiricahuensis)
Lowland leopard frog AZ:BLM, Apache- X X X X (Lithobates yavapaiensis) Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNF), Gila National Forest (GNF), NM Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA)
Sonoran Desert toad NM WCA X X X -- (Incilius alvarius) Birds Abert's towhee GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Melozone aberti)
American peregrine falcon AZ:BLM, ASNF, GNF, NM X X X X (Falco peregrinus anatum) WCA
Arizona Bell's vireo NM:BLM, GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Vireo bellii arizonae)
Bald eagle AZ:BLM, ASNF, GNF, NM X X X X (Haliaeetus WCA leucocephalus)
Bendire's thrasher NM:BLM X X X -- (Toxostoma bendirei)
Botteri's sparrow NM:BLM, AZ:BLM X X X X (Peucaea botterii)
Broad-billed hummingbird NM WCA X X X -- (Cynanthus latirostris)
Chestnut-collared NM:BLM X -- X -- longspur (Calcarius ornatus)
Common black hawk GNF, NM ESA X X X -- (Buteogallus anthracinus)
Common ground-dove GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Columbina passerina)
Costa's hummingbird GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Calypte costae) Desert purple martin AZ:BLM ------X (Progne subis hesperia) Ferruginous hawk AZ:BLM -- X -- X (Buteo regalis) Gila woodpecker GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Melanerpes uropygialis) Gilded flicker AZ:BLM -- X -- X (Colaptes chrysoidesi) Golden eagle AZ:BLM X X X X (Aquila chrysaetos) Gray vireo GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Vireo vicinior) Interior least tern NM WCA, USFWS X X X X (Sternula antillarum) Endangered
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 27 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
San Francisco Virden Group Name Status* Upper Gila Lower Gila River Valley Birds Mexican spotted owl USFWS Threatened X X X X (Contin.) (Strix occidentalis lucida) Neotropic cormorant NM WCA X X X -- (Phalacrocorax brasilianus) Northern beardless- NM WCA X X X -- tyrannulet (Camptostoma imberbe) Northern goshawk AZ:BLM, ASNF, GNF X X -- X (Accipiter gentilis) Pinyon jay AZ:BLM, NM:BLM X X X X (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) Southwestern willow NM WCA, USFWS X X X X flycatcher Endangered (Empidonax traillii extimus) Sprague's pipit NM:BLM X -- X -- (Anthus spragueii) Varied bunting NM WCA X X X -- (Passerina versicolor) Virginia's warbler NM:BLM X -- X -- (Vermivora virginiae) Western burrowing owl AZ:BLM, NM:BLM, ASNF, X X X X (Athene cunicularia) GNF Yellow-billed cuckoo USFWS Threatened X X X X (Coccyzus americanus) Fish Desert sucker AZ:BLM, NM:BLM, ASNF, X X X X (Catostomus clarkii) GNF Gila chub NM WCA, USFWS X X X X (Gila intermedia)† Endangered Gila topminnow (incl. NM WCA, USFWS X -- -- X Yaqui) Endangered (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) Gila trout NM WCA, USFWS X ------(Oncorhynchus gilae) Threatened Headwater chub GNF, NM WCA X X X -- (Gila nigra)† Loach minnow NM WCA, USFWS X X X X (Tiaroga cobitis) Endangered Longfin dace AZ:BLM X X X X (Agosia chrysogaster) Razorback sucker USFWS Endangered ------(Xyrauchen texanus)‡ Roundtail chub AZ:BLM, NM:BLM, ASNF, X X X X (Gila robusta)† GNF, NM WCA (Lower Colorado River populations) Sonora sucker AZ:BLM, NM:BLM, ASNF, X X X X (Catostomus insignis) GNF Speckled dace AZ:BLM X X -- -- (Rhinichthys osculus)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 28 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
San Francisco Virden Group Name Status* Upper Gila Lower Gila River Valley Fish Spikedace NM WCA, USFWS X X X X (Contin.) (Meda fulgida) Endangered Reptiles Green rat snake NM WCA X X X -- (Senticolis triaspis) Narrow-headed NM WCA, USFWS X X X X gartersnake Threatened (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) Northern Mexican NM WCA, USFWS X X X X gartersnake Threatened (Thamnophis eques megalops) Reticulate Gila monster NM:BLM, NM WCA X X X -- (Heloderma suspectum suspectum) Sonora mud turtle AZ:BLM -- X X X (Kinosternon sonoriese sonoriese) Mammals Allen’s lappet-browed bat AZ:BLM, ASNF, GNF X X X X (Idionycteris phyllotis) Arizona gray squirrel GNF X X -- -- (Sciurus arizonensis arizonensis) Arizona myotis AZ:BLM -- X X X (Myotis occultus) Banner-tailed kangaroo AZ:BLM -- X X X rat (Dipodomys spectabilis) California leaf-nosed bat AZ:BLM -- X X X (Macrotus californicus) Cave myotis AZ:BLM -- X X X (Myotis velifer) Greater western mastiff AZ:BLM -- X X X bat (Eumops perotis californicus) Gunnison’s prairie dog AZ:BLM, GNF X X -- -- [prairie population] (Cynomys gunnisoni) Hooded skunk GNF X X -- -- (Mephitis macroura milleri) Lesser long-nosed bat AZ: BLM X X X X (Leptonycteris NM:BLM, NM WCA yerbabuenae) Mexican wolf NM WCA, USFWS X X X X (Canis lupus baileyi) Experimental Population, Non-Essential Pale Townsend's big- AZ:BLM, NM:BLM, ASNF, X X X X eared bat GNF (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) Spotted bat AZ:BLM, NM:BLM, ASNF, X X X X (Euderma maculatum) GNF, NM WCA
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 29 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
San Francisco Virden Group Name Status* Upper Gila Lower Gila River Valley Mammals Springerville silky pocket ASNF -- X -- -- (Contin.) mouse (Perognathus flavus goodpasteri) Western red bat ASNF, GNF X X -- -- (Lasiurus blossevillii) Invertebrates A caddisfly ASNF -- X -- -- (Lepidostoma apache) A caddisfly ASNF -- X -- -- (Lepidostoma knulli) Dashed ringtail GNF X X -- -- (Erpetogomphus heterodon) Gila mayfly GNF X X -- -- (Lachlania dencyanna) Monarch butterfly AZ:BLM, NM:BLM X X X X (Danaus plexippus) Moth [Notodontid moth] GNF X X -- -- (Euhyparpax rosea)
* ASNF = U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests; AZ:BLM = BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona (Gila District Office); GNF = U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species for Gila National Forest; NM:BLM = BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico (Las Cruces District Office); NM:WCA = Species listed as threatened or endangered under New Mexico State’s Wildlife Conservation Act; USFWS = species listed under the ESA. † A scientific review of the data indicates that the roundtail chub, the headwater chub, and the Gila chub are not discrete taxonomic entities listable as separate species under the ESA and should be considered one species: the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) (USFWS 2017a). USFWS guidance is to evaluate the taxa as separate species until this taxonomic change is final (Gruhala 2018). ‡ There are no records of occurrence for the razorback sucker, but critical habitat has been designated in the Lower Gila Analysis Area.
3.3 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES
Analysis of USFS Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) is required to analyze direct impacts on portions of the Analysis Area that are on USFS-managed lands in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area (see Figure 1-1). Table 3-2 summarizes the current acres and trends on the Gila National Forest.
Table 3-2. USFS Gila National Forest Management Indicator Species
Common Name Current Acres and Trend* on Vegetation Type Associated with MIS (Scientific Name) Gila National Forest Juniper titmouse Pinyon Juniper / Shrub Oakland 1,418,029.6 No Trend Data available. (Baeolophus ridgwayi) Montezuma quail Plains Grass / Mountain Grass 591,196.9 No Trend Data available. (Cyrtonyx montezumae)
Hairy woodpecker Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer Snag 2,283,666.3 No Trend Data available. (Picoides villosus) Component Northern goshawk Ponderosa Pine 1,029,607.1 Population is stable to (Accipiter gentilis) increasing.
Mexican spotted owl Mixed Conifer 2,283,666.3 Population is stable to (Strix occidentalis lucida) increasing.
Common black hawk Low/Mid Riparian 61,298.0 Population appear to be stable. (Buteogallus anthracinus)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 30 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
Common Name Current Acres and Trend* on Vegetation Type Associated with MIS (Scientific Name) Gila National Forest Native trout (i.e., Rio Grande High Riparian 61,298.0 Rio Grande cutthroat trout [Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis] and distribution in unchanged. Gila trout Gila trout [Oncorhynchus gilae]) population has increased distribution.
Long-tailed vole Wet Meadows / Wetlands 61,298.0 No Trend Data available. (Microtus longicaudus)
Beaver Low/Mid Riparian 61,298.0 No Trend Data available. (Castor canadensis) High Riparian
Mule deer Desert Shrub 1,418,029.6 Recent observations show a (Odocoileus hemionus) Pinyon Juniper / Shrub Oakland slight decline due to poor recruitment related to drought conditions.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 31 Chapter 3. Species Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 32
CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The Analysis Area includes a variety of public lands, including lands managed by the Gila National Forest, Gila Wilderness, BLM, and New Mexico State Land Office. Private lands in the Analysis Area primarily comprise large farms and ranches. In additional to farming and ranching, mining has historically been an important land use in the region, with the largest copper mines in the state located in Grant County. Agriculture is the largest water user, followed by mining and public water supply (ISC 2017).
The major surface water resources in the Analysis Areas include the Gila and San Francisco Rivers along the western slope of the Mogollon Mountains. Surface water flows originate primarily in the higher elevations, as snowmelt in the spring and rain during the monsoon season. Flows are highly variable from year to year, and the streams are typically characterized by long periods of low flow interspersed with short durations of high-volume flow. Both the Gila and San Francisco Rivers are fed by several smaller rivers and creeks, including but not limited to the Tularosa River, Mineral Creek, Whitewater Creek, Mogollon Creek, Duck Creek, Sycamore Creek, and Mangas Creek (ISC 2017).
4.1 VEGETATION Vegetation in the Analysis Area includes a total of 23 Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) landcover types. The acreages of each landcover type are given below in Table 4-1. A brief description of each landcover type is given in Appendix F. Approximately 15.6% the Upper Gila Analysis Area consists of the agriculture landcover class, 32.0% of the Virden Valley Analysis Area consists of the agriculture landcover class, 6.3% of the San Francisco River Analysis Area consists of the agriculture land class, and 29.7% of the Lower Gila Analysis Area consists of the agriculture land class. SWReGAP landcover maps are found in Appendix A, Figures A.40–A.47.
Table 4-1. SWReGAP Landcover Types in the Analysis Area
Acres in Acres in Acres in Acres in San Francisco Total Acres in Upper Gila Virden Valley Lower Gila SWReGAP Landcover Class River Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Agriculture 1,977.7 3,352.3 507.5 4,620.0 10,457.5 (15.6%) (32.0%) (6.3%) (29.7%) (22.3%) Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland 1,514.7 3,686.8 2,150.8 2,631.1 9,983.4 Scrub (12.0%) (35.1%) (26.5%) (16.9%) (21.3%) Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi- 1,242.2 158.6 460.3 9.9 1,870.9 Desert Grassland and Steppe (9.8%) (1.5%) (5.7%) (0.1%) (4.0%) Chihuahuan Creosotebush Mixed Desert and 423.5 2,054.7 56.3 1,367.8 3,902.2 Thornscrub (3.3%) (19.6%) (0.7%) (8.8%) (8.3%) Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 0 0 0 1,939.7 1,939.7 (12.5%) (4.1%) Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 0 0 0 12.8 12.8 (0.1%) (<0.1%) Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 0 0 3.9 0 3.9 Tableland (0.1%) (<0.1%) Developed, Medium-High Intensity 0 27.0 140.4 0 167.3 (0.3%) (1.7%) (0.4%) Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 0 0 4.7 0 4.7 Shrubland (0.1%) (<0.1%)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 33 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Acres in Acres in Acres in Acres in San Francisco Total Acres in Upper Gila Virden Valley Lower Gila SWReGAP Landcover Class River Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) (Percent) Madrean Encinal 0.9 0 2.9 0 3.8 (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (<0.1%) Madrean Juniper Savanna 100.7 <0.1 16.0 0 116.7 (0.8%) (<0.1%) (0.2%) (0.2%) Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 15.4 5.9 26.2 0 47.5 (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.1%) Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 3,237.2 5.6 1,916.5 12.3 5,171.6 (25.6%) (0.1%) (23.6%) (0.1%) (11.0%) Mogollon Chaparral 2,635.0 116.0 1,481.6 1.8 4,234.4 (20.8%) (1.1%) (18.3%) (<0.1%) (9.0%) North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff 0 0 0 5.0 5.0 and Outcrop (<0.1%) (<0.1%) North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 1,436.8 803.2 1,219.6 170.0 3,629.5 Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (11.4%) (7.7%) (15.0%) (1.1%) (7.8%) North American Warm Desert Riparian 0 0 0 2,298.5 2,298.5 Mesquite Bosque (14.8%) (4.9%) North American Warm Desert Riparian 0 1.8 1.3 14.2 17.4 Woodland and Shrubland (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (0.1%) (<0.1%) North American Warm Desert Wash 71.9 2.0 0 0 73.9 (0.6%) (<0.1%) (0.2%) Open Water 0 0 2.6 3.1 5.7 (<0.1%) (<0.1%) (<0.1%) Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage 0 30.9 0 2.7 33.6 Desert Scrub (0.3%) (<0.1%) (0.1%) Sonora Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 0.2 137.3 96.9 158.6 393.0 (<0.1%) (1.3%) (1.2%) (1.0%) (0.8%) Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 0 108.3 25.7 2,295.0 2,429.0 (1.0%) (0.3%) (14.8%) (5.2%) Total 12,656.1 10,490.4 8113.0 15,542.4 46,802.3
Sources: ESRI (2013); SWReGAP (2005)
Plant species observed in the Direct Impacts Areas during surveys include the following species: boxelder (Acer negundo), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), mule-fat (Baccharis salicifolia), netleaf hackberry (Celtis laevigata var. reticulata), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), juniper (Juniperus sp.), Arizona sycamore (Platanus wrightii), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), catclaw acacia (Senegalia greggii), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), five-stamen tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis:tamarisk), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), cattail (Typha sp.), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and canyon grape (Vitis arizonica). Plant species observed in the Analysis Areas during general biological surveys and wetland surveys can be found in the survey results technical memoranda contained in SWCA 2019a and 2019b.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 34 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.1.1 Wetland and Riparian Areas
Potential riparian and wetland areas in the Analysis Area were identified during limited biological surveys of the Analysis Area, focused on the Direct Impacts Areas, and were mapped using SWReGAP and USFWS NWI data (USFWS 2019b). NWI mapped wetlands may or may not be considered jurisdictional wetlands under the Clean Water Act, depending upon underlying soil and hydrological conditions. Thus, NWI wetlands may be more inclusive than jurisdictional wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands and riparian areas are found primarily along the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and along ditches and canals where groundwater and surface water levels are sufficient to support wetland soils and vegetation. Vegetation found in riparian areas includes native and nonnative species, such as Goodding’s willow, Fremont cottonwood, mule-fat, Siberian elm, five-stamen tamarisk, and tree of heaven.
Wetland and riparian areas mapped as SWReGAP classifications make up 7.8% of the Analysis Area and include North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland, Shrubland and Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland, and North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (see Table 4-1). NWI riparian wetland types occur on 3,960.5 acres in the Direct Impacts Area and on 27,385.6 acres in the Indirect Impacts Area (Table 4-2). The NWI data indicate that Forested/Shrub Riparian and Herbaceous Riparian vegetation occur on 1,897.0 acres in the Direct Impacts Area and on 20,022.0 acres in the Indirect Impacts Area.
Wetland and riparian woodland vegetation provide habitat (e.g., trees, downed litter, snags, and shade) for many species of wildlife. Wetlands and riparian areas are a significant component of the floodplain ecosystem. The sinuous nature of the river along with seasonal flooding has resulted in a mosaic of vegetation types, consisting of patches of cottonwood forest of different ages mixed with willows and other riparian vegetation that support a large diversity of organisms. These cottonwoods and willows reflect recent and past geomorphic processes that have shaped the river channel and floodplain (Rood et al. 2007; Stromberg and Tellman 2012).
4.1.2 Noxious Weeds
The New Mexico Department of Agriculture divides its listed noxious weed species into four categories: Class A species are those that are not currently present within New Mexico or have limited distribution; Class B species are those that are limited to portions of the state; Class C species are those that are widespread in the state; and Watch List Species are those that have the potential to become problematic, but data are limited (New Mexico Department of Agriculture 2016). State of New Mexico noxious weed species identified as occurring or potentially occurring in the Analysis Area include Class A species yellow star-thistle in the Upper Gila Analysis Area; Class B species bull thistle in the Upper Gila Analysis Area; Class C species Russian olive in the San Francisco River Analysis A; tamarisk in the Virden Valley Analysis Area; Siberian elm in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas; and tree of heaven in the Upper Gila Analysis Area (New Mexico Department of Agriculture 2016).
Noxious weeds species that have the potential occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area in Arizona include bull thistle, tamarisk, tree of heaven, and Russian olive (Howery 2016).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 35 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Table 4-2. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland and Riparian Types in the Analysis Area
San Francisco River Total Upper Gila Analysis Area Virden Valley Analysis Area Lower Gila Analysis Area Analysis Area Analysis Area NWI Wetland Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Indirect Direct Indirect and Riparian Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Landcover Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Class (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)) (acres) (acres) Forested/Shrub 555.2 1,214.8 626.1 1,641.0 424.8 2,221.2 4,458.6 1,606.1 9,535.6 Riparian (30.7%) (34.3%) (43.5%) (41.6%) (59.4%) (49.9%) (28.9%) (40.6%) (34.8%) Freshwater 163.5 198.0 52.6 199.6 4.1 13.4 309.9 220.3 720.8 Emergent (9.1%) (5.6%) (3.7%) (5.1%) (0.6%) (0.3%) (2.0%) (5.6%) (2.6%) Wetland Freshwater 352.2 613.1 42.6 125.2 46.9 560.0 6,065.1 441.7 7,363.4 Forested/Shrub (19.5%) (17.3%) (3.0%) (3.2%) (6.6%) (12.6%) (39.3%) (11.2%) (26.9%) Wetland Freshwater 11.6 0 5.5 1.5 0.6 0 224.4 17.6 225.9 Pond (0.6%) (0.4%) (0.0%) (<0.1%) (1.5%) (0.4%) (0.8%) Herbaceous 146.2 377.6 141.7 820.4 3.0 0 388.0 290.9 1,586.0 Riparian (8.1%) (10.7%) (9.8%) (20.8%) (0.4%) (2.5%) (7.3%) (5.8%) Riverine 577.7 1137.9 570.5 1161.1 235.7 1,658.6 3,996.2 1,383.9 7,953.9 (32.0%) (32.1%) (39.6%) (29.4%) (33.0%) (37.2%) (2.5%) (34.9%) (29.0%) Total 1,806.4 3,541.4 1,438.8 3,948.9 715.2 4,453.2 15,442.2 3,960.5 27,385.6 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Biological Evaluation 36 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.1.3 Special Status Plant Species
Special status species are species that are identified by Federal or state agencies for special management consideration. A total of 79 special status plant species were analyzed for the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Appendix E, Table E-1: BLM, USFS, State of New Mexico, and USFWS Special Status Plant Species). Of these 79 species, seven species, including night-blooming cereus (Peniocereus greggii var. greggii), Parish’s alkali grass (Puccinellia parishii), Clifton rock daisy (Perityle ambrosiifolia), Pima Indian mallow (Abutilon parishii), Arizona alum root, Greene milkweed, and Wilcox’s pincushion cactus are known to or have the potential to occur (Table 4-3) because the Analysis Area is within the range of these species and suitable habitat is present. These seven species may directly or indirectly be affected by the project and are described in detail below.
There are two ESA-listed plant species—Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) and Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus)—both of which are unlikely to occur because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of these species, or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both. These species are not discussed further.
PIMA INDIAN MALLOW
Pima Indian mallow is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. The species has potential to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area. Habitat consists of full sunlight exposure at high elevations (1,720– 4,900 feet above mean sea level [amsl]) in desert scrub. The plant prefers rocky hillsides and ledges and canyon bottoms; in riparian zones, the plant favors flat, rocky terraces and can be found along hiking trails. Pima Indian mallow is found in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties in Arizona. It also occurs in Mexico. Pima Indian mallow is widespread, with populations appearing cyclical, with abundance increasing with rainfall. Threats may include mining activities, trampling from hikers, and hiking trail maintenance. Buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) is a threat to populations in Mexico (AZGFD 2000).
GREENE MILKWEED
Greene milkweed is listed as a Sensitive Species for Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The species has potential to occur in both the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Typical habitat for the species includes plains grassland–shortgrass communities on open hills and lower side slopes at the base of mesas, canyons, and bluffs. The species has an elevational range of 4,000–6,400 feet amsl. The species is most often found associating with blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) on bare, open patches of soil between clumps of grass or in disturbed areas. The main threats include competition with weedy annual species and livestock grazing (AZGFD 2006).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 37 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Table 4-3. Special Status Plant Species Known to Occur or Have the Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area
Common Name Special Status Analysis Area Habitat (Scientific Name) Pima Indian mallow BLM Sensitive Species for Potential to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area Full sunlight exposure at high elevations (1,720–4,900 feet (Abutilon parishii) Arizona amsl) in desert scrub. The plant prefers rocky hillsides and ledges and canyon bottoms; in riparian zones, the plant favors flat, rocky terraces and can be found along hiking trails (AZGFD 2000). Greene milkweed Gila National Forest and Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Plains grassland–shortgrass communities on open hills and (Asclepias uncialis Apache-Sitgreaves Analysis Areas lower side slopes at the base of mesas, canyons, and bluffs. ssp. uncialis) National Forests Sensitive The species has an elevational range of 4,000–6,400 feet Species amsl (AZGFD 2006). Arizona alum root Apache-Sitgreaves Potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area Inhabits mountainous regions on shaded, rocky slopes near (Heuchera National Forests Sensitive springs, streams, and riparian areas. The Arizona alum root glomerulata) Species typically occurs on north-facing slopes at elevations from 4,000 to 9,000 feet amsl (AZGFD 2004; NatureServe 2019). Night-blooming BLM Sensitive Species for Potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area Chihuahuan desertscrub and desert grassland habitats, mostly cereus New Mexico and a State of in sandy to silty, gravelly soils in gently broken to level terrain. (Peniocereus greggii New Mexico Endangered The species has an elevational range of 3,900–5,000 feet var. greggii) Species amsl (AZGFD 2015a). Clifton rock daisy BLM Sensitive Species for Potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Areas on Found in fissure and crevices near seeps and waterfalls, in the (Perityle Arizona BLM lands. It also occurs within the San Francisco River high desert within pinyon-juniper grassland above riparian ambrosiifolia) Analysis Area on private lands; thus, it has potential to occur on areas at elevations of 1,800–4,900 feet amsl (AZGFD 2005). nearby BLM lands within the San Francisco River Analysis Area. However, this species does not have the potential to occur within any Direct Impacts Area, as these locations are distant to known occurrences of this species. Parish’s alkali grass BLM Sensitive Species for Potential to occur in Virden Valley Analysis Area Occurs in disjunct populations near alkaline seeps, springs, (Puccinellia parishii) New Mexico, Apache- and seasonally wet areas that occur at the heads of drainages Sitgreaves National or on gentle slopes between 2,295 and 7,215 feet amsl Forests Sensitive Species, (AZGFD 2015b; New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council and a State of New Mexico 1999; Sivinski and Tonne 2011). Occurs in Apache, Coconino, Endangered Species and Yavapai Counties in Arizona, and Catron, Cibola, Grant, Hidalgo, McKinley, Sandoval, and San Juan Counties, New Mexico. A population occurs in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Apache County (USFWS 1998). Wilcox’s pincushion State of New Mexico Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Occurs in southwestern New Mexico in Grant and Hidalgo cactus Endangered Species Areas Counties. Habitat for the species includes semidesert (Mammillaria wrightii grasslands, Madrean pine-oak woodlands, steep, rocky var. wilcoxii) slopes, canyons, and valleys, usually on alluvial or igneous substrates. The species has an elevational range of 3,600– 6,560 feet amsl (NatureServe 2019).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 38 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
ARIZONA ALUM ROOT
Arizona alum root is listed as an Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species and has potential to occur within the San Francisco River Analysis Area. This species inhabits mountainous regions on shaded, rocky slopes near springs, streams, and riparian areas. The Arizona alum root typically occurs on north-facing slopes at elevations from 4,000 to 9,000 feet amsl. In Arizona, this plant is found in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, and Navajo Counties. In New Mexico, this species has scattered occurrences in Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties (Folk and Alexander 2015). This species is known to occur within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Within Arizona, this species is ranked as S3: Vulnerable (AZGFD 2004; NatureServe 2019).
NIGHT-BLOOMING CEREUS
Night-blooming cereus is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for the New Mexico and a State of New Mexico Endangered Species. The species has potential to occur within the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Night-blooming cereus occurs in Chihuahuan desertscrub and desert grassland habitats, mostly in sandy to silty, gravelly soils in gently broken to level terrain. The species has an elevational range of 3,900– 5,000 feet amsl. The species is typically found growing up through and supported by shrubs, especially creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa). The main threats to the species include development from roads, power lines, pipelines, windmill farms, and agricultural and urban expansion. Other threats include illegal collection, over-grazing, and the decline of the species’ pollinator hawk moth (Family Sphingidae) due to pesticides (AZGFD 2015a; New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999).
CLIFTON ROCK DAISY
The Clifton rock daisy is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. The species is known to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area on BLM lands. It also occurs within the San Francisco River Analysis Area on private lands; thus, it is possible to occur on nearby BLM lands within the San Francisco River Analysis Area. However, this species does not have the potential to occur within any Direct Impacts Area (i.e., the project footprint), as these locations are distant to known occurrences of this species. The Clifton rock daisy is typically found in fissures and crevices near seeps and waterfalls, in the high desert within pinyon-juniper grassland above riparian areas at elevations of 1,800 to 4,900 feet amsl. This species is found in Greenlee County, Arizona on cliffs overlooking Eagle Creek and the San Francisco River. This species is classified as Critically Imperiled within Arizona, the only location that it occurs, according to NatureServe (AZGFD 2005; NatureServe 2019; SEINet 2019).
PARISH’S ALKALI GRASS
Parish’s alkali grass is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico, an Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species, and a State of New Mexico Endangered Species. The species has potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Parish’s alkali grass occurs in disjunct populations in Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Colorado with fewer than 100 acres of total known occupied habitat (Sivinski and Tonne 2011). This grass grows near alkaline springs, seeps, and seasonally wet areas that occur at the heads of drainages or on gentle slopes between 2,600 and 7,200 feet amsl in New Mexico and 2,700 to 5,440 feet amsl in Arizona. The species requires continuously damp soils from late winter to spring. The species tends to grow in the vicinity of saltgrass, alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), sedges (Carex spp.), and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.). The main threats to the species are activities that dry up springs or seeps (AZGFD 2015b; New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council 1999). Within the Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, this species occurs in Apache County (USFWS 1998).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 39 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
WILCOX’S PINCUSHION CACTUS
Wilcox’s pincushion cactus is listed as a State of New Mexico Endangered Species. The species has potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. Wilcox’s pincushion cactus occurs in southwestern New Mexico in Grant and Hidalgo Counties. Habitat for the species includes semidesert grasslands, Madrean pine-oak woodlands, steep, rocky slopes, canyons, and valleys, usually on alluvial or igneous substrates. The species has an elevational range of 3,600–6,560 feet amsl. Threats to the species include horticultural collecting and loss of habitat in its limited range (NatureServe 2019; SEINet 2019).
4.2 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE 4.2.1 Aquatic Wildlife Habitat
Aquatic habitats in the Analysis Area include the riverine environment, irrigation ditches, and springs, seeps, and other water improvements.
Within the Analysis Area there are 12 irrigation ditches that provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. The irrigation ditches run continuously and provide habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms, such as native and nonnative amphibians and invertebrates and water sources to support riparian and wetland habitat. The vegetation adjacent to the ditches can provide habitat for special status species, travel corridors for other types of wildlife, and water sources for terrestrial wildlife. The irrigation ditches in the Direct Impacts Area for each Analysis Area are described below.
Within the Analysis Area there are 21 springs (USGS 2018), four water improvements (e.g., stock water ponds) on BLM-administered lands (BLM 2019a), and 51 water improvements on USFS-administered lands (USFS 2018). Springs, seeps, and water improvements are discussed for each Analysis Area below.
In general, springs found within the Analysis Areas provide water sources for sensitive vegetation types, such as riparian areas. The vegetation surrounding springs can provide habitat for special status species and a travel corridor for other types of wildlife. Additionally, springs can contribute to aquatic habitat within the Analysis Area by providing a water source for a waterbody and providing cold spring waters that could be inhabited by fish. Water improvements within the Analysis Area (including those used for livestock grazing) provide drinking water sources for terrestrial wildlife and can be inhabited by native and nonnative amphibians and invertebrates.
UPPER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
Aquatic surveys in the Direct Impact Area were limited to lands managed by The Nature Conservancy and FMI. Landowner access was not obtained for the remainder of the Direct Impacts Area. Aquatic surveys were conducted in October 2018 (SWCA 2019c). Additionally, FMI conducts regular aquatics surveys within the direct impact area from Bennett Wash downstream to Mangas Creek (Marshall 2017). The Indirect Impacts Area downstream of the Bill Evans diversion has been surveyed annually by the NMDGF since 1988. The long-term permanent fish monitoring sites are located at Iron Bridge, Cherokee Canyon, Ash Canyon, and Sunset Diversion downstream from the Direct Impacts Area, and on the East, Middle, and West Forks upstream of the Direct Impacts Area (NMDGF 2018b).
Riverine habitat upstream of the Upper Gila Analysis Area is varied and described by Paroz et al. (2010). The East Fork and Middle Fork meander through meadows and have gravel-sand substrates with few boulders and woody debris. The West Fork is canyon-bound with coarse substrata. Whitney et al. (2015)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 40 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
describe the riverine environment throughout the Upper Gila Analysis Area, as one with variability in anthropogenic modification and stream size and magnitude. Five habitat types were identified, including small tributaries, large tributary, canyon-bound mainstem, and low- and high-modification valley main stem. Large forest wildfires and subsequent flooding have influenced aquatic habitats and the fish community.
The Direct Impacts Area is located in an alluvial valley downstream of the confluence with Mogollon Creek. The project location has been shaped by man-made levees that have been breached and eroded during the 2005 flood, which caused the river to avulse forming a bifurcated channel (Mussetter Engineering [MEI] 2006). Downstream of the project location, three large tributaries (Duck Creek, Bear Creek, and Mangas Creek) contribute alluvial sediments. The site is composed of alluvial sediments and the channel morphology is primarily pool-riffle with fine-grained mid-channel bars (MEI 2006). Downstream reaches in the Indirect Impacts Area near Redrock Gage traverse through two canyon reaches, the Middle Box and the Lower Box. The channel morphology is pool-riffle with riffles composed of cobble-boulder sized materials (MEI 2006).
Riverine aquatic habitat in the Direct Impact Area is dominated cobble substrate with pool, riffle run complexes. Turner and Probst (2014) characterize the aquatic habitat at the Riverside sampling site (NMDGF 2018a) as a single channel with low-relief sand-gravel islands. Habitat included shallow backwaters and embayments and moderately steep-gradient cobble-bottom riffles, and pool habitat associated with uprooted trees. The most common habitat type sampled was moderate velocity and moderate depth runs and shoals. Wildfires in the upper basin have contributed to heavy sediment and ash inputs into the river contributing to lateral migration of the river channel (Turner and Propst 2014).
Habitat availability is influenced by three push-up diversions that service irrigation diches. All three ditch associations in the Upper Gila Analysis Area currently divert water from the Gila River by putting bulldozers in the riverbed and creating “push-up” diversions out of riverbed materials. The push-up diversion stays in the river all year long (i.e., they are not removed at the end of the irrigation season and continue to divert river water into irrigation ditches even when farmers are no longer irrigating). The push-up diversions are actively bulldozed during the duration of the irrigation season (June– September). The diversions typically are damaged (one to three times a year in a normal year), which requires irrigators to repair or rebuild the structure. Most often such damage occurs during the monsoon season (July–September). The Gila River dries up frequently between the existing Fort West diversion and the Gila Farms diversion. The area experiences varying degrees of dryness depending on the precipitation during the year. During low flow conditions, dry areas may extend from the diversion downstream approximately 1.2 miles (SWCA 2014). During fish surveys in October 2018, SWCA found the Fort West push-up diversion in place and all water was diverted from the channel, drying the river for approximately 2 miles. However, as return flows come back to the river, some downstream reaches are rewetted. Intermittent drying also occurs downstream of the Direct Impacts Area and has been documented in the lower reaches for the Indirect Analysis Area above the Sunset Diversion (ISC 2000).
Within the Direct Impacts Area there are four irrigation ditches, including the Gila Farms Ditch (19,635 feet), Fort West Ditch (39,128 feet), Upper Gila Ditch (39,515 feet), and the McMillen Ditch (1,011 feet).
The Upper Gila Analysis Area contains 14 springs and 10 water improvements on USFS-administered lands. All 14 springs are in the northern portion of the Direct Impacts Area, and three of these springs have also been classified as water improvements. Seven of the water improvements are in the northern portion of the project location and three are in the southern portion. Three of the water improvements are springs that have been developed for well purposes, three are springs that have been developed for
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 41 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
livestock purposes as metal or concrete troughs, three have been developed for livestock purposes as pit tanks, and one has been developed as a head.
VIRDEN VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA
The Virden Valley Analysis Area was not surveyed as the landowners did not permit access. During a site visit in summer 2018, the river was observed to be much wider in Virden than at the Upper Gila Analysis Area with sand being the dominant substrate. This is a low-gradient reach with loss of sediment transport capacity resulting in deposition of finer sand and gravels and a low-flow braided channel morphology (MEI 2006; HDR 2019b). Fine sediments are continually moved out of the reach forming a single- channel pool riffle condition (HDR 2019b).
There are two irrigation canals in the Virden Valley Analysis Area, the New Model Canal (24,755 feet) and the Sunset Canal (58,221 feet).
Downstream of the project location at Cosper Crossing in Arizona, the river dries during low-flow conditions. HDR (2019a) reports that Cosper Crossing dries 79% of the time when discharge is less than 40 cfs.
The Virden Valley Analysis Area contains one spring and four water improvements on BLM- administered lands. The spring is in the southeastern portion of the project location and is classified as a water improvement. All four water improvements are also in the southeastern portion of the Analysis Area. Two of the water improvements are unknown developments (one of which is the spring), one is a drinker for livestock purposes, and one is a water storage tank.
SAN FRANCISCO RIVER ANALYSIS AREA
Aquatic surveys in the direct impact area were limited to lands managed by the USFS approximately 3 miles downstream of the Spurgeon Diversion near the W-S Ditch Diversion. Landowner access was not granted throughout the remainder of the San Francisco River Analysis Area. Aquatic surveys were conducted in November 2018 (SWCA 2019c). The Indirect Impacts Area downstream of the proposed diversion structures has been surveyed annually by the NMDGF since 1988. The long-term permanent fish monitoring sites are located near Glenwood, New Mexico downstream of the project location and the Tularosa River upstream of the project location (NMDGF 2018b).
The riverine habitat in the San Francisco River Analysis Area is dominated by sandy sediment with cobble. The San Francisco River in this area consists mostly of riffle/run complexes with less pool habitat than the mainstem Gila. Aquatic habitat is influenced by current push-up diversion operations at the Spurgeon Ditch #2 Diversion and the Thomason Flat Diversion and a permanent diversion structure for W-S Ditch. In November 2018, SWCA field staff observed the existing push-up diversion at the proposed Spurgeon Diversion site near the U.S. Highway 180 bridge was still in place and diverting the river into the ditch. The impacts of the push-up diversions would be similar to those identified in the Upper Gila Analysis Area—habitat disturbance due to maintenance and intermittent drying during low flow periods. The San Francisco River is mostly a perennial river in New Mexico. However, the channel near Whitewater Creek is subject to sedimentation and siltation (New Mexico Environment Department 2018). The W-S Ditch Diversion creates large sediment deposition upstream and downstream of the diversion. During the November 2018 surveys, fish were only found downstream of the diversion and the substrate upstream of the diversion lacked periphyton and macroinvertebrates, indicating it had been dry prior to the November survey.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 42 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
The San Francisco River Analysis Area contains six irrigation ditches, including the Spurgeon Ditch #2 (8,689 feet), Thomason Flat Ditch (16,826 feet), W-S Ditch (8,644 feet), Pleasanton East Side Ditch (15,650 feet), East Pleasanton Lateral (2,007 feet), and Pleasanton West Side Ditch (11,883 feet).
The San Francisco River Analysis Area contains six springs and 42 water improvements on USFS- administered lands. The springs and water improvements are dispersed throughout the Direct Impacts Area but occur in higher density toward the southern portion.
LOWER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
The Lower Gila Analysis Area below the confluence of Gila and San Francisco Rivers was not surveyed as there are no direct project impacts. This reach is an open valley reach. Channel widths range from 70 feet to 220 feet and vary in response to floods and droughts (MEI 2006; HDR 2019b). Aquatic habitat is influenced by scour and bank erosion associated with flood events and sediment deposition and formation of bars and a single channel pool-riffle condition.
4.2.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
A wide variety of terrestrial wildlife habitats are found within the Analysis Area. Terrestrial habitat is made up of a combination of landcover classes, physical factors (soil, water availability, topography, elevation, weather, and climate), historical land use patterns, and prior disturbances that affect how terrestrial wildlife use the Analysis Area. Section 4.1.1 and Table 4-1 list the landcover types and acreages by project location that make up wildlife habitat. A description of each landcover class is given in Appendix F.
UPPER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
Within the Upper Gila Analysis Area, the most abundant landcover types include upland scrub, woodland, and agricultural vegetation communities with the most commonly occurring including Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (3,237.2 acres), Mogollon Chaparral (2,635.0 acres), Agriculture (1,977.7 acres), North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (1,436.8 acres), Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe (1,242.2 acres), and Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub (1,514.70 acres). Six additional landcover types are present in the Upper Gila Analysis Area (see Table 4-1). The North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland is found along the Gila River and as narrow stringers along some irrigation ditches. These landcover types have varying levels of natural and anthropogenic disturbance and generally provide habitat for upland species and species that utilize riparian and agricultural habitats.
VIRDEN VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA
Within the Virden Valley Analysis Area, the most abundant landcover types associated with terrestrial wildlife habitats are the Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub (3,686.8 acres), Agriculture (3,352.3 acres), and Chihuahuan Creosotebush Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub (2,054.7 acres). Twelve additional landcover types are present in the Virden Valley Analysis Area (see Table 4-1).
SAN FRANCISCO RIVER ANALYSIS AREA
Within the San Francisco River Analysis Area, the most abundant landcover types associated with terrestrial wildlife habitats are the Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub (2,150.8 acres),
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 43 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (1,916.5 acres), Mogollon Chaparral (1,418.6 acres), and North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (1,219.6 acres). Thirteen additional landcover types are present in the San Francisco River Analysis Area (see Table 4-1).
LOWER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
Within the Lower Gila Analysis Area the most abundant landcover types associated with terrestrial wildlife habitats are the North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque (2,298.5 acres), Agriculture (4,620.0 acres), Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub (2,631.1 acres), Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub (2,295.0 acres), Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (1,939.7 acres), and Chihuahuan Creosotebush Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub (1,367.8 acres). Ten additional landcover types are present in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (see Table 4-1).
4.2.3 General Wildlife Species
A variety of wildlife species occur in the Analysis Area, including mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, fish, and invertebrates. More information on these species can be found in Cartron (2010), Degenhardt et al. (1996), Findley (1987), Painter et al. (2017), Shook (2017), and Sublette et al. (1990).
During the general biological and the protocol surveys, several wildlife species were observed in the Direct Impacts Areas, including coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), rock squirrel (Otospermophilus variegatus), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), ornate tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus), whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis sp.), Sonora mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense), black-tailed rattlesnake (Crotalus molossus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata). Native fish included longfin dace (Agosia chrysogaster), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis), desert sucker (Catostomus clarkii), spikedace (Meda fulgida), and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis). Nonnative fish included red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris). Wildlife species observed in the Direct Impacts Areas during general biological surveys, fish surveys, and herpetological surveys are in the survey results technical memoranda (see SWCA 2019a–d). Spikedace and loach minnow were the only Federally listed species observed during 2018 field reconnaissance efforts. Other special status wildlife were observed during SWCA’s 2018 field surveys. However, these field visits only represent wildlife species that were observed during a snapshot in time for a small proportion of the Analysis Area, and other Federally listed and other special status species may occur.
4.2.4 Conservation Areas
CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs) are areas in the state considered to have superior potential for conserving SGCN. According to the NMDGF, COAs provide a landscape-level view of high biodiversity areas within New Mexico and can be used as a non-regulatory tool to help focus and prioritize statewide actions to locations where conservation actions may maximize opportunities to prevent future listings of
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 44 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
species, and to promote recovery of species that have already been listed. However, COAs can serve a vital function in prioritizing wildlife and habitat restoration efforts to the most critical wildlife needs within a state, as directed by the congressional language for the State Wildlife Grants Program and its companion State Wildlife Action Plan (NMDGF 2016).
Several COAs overlap with the boundaries of the Analysis Areas. These include the Gila River Headwaters, Gila Highlands, Lower Gila River, and San Francisco River COAs.
IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS Appendix A, Figure A.5 shows Important Bird Areas (IBAs) that overlap with the Analysis Area. Several IBAs also overlap with COAs in the Analysis Areas. The Gila-Cliff Area IBA is located in the Gila River Valley from upper Gila Box downstream to approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the U.S. Highway 180 bridge over the Gila River. Much of the upstream end of this IBA occurs within the Gila National Forest and on Nature Conservancy property, while the downstream end is located predominantly on private land, including U Bar Ranch and FMI-owned land. This IBA is approximately 2,767.8 acres and is located within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area (2,396.2 acres of overlap) and Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area (371.6 acres of overlap). This IBA includes the U-Bar Ranch, which has the largest known breeding concentration of southwestern willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii extimus) in the boxelder, cottonwood, willow, and Russian olive riparian habitat of the Gila River. The area also supports special status species including Lucy’s warbler (Oreothlypis luciae), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), and common black hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) (Audubon 2019a).
The Gila Bird Area IBA is located along the Gila River and its associated valleys from the Gila National Forest boundary to near Redrock, New Mexico. The IBA is located approximately 4 miles south (downstream) of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and occurs completely within the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. This approximately 1,997.4-acre IBA encompasses extensive areas of riparian habitat as well as some upland habitat. The IBA overlaps with the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area on approximately 321.3 acres. Two Federally listed bird species, the southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo, breed in portions of the Gila Bird Area IBA. Also present in the IBA are special status species such as Lucy’s warbler, brown-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus tyrannulus), and common black hawk. This IBA is on lands administered by the BLM and the Gila National Forest (Audubon 2019b).
The Lower Gila Box IBA is approximately 1,948.8 acres and is located northwest of Lordsburg along the Gila Corridor. This IBA is located about 3 miles east (upstream) of the Virden Valley project location and overlaps with approximately 504.0 acres of the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area and 60.7 acres of the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area. This IBA includes extensive riparian habitats as well as areas with oak and mesquite. It is located in a designated Wilderness Study Area (BLM) and is also an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM). This IBA supports many bird species of conservation concern, including breeding southwestern willow flycatchers and yellow-billed cuckoos (Audubon 2019c). Other bird species of conservation concern found in the IBA include scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), Mexican whip-poor-will (Antrostomus arizonae), Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), desert purple martin (Progne subis hesperia), Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), and elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi). This IBA is on lands administered by the BLM.
The Blue and San Francisco Rivers Ecosystem, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests IBA is located along the Blue River as it enters Arizona from New Mexico to its confluence with the San Francisco River, including selected tributaries of the Campbell Blue River and KP Creek. This IBA also includes the San Francisco River from where it enters Arizona to Clifton, Arizona. The IBA is approximately 106,642 acres and is located within the San Francisco River Indirect Impacts Area within Arizona (overlaps with 1,301.5 acres). This IBA is remote and provides refugia for the Mexican spotted owl and
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 45 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
northern goshawk. However, habitat for these species is not present in the portion of the IBA that overlaps with the San Francisco River Analysis Area. This IBA supports habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers and other riparian-dependent bird species including Bell’s vireo, Lucy’s warbler, common black hawk, great egret (Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and wintering bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Audubon 2019d). The lands within the IBA are managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, and private lands within the IBA boundary are not included in the IBA.
4.2.5 Neotropical Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, or possessing of migratory birds unless permitted by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. On January 10, 2001, Executive Order 13186 was signed placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. The Executive Order supplements the MBTA, which has been in effect since the early 1900s. In 2017, the U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitor interpreted the MBTA to not apply to incidental take through activities that do not have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, nests, or eggs.
Golden and bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Under this Act, take is defined as to “. . . pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb.” Disturb is further defined as “. . . to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” Bald and golden eagles are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which also prohibits take.
Existing habitat conditions within the Analysis Area for the potentially affected migratory bird species have been altered and degraded over time by a combination of human activities, such as agriculture, existing water management activities including the operation and maintenance of existing diversion structures, and recreational activities. These impacts lead to the degradation, fragmentation, and destruction of functional habitats. The level of impact varies both by the intensity and extent of the activity, as well as the specific type of impact on the habitat. In each case, the original natural characteristics of the land were altered or eliminated, disrupting the functional ecosystem and the associated ecological value for aquatic and terrestrial species (Southerland 1993).
4.2.6 Special Status Wildlife Species
Special status species includes those species that are identified by Federal or state agencies for special management consideration and Federally listed threatened and endangered species. In total, 174 special status wildlife species and subspecies were analyzed for the potential to occur in the Analysis Areas (see Appendix E, Table E.2). Of these 174 species, 71 are possible or known to occur within at least one portion of the Analysis Areas. Of these 71 species that are known or have the potential to occur, 31 are listed under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act, 28 are USFS Sensitive Species, and 35 are BLM Sensitive Species that have the potential to occur on lands administered by the BLM in New Mexico or that are verified or have potential or historic occurrences on lands administered by the BLM in Arizona. There are 28 wildlife species listed under the ESA in Hidalgo, Grant, and Catron Counties in New Mexico, and Graham and Greenlee Counties in Arizona. Proposed or designated critical habitat in the Gila River for terrestrial wildlife species listed under the ESA is displayed in Appendix A, Figures A.6– A.16 and for fish species in Appendix A; Figures A.17–A.27. Proposed or designated critical habitat in the San Francisco River for terrestrial wildlife species listed under the ESA is displayed in Appendix A, Figures A.28–A.32 and for fish species in Appendix A, Figures A.33–A.37.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 46 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
These species are summarized in Table 4-4. Detailed species descriptions follow. Any remaining species have been excluded from analysis because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of the species or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 47 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Table 4-4. Special Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur within the Analysis Area
Amphibians Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Arizona toad BLM Sensitive Species for New Known to occur in the Upper Gila and Lower Gila Analysis Rocky streams and canyons in mixed broadleaf riparian, (Anaxyrus Mexico and Arizona Areas and potentially occurs in the San Francisco River cottonwood-willow riparian, and mesquite (Prosopis spp.) microscaphus) and Virden Valley Analysis Area (AZGFD 2013a; BLM bosque areas at elevations from about 6,000 to 9,000 feet 2019b) amsl (AZGFD 2013a). Chiricahua leopard ESA (Threatened) Known to occur in the Arizona portions of the San Springs, livestock tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and frog Francisco River Analysis Area (AZHGIS 2019; Ritter rivers at elevations of 3,281–8,890 feet amsl (AZGFD (Rana 2019) 2015c). chiricahuensis) Lowland leopard frog BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area, with Small to medium-sized streams and occasionally in small (Lithobates potential to occur in the portions of the Upper Gila and ponds at elevations below 4,920 feet amsl (NMDGF 2018a). yavapaiensis) Virden Valley Analysis Areas within Arizona Sonoran Desert toad State of New Mexico Threatened Potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area Vegetation communities with mesquite, creosote bush, and (Incilius alvarius) other shrubs, forbs, and grasses at elevations around 5,000 feet amsl (BISON-M 2019; NMDGF 2018a). Birds Abert's towhee Gila National Forest Sensitive Known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Cottonwood-willows with a dense understory of shrubs and (Melozone aberti) Species and a State of New Mexico Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) mesquite woodlands (BISON-M 2019). Threatened species American peregrine BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Known to occur in the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and Many habitats, typically with cliffs for nesting and open falcon Lower Gila Analysis Areas and the potential to occur in landscapes for foraging. (Falco peregrinus the San Francisco River Analysis Area (eBird 2019; BLM anatum) 2019b) Arizona Bell's vireo BLM Sensitive Species for New Known to occur at the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Native and nonnative-dominated riparian areas and areas (Vireo bellii arizonae) Mexico and a Gila National Forest and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) with dense shrubby vegetation (New Mexico Avian Sensitive Species and is a Conservation Partners 2017). subspecies of Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), which is listed as a State of New Mexico Threatened Species Bald eagle BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Known to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Require large trees or cliffs near water with a good supply of (Haliaeetus and a State of New Mexico Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas (eBird fish (Buehler 2000). leucocephalus) Threatened Species 2019; BLM 2019b) Bendire’s thrasher BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Favors open grasslands, shrublands, or woodlands with (Toxostoma Mexico Analysis Areas scattered shrubs or trees and is not found in areas with bendirei) dense vegetation (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 2017a). Botteri’s sparrow BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Grassland, savanna, upland mesquite grassland, and oak (Peucaea botterii) Mexico Analysis Areas, and is known to occur in the Lower Gila woodland (Webb and Bock 2012). Analysis Area (BLM 2019b).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 48 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Birds Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Broad-billed State of New Mexico Threatened Potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Riparian woodlands at elevations ranging from 2,800– hummingbird Species and Virden Valley Analysis Areas 5,500 feet amsl (Powers and Wethington 1999). (Cynanthus latirostris) Chestnut-collared BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Short-grass prairie and desert grasslands dominated by low longspur Mexico Analysis Areas grasses and forbs (Bleho et al. 2015). (Calcarius ornatus) Common black hawk Gila National Forest Sensitive Known to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Riparian obligate that favors remote, mature gallery forest (Buteogallus Species and State of New Mexico and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) corridors with perennial and occasionally intermittent anthracinus) Threatened Species streams (BISON-M 2019). Common ground- Gila National Forest Sensitive Known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Agricultural areas, mesquite flats, near edges of desert dove Species and State of New Mexico Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) riparian areas, and in desert washes at elevations below (Columbina Endangered Species 5,410 feet amsl (BISON-M 2019). passerina) Costa’s hummingbird Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Found nesting in a variety of plants in Guadalupe Canyon, (Calypte costae) Species and State of New Mexico and Virden Valley Analysis Areas including netleaf hackberry, algerita (Mahonia Threatened Species haematocarpa), and Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica) (Baltosser and Scott 1996). Desert purple martin BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the westernmost portion of the Lower Purple martins are cavity nesters in saguaro cacti, trees, (Progne subis Gila Analysis Area buildings, and cliffs (Audubon 2019e). The hesperia hesperia) subspecies nests in deserts at low elevation in saguaro cacti (Wiggins 2005). Ferruginous hawk BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Open grasslands, agricultural fields, flats, and desert (Buteo regalis) Area and is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis (BISON-M 2019). The species can be found throughout Area (BLM 2019b) Arizona and New Mexico during the non-breeding season (September through April) (AZGFD 2013b). Gila woodpecker Gila National Forest Sensitive Known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Lower-elevational woodlands, especially those with (Melanerpes Species and State of New Mexico Analysis Areas cottonwood (Populus fremontii) along stream courses uropygialis) Threatened Species (BISON-M 2019). Gilded flicker BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area and has Cottonwoods or other trees in riparian areas at lower (Colaptes the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis elevations (BISON-M 2019). chrysoides) Area (eBird 2019) Golden eagle Protected by the Bald and Golden Known to occur in all Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) Prairies, open wooded country, and barren areas, (Aquila chrysaetos) Eagle Protection Act and is a BLM particularly in hilly or mountainous regions (BISON-M 2019). Sensitive Species for Arizona Prefers to nest in cliffs. Gray vireo Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur at the Upper Gila and San Francisco Pinyon-juniper and scrub oak habitats and preferring gently (Vireo vicinior) Species and State of New Mexico River Analysis Areas sloped canyons, rocky outcrops, ridgetops, and moderate Threatened Species scrub cover (BISON-M 2019). Least tern Endangered under the ESA and is a Known to occur within the Lower Gila Analysis Area Sandy beaches, sandbars, gravel pits, or exposed flats (Sternula antillarum) State of New Mexico Endangered (eBird 2019) along shorelines of inland rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and Species drainage systems (USFWS 2009).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 49 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Birds Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Mexican spotted owl Threatened under the ESA Potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Mature montane forests and woodlands and steep, shady, (Strix occidentalis Area, which contains designated critical habitat (Unit wooded canyons (USFWS 1995b). lucida) UGM-7) Neotropic cormorant State of New Mexico Threatened Known to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Ponds or lakes where fish are present (BISON-M 2019). (Phalacrocorax Species River Analysis Areas and has potential to occur in the brasilianus) Virden Valley Analysis Area (eBird 2019) Northern beardless- State of New Mexico Endangered Known to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area and Lowland riparian woodland with adjacent scrub. Typical tyrannulet Species possible to occur in the Virden Valley area (eBird 2019) plant species in these areas include willow (Salix spp.), (Camptostoma cottonwood, mesquite, and canyon hackberry (Celtis imberbe) reticulata) (BISON-M 2019). Pinyon jay BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Pinyon-juniper woodland is used most often but flocks have (Gymnorhinus Mexico and Arizona River Analysis Areas also bred in sagebrush, scrub oak, and chaparral cyanocephalus) communities (BISON-M 2019). Southwestern willow State of New Mexico Endangered Known to occur within all Analysis Areas (AZGFD 2019a; Dense riparian vegetation near surface water or where soil flycatcher Species and ESA Endangered eBird 2019; Shook 2018a; USFWS unpublished data) moisture is high enough to maintain dense vegetation (Empidonax traillii State of Arizona 1A species (BISON-M 2019). extimus) Sprague’s pipit BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area Shortgrass prairies as well as overgrazed areas and (Anthus spragueii) Mexico agricultural fields (BISON-M 2019). Varied bunting State of New Mexico Threatened Potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area Dense stands of mesquite and associated growth in canyon (Passerina Species bottoms (BISON-M 2019). versicolor) Virginia’s warbler BLM Sensitive Species for New Known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Pinyon-juniper, oak woodlands, and mixed-conifer forests (Oreothlypis Mexico Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) with scrubby vegetation also present (Olson and Martin virginiae) 1999). Western burrowing BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Virden Valley and Lower Gila Croplands, pastures, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated owl Mexico and Arizona and a USFS Analysis Areas areas (USFWS 2003). (Athene cunicularia Gila National Forest and Apache- hypugaea) Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species Yellow-billed cuckoo ESA Threatened Known to occur in all Analysis Areas (AZGFD 2019b; Low- to moderate-elevation mature riparian woodlands (Coccyzus eBird 2019; Griffin 2016; Shook 2018b) (BISON-M 2019). americanus) Desert sucker BLM Sensitive Species for New Known to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Rapids and flowing pools of streams, typically over bottoms (Catostomus clarki) Mexico and Arizona, Gila National Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas (NMDGF of gravel-rubble with sandy silt. Juvenile suckers are Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves 2018b; Blasius 2019a) typically found in quiet pools along the bank (BISON-M National Forests Sensitive Species 2019).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 50 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Fish Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Gila chub ESA Endangered Known to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area, Gila chub commonly inhabits pools in smaller streams and (Gila intermedia)* and possible to occur within the Virden Valley Analysis cienegas throughout its range at elevations between Area (USFWS 2017a) 2,000 and 5,500 feet. Riparian plants typically associated with these habitats include willows, tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), cottonwood, mule-fat, and ash. The species is highly secretive and is dependent on undercut banks, terrestrial vegetation, boulders, root wads, fallen logs, and thick overhanging or aquatic vegetation for cover (USFWS 2015a). Gila trout ESA Threatened and State of New Potential to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. Occurs Small headwater streams with limited pool availability and (Oncorhynchus Mexico Threatened Species in West Fork due to stocking. generally low base flows (BISON-M 2019). gilae) Gila topminnow ESA Endangered and State of New Possible to occur in the Upper Gila and Lower Gila Shallow warm water in a moderate current with dense (Poeciliopsis Mexico Threatened Species Analysis Areas aquatic vegetation and algae mats (BISON-M 2019). occidentalis occidentalis) Headwater chub Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Pools and runs near cover such as rocks, root wads, (Gila nigra)† Species and a State of New Mexico River Analysis Areas undercuts, or deep water (BISON-M 2019). Endangered Species Loach minnow ESA Endangered and State of New Known to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Moderate to swift current velocity and gravel or cobble (Tiaroga cobitis) Mexico Endangered Species River Analysis Areas and has designated critical habitat substrates (BISON-M 2019). within all portions of the Analysis Areas (NMDGF 2018b). Potential to occur in the Virden and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. Longfin dace BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Known to occur in all portions of the Analysis Area Riffle areas with moderate to rapid water velocities and (Agosia (NMDGF 2018b; Blasius 2019a) moderate to high gradients (BISON-M 2019). chrysogaster) Razorback sucker ESA Endangered The species is considered extirpated from the Analysis Mainstream channels to the backwaters of medium and (Xyrauchen texanus) Area as only historical (pre-1940) accounts of the species large streams of rivers (BISON-M 2019). are documented (USFWS 2002) Roundtail chub BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in all of the Analysis Areas Cool to warm water in mid-elevation streams and rivers (Gila robusta)‡ Mexico and Arizona, Gila National where pools up to 6.5 feet deep occur adjacent to swifter Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves riffles and runs (BISON-M 2019). National Forests Sensitive Species, and State of New Mexico Endangered Species Sonora sucker BLM Sensitive Species for New Known to occur in all of the Analysis Areas (NMDGF Warm-water rivers to trout streams (AZGFD 2002a) (Catostomus Mexico and Arizona 2018b; BLM 2018). insignis) Gila National Forest and Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 51 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Fish Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Speckled dace BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Known to occur in the upper Gila and San Francisco, Bottom dweller that favors shallow headwater pools and (Rhinichthys Virden Valley, and potential to occur in the Virden Valley runs, and small to medium rivers osculus) Analysis Areas (NMDGF 2018b; BLM 2018). Spikedace ESA Endangered, State of New Known to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Mid-water habitats of runs, pools, and swirling eddies (Meda fulgida) Mexico Endangered River Analysis Areas and has designated critical habitat (AZGFD 2013c) within all portions of the Analysis Area (NMDGF 2018b). Potential to occur in the Virden and Lower Gila Analysis Areas.
Invertebrates
A caddisfly Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Potential to occur within the San Francisco River Analysis Very little is known about this species’ range and habitat (Lepidostoma Sensitive Species Area requirements (USFS 2013b). apache) A caddisfly Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Potential to occur within the San Francisco River Analysis Cool-water springs, streams, and rivers of swift-flowing (Lepidostoma knulli) Sensitive Species Area current. Large cobbles with low embeddedness are common features in the habitat (USFS 2013b). Dashed ringtail Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Shallow, rocky streams in mountains, in open desert or (Erpetogomphus Species River Analysis Areas pine-oak woodland (BISON-M 2019). Most recent finding heterodon) detected them near the Gila Cliff Dwellings along the Gila River (iNaturalist 2019). “Gila” mayfly Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area High-gradient, warm, medium-size river (BISON-M 2019). (Lachlania Species Last known records detected larva along the East Fork Gila dencyanna) River above the confluence with the Middle Fork (NatureServe 2019). Monarch butterfly BLM Sensitive Species for New Potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Occurs in a variety of habitats (BISON-M 2019). (Danaus plexippus Mexico and Arizona and Virden Valley Analysis Areas and known to occur in plexippus) the Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b) Notodontid moth Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Occurs on shrubs, trees, and leguminous plants, likely oak- (Euhyparpax rosea) Species River Analysis Areas juniper or oak-pine-juniper, and the larvae may feed on oaks otodontid moth.
Mammals
Allen’s lappet- Sensitive Species for Gila National Potential to occur in all of the Analysis Areas Ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and riparian areas with browed bat Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves sycamores, cottonwoods, and willows (BISON-M 2019). (Idionycteris National Forests and a BLM phyllotis) Sensitive Species for Arizona Arizona gray squirrel Gila National Forest Sensitive Known to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area Dense, mixed broad-leaf forested canyon floors and (Sciurus arizonensis Species. drainages within conifer or evergreen forests (AZGFD arizonensis) 2014a).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 52 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Mammals Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Arizona myotis BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in San Francisco River, Virden Valley, Ponderosa pine and oak-pine woodlands near water (Myotis occultus) and Lower Gila Analysis Areas (AZGFD 2011a). California leaf-nosed BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the San Francisco River and Virden Day roosts in rock shelters, caves, and mines during the bat Valley Analysis Areas. Known to occur in the Lower Gila summer months. In the winter months, mines which extend (Macrotus Analysis Area (BLM 2019b) over 100 feet from the entrance are preferred for warmth californicus) (AZGFD 2014b). Cave myotis BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the San Francisco River and Virden Roosts in caves, tunnels, and bridges near water and is (Myotis velifer) Valley Analysis Areas. Known to occur in the Lower Gila found in desertscrub of creosote bush, palo verde, and cacti Analysis Area (BLM 2019b). (AZGFD 2002b). Mexican wolf ESA- Endangered, Endangered by Potential to occur in portions of the Upper Gila and San Montane woodlands, upper Sonoran woodlands and (Canis lupus baileyi) the State of New Mexico Francisco River Analysis Areas grasslands, Madrean evergreen woodland, and semidesert grasslands. Mexican gray wolves are found at elevations ranging from 3,000 to 12,000 feet amsl (AZGFD 2001a). Greater western BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the San Francisco River, Virden Roosts consist of deep, tight rock crevices near cliffs of the mastiff bat Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas Lower and Upper Sonoran desertscrub (AZGFD 2014c). (Eumops perotis californicus) Gunnison's prairie Gila National Forest Sensitive Potential to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area and is Shortgrass and midgrass prairies and grass-shrub habitats dog (prairie Species and a BLM Sensitive known to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area with an elevational range of 6,700–12,000 feet amsl population) Species for Arizona (BISON-M 2019). (Cynomys gunnisoni) Hooded skunk Gila National Forest Sensitive Known to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Ponderosa pine forest to deserts, typically near water or (Mephitis macroura Species River Analysis Areas (BISON-M 2019) riparian vegetation (BISON-M 2019). milleri) Lesser long-nosed State of New Mexico Threatened, Potential to occur in the Virden Valley and Lower Gila Desert grasslands, canyons, and scrublands including lower bat BLM Sensitive Species for New Analysis Areas edges of oak woodlands (BISON-M 2019). (Leptonycteris Mexico and Arizona yerbabuenae) Pale Townsend’s Gila National Forest and Apache- Potential to occur in all Analysis Areas Scrub-grassland, desertscrub, semidesert shrublands, big-eared bat Sitgreaves National Forests chaparral, saxicoline brush, tundra, open montane forests, (Corynorhinus Sensitive Species and a subspecies spruce-fir, mixed hardwood-conifer, and oak woodlands and townsendii of Townsend’s big-eared bat forests (AZGFD 2003a). pallescens) (Corynorhinus townsendii) that is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona Spotted bat Gila National Forest and Apache- Potential to occur in all Analysis Areas Habitat is seasonal; during warm months the species is (Euderma Sitgreaves National Forests found in ponderosa pine woodlands; during cooler months, maculatum) Sensitive Species; a BLM Sensitive the species is found at lower elevations in pinyon-juniper Species for New Mexico and woodlands and semi-desert shrublands (AZGFD 2003b). Arizona and, a State of New Mexico Threatened Species
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 53 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Mammals Special Status Analysis Area Habitat Springerville silky Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Sparse vegetation of shortgrass and tumbleweeds with the pocket mouse Sensitive Species Area presence of sandy, rocky areas (AZGFD 2002c). (Perognathus flavus goodpasteri) Western red bat Gila National Forest and Apache- Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Riparian and wooded areas at elevations ranging from (Lasiurus blossevillii) Sitgreaves National Forests River Analysis Areas 1,900–7,200 feet amsl (AZGFD 2011b). Sensitive Species
Reptiles
Gila monster State of New Mexico Endangered Potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area Lower slopes of mountains and nearby outwash plains, (Heloderma Species especially in canyons and arroyos where water is at least suspectum periodically present (AZGFD 2013d). suspectum) Green ratsnake State of New Mexico Threatened Potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Rocky canyon bottoms near streams or in areas with (Senticolis triaspis) Species River Analysis Areas intermittent water (AZGFD 1998). Narrow-headed ESA Threatened, State of New Known to occur within all Analysis Areas (USFWS 2014a) Shallow, swift-flowing, rocky rivers and streams where it gartersnake Mexico Threatened Species typically uses predominantly pool and riffle habitat that (Thamnophis includes cobbles and boulders (AZGFD 2012a). rufipunctatus) Northern Mexican ESA Threatened, State of New Known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Shallow, slow-moving, and at least partially vegetated gartersnake Mexico Endangered Species Analysis Areas, with potential to occur in the San bodies of water (AZGFD 2012b). (Thamnophis eques Francisco River Analysis Area (USFWS 2014a) megalops) Sonora mud turtle BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona Potential to occur in the Virden Valley and San Francisco Creeks, streams, ponds, or any waterhole (AZGFD 1999). (Kinosternon River Analysis Areas and known to occur in the Lower sonoriense) Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b) and Upper Gila Analysis Area (SWCA 2019d)
* Gila chub, headwater chub, and roundtail chub were formerly considered separate taxonomic entities but are now recognized as a single taxonomic species—the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) (82 Federal Register 16981); however, until the USFWS completes an evaluation and potential proposed and final rules to delist the Gila chub are published, its legal status remains as an endangered species with designated critical habitat. It will be evaluated as endangered in this document.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 54 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
AMPHIBIANS
4.2.6.1.1 ARIZONA TOAD
Arizona toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona and New Mexico. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Lower Gila Analysis Areas and potentially occurs in the San Francisco River and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (AZGFD 2013a; BLM 2019b). Arizona toads occur in rocky streams and canyons in mixed broadleaf riparian, cottonwood- willow riparian, and mesquite bosque areas at elevations from about 6,000 to 9,000 feet amsl. The species also utilizes irrigation ditches as well as flooded/irrigated fields and reservoirs. The species is nocturnal and breeds from about February to July but may be active until September (AZGFD 2013a).
In New Mexico, the species occurs in the Gila, San Francisco, and Mimbres watersheds where habitat consists of highly variable riverine habitats at higher elevations than the species’ populations in Arizona, Nevada, or Utah. They appear to require clear water conditions with sand or cobble substrates as well as proper flow conditions (Ryan et al. 2015). This species was observed within the Upper Gila Analysis Area along the Gila River on transect GRT-004 during the herpetological species-specific surveys (see SWCA 2019d).
Potential threats to the Arizona toad include climate change, forest fires, hybridization, and the disease chytridiomycosis. Additionally, high spring river flow rates can decrease reproductive activity, while drying of sites may exclude potential breeding sites. Potential hybridization between Arizona toad and Woodhouse’s toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii) is an additional threat to the species where the two species occur together (Ryan et al. 2015).
4.2.6.1.2 LOWLAND LEOPARD FROG
Lowland leopard frog (Lithobates yavapaiensis) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for the Gila District Office in Arizona, a Sensitive Species for the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests, and a State of New Mexico Endangered Species. The species is known to occur in the Lower Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Area portions within Arizona (Blasius 2019b), based on HDMS occurrence maps (AZGFD 2019c) and the fact that this species has occurrence records within 5 miles of the Arizona portion of the Analysis Area (AZHGIS 2019). This species is reliably detected in tributaries of and confluences with the Gila River in Arizona within the BLM Safford Field Office. Nonnative bullfrogs are not as prevalent in the Gila mainstem portions in Arizona as they are in New Mexico (Blasius 2019b). The species is considered very rare and perhaps extirpated in New Mexico (Degenhardt et al. 1996; NMDGF 2018a). The species historically occurred along the San Francisco and Gila River drainages in New Mexico; however, the last known observation within New Mexico was in Guadalupe Canyon in southwestern New Mexico in August 2000 (Pierce 2019). Lowland leopard frogs occur at elevations below 4,920 feet amsl in small to medium-sized streams and occasionally in small ponds (Jennings 1987; NMDGF 2018a; Platz and Frost 1984). They often concentrate near deep pools in association with root masses of large riparian trees. In New Mexico, this species inhabits riparian areas in areas of grasslands, chaparral, and evergreen woodlands (Jennings 1987). Lowland leopard frogs are a rare species in the Gila National Forest. In Arizona, this species is generally restricted to human-made and natural permanent waters located below 4,800 feet amsl, within surrounding desertscrub, semidesert grassland, or oak woodland (Sredl et al. 1997; Stebbins 2003). The species is most active during summer monsoonal nights; however, the species can be observed both day and night throughout the year.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 55 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.6.1.3 SONORAN DESERT TOAD
Sonoran Desert toad (Incilius alvarius) is listed as a State of New Mexico Threatened species and has potential to occur in the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area. Sonoran Desert toads occur in vegetation communities with mesquite, creosote bush, and other shrubs, forbs, and grasses at elevations around 4,100–5,000 feet amsl. The species is known to only occur in southwest Hidalgo County, New Mexico, in the vicinity of Rodeo and in scattered localities in the adjacent Peloncillo Mountains. Sonoran Desert toad is largely a nocturnal species that is highly active leading into and during the summer monsoonal season. The main threats to the species are land conversion, water diversion, rapid runoff, and pollution (BISON- M 2019; Degenhardt et al. 1996; NMDGF 2018a).
BIRDS
4.2.6.2.1 ABERT’S TOWHEE
Abert's towhee (Melozone aberti) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and a State of New Mexico Threatened Species. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019). Abert’s towhee occurs in thickets of mule-fat and other riparian habitats in its New Mexico range. The preferred habitat in these areas includes cottonwood-willows with a dense understory of shrubs and mesquite woodlands. The species is typically found foraging on the ground for insects and seeds. The species has been known to breed throughout the year depending on rains, but typically nesting occurs from February to September. The biggest threat to the species is degradation of its riparian habitat from groundwater pumping and grazing (BISON-M 2019; Tweit and Finch 1994). The northern limits for the species along the Gila River are in the vicinity of Mogollon Creek (Grant County); key habitat for the species in Arizona is the reach from where the Gila River enters Arizona to the Arizona counties of Gila, Graham, and Greenlee.
4.2.6.2.2 PEREGRINE FALCON / AMERICAN PEREGRINE FALCON
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona, a Sensitive Species for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and Gila National Forest, and a State of New Mexico Threatened species. The American peregrine falcon is known to occur in the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas (BLM 2019b; eBird 2019) and has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. American peregrine falcons occur throughout New Mexico but tend to breed only in the western half of the state. The species is present in the state year-round in western New Mexico. The species occupies many habitats, typically with cliffs for nesting and open landscapes for foraging. During migration, peregrine falcons use an even wider array of habitats from urban areas to mountain ranges. In Arizona, the species is most prevalent across the northern and eastern parts of the state, favoring forested habitats near sheer cliffs and riparian zones. Major threats to the species include disturbance from human activity, pesticides and other contaminants, collisions with moving or stationary structures, and degradation of habitat (mostly loss or modification of nesting sites) (White et al. 2002).
4.2.6.2.3 ARIZONA BELL’S VIREO AND BELL’S VIREO
Arizona Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and is a subspecies of Bell’s vireo, which is listed as a State of New Mexico Threatened Species. Arizona Bell’s vireo is the only subspecies of Bell’s vireo that occurs in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. This subspecies is known to occur at the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019). Arizona Bell’s vireo is also found in southwestern New Mexico in the lower Gila Box, San Simon Cienega, and Guadalupe Canyon. The species breeds in native and nonnative-dominated riparian areas and areas with dense shrubby
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 56 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
vegetation. The species arrives in Arizona and southern New Mexico in April and nests through September. Threats include brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss or alteration, especially reductions in riparian habitat (Kus et al. 2010; New Mexico Avian Conservation Partners 2017).
4.2.6.2.4 BALD EAGLE
Bald eagle is listed under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; is an Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and Gila National Forest Sensitive Species; a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona; and a State of New Mexico Threatened Species. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) and Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b). Bald eagles occur throughout New Mexico during winter and breed near lakes and reservoirs. In Arizona, a resident population of bald eagles occupies the central portion of the state with a wintering population that covers central and northern Arizona. Bald eagles require large trees or cliffs near water with a good supply of fish (BISON-M 2019). The biggest threat to the species is degradation of breeding and wintering habitat such as the loss of shoreline nesting, perching, roosting, and associated aquatic foraging habitat to human development. Additional threats include pesticides and other contaminants, ingestion of plastics and lead, collisions with stationary and moving objects, and disturbance at nest and roost sites (Buehler 2000).
4.2.6.2.5 BENDIRE’S THRASHER
Bendire’s thrasher is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. Bendire’s thrasher breeds and winters in desert areas from sea level to 5,900 feet amsl, and it can be found year-round in Arizona and New Mexico. This ground-foraging species favors open grasslands, shrublands, or woodlands with scattered shrubs or trees and is not found in areas with dense vegetation. Threats to the species include habitat loss from development, overgrazing, agriculture, invasive species, and shrub removal (England and Laudenslayer Jr. 1993; International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] 2017a).
4.2.6.2.6 BOTTERI’S SPARROW
Botteri’s sparrow (Peucaea botterii) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico, and a subspecies, Arizona Botteri’s sparrow (Peucaea botterii arizonae), is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species in Arizona. Botteri’s sparrow has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila, Lower Gila, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (BLM 2019b). Botteri’s sparrow occurs and breeds during summer in grassland, savanna, upland mesquite grassland, and oak woodland in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona, where it is at the species’ northern limits. The species forages on the ground for insects and seeds. Tall grasses are preferred for nesting substrates. Threats to the species include loss of grassland and prairie habitats (Webb and Bock 2012).
4.2.6.2.7 BROAD-BILLED HUMMINGBIRD
Broad-billed hummingbird (Cynanthus latirostris) is listed as a State of New Mexico Threatened Species and has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. The species occurs during the breeding season in extreme southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona in riparian woodlands at elevations ranging from 2,800 to 5,500 feet amsl. Common plant associations include Fremont cottonwood, Arizona sycamore, mesquites (Prosopis spp.), Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica), and netleaf hackberry. The main threats to the species include disruption of natural behavior and habitat loss through land conversion and groundwater withdrawal (Powers and Wethington 1999).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 57 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.6.2.8 CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR
Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. The species occurs in southeastern Arizona and throughout the state of New Mexico during the non-breeding season. Habitat for the species includes short-grass prairie and desert grasslands dominated by low grasses and forbs; during winter, the species is often found around isolated water sources. The main threats to the species include land development and fragmentation, pesticides, and fire suppression (Bleho et al. 2015).
4.2.6.2.9 COMMON BLACK HAWK
Common black hawk is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and State of New Mexico Threatened Species. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019). Common black hawk occurs in central to southeastern Arizona to western New Mexico during the migration and breeding seasons. The species arrives in early March and departs in late October. The species is a riparian obligate that favors remote, mature gallery forest corridors with perennial and occasionally intermittent streams. Breeding occurs in cottonwood-willow series of Sonoran Riparian Deciduous Forest, cottonwood-willow series and mixed broadleaf series of Interior Southwestern Riparian Deciduous Forest, and mixed broadleaf series of Rocky Mountain Riparian Deciduous Forest (USFS 1980). Common black hawks are threatened by clearing or alteration of riparian habitat, water diversion, groundwater pumping, and livestock grazing. The species is also prone to human disturbance (Schnell 1994).
4.2.6.2.10 COMMON GROUND-DOVE
Common ground-dove (Columbina passerina) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and as a State of New Mexico Endangered Species. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) and has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. Common ground-dove occurs year-round in southwestern New Mexico and in southern and western Arizona. The species is typically found year-round in agricultural areas, mesquite flats, near edges of desert riparian areas, and in desert washes at elevations below 5,410 feet amsl. The common ground-dove feeds on grasses and forbs on the ground, where the species spends a lot of its time when not roosting in low trees and shrubs (BISON-M 2019). Since the species is typically found near riparian areas, the degradation of riparian habitat is a major threat to the species (Bowman 2002).
4.2.6.2.11 COSTA’S HUMMINGBIRD
Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and as a State of New Mexico Threatened Species. The species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. Costa’s hummingbird occurs in southwestern New Mexico during its March–August breeding season. In New Mexico, the species’ only known breeding population is in Guadalupe Canyon, with a few observations to the north along the Gila River near Redrock and Gila. Costa’s hummingbirds were found nesting in a variety of plants in Guadalupe Canyon, including netleaf hackberry, algerita (Mahonia haematocarpa), and Arizona white oak. These nests were found 1.6–6.6 feet above the ground. In Arizona, the Costa’s hummingbird is a year-round resident throughout the southwestern portion of the state but is found only during the breeding season in the southeastern and northwestern areas of the state. The species’ diet includes small insects and nectar from flowers. The biggest threat to the species is alteration of habitat (Baltosser and Scott 1996).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 58 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.6.2.12 DESERT PURPLE MARTIN
Desert purple martin is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. This subspecies has the potential to occur in the westernmost portion of the Lower Gila Analysis Area where there are saguaro cacti. Desert purple martin is a migratory bird that resides in Arizona for the breeding season from May through September. The subspecies uses saguaro in Arizona and Mexico (Wiggins 2005).
4.2.6.2.13 FERRUGINOUS HAWK
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. It has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area and is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b). The species can be found throughout Arizona and New Mexico during the non-breeding season (September through April). When breeding season arrives, the species is most likely to be observed across the northern reaches of these states, especially on the Colorado Plateau in Arizona. Preferred habitat is open grasslands, agricultural fields, flats, and desert, where the species can hunt for the small to medium-sized mammals that make up most of its diet. Ferruginous hawk populations have declined over the past several decades as a result of fragmentation and loss of grasslands due to agriculture, energy development, and invasive vegetation (AZGFD 2013b).
4.2.6.2.14 GILA WOODPECKER
Gila woodpecker is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and State of New Mexico Threatened Species. It is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019). Gila woodpecker occurs in the Gila Valley up to Mogollon Creek in Grant County and in Guadalupe Canyon, where it can be found year-round. The species is found largely across the southern, central, and western parts of Arizona. The species’ preferred habitat is lower elevational woodlands, especially those with cottonwood along stream courses. In these areas, the Gila woodpecker tends to excavate its own nesting cavity in cottonwood trees high above the ground (BISON-M 2019). This species was observed within the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas during the 2018 biological surveys (see SWCA 2019a).
The breeding season for this species is typically April through July. The diet of this species includes insects and fruit. This species is threatened by alteration of habitat and competition for nest sites with European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). In New Mexico, the species depends on large stands of cottonwoods, and would be particularly sensitive to water diversions that could affect the growth of large cottonwoods (Edwards and Schnell 2000).
4.2.6.2.15 GILDED FLICKER
Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. It is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (eBird 2019) and has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. This bird is a year-round resident where it occurs in Arizona and New Mexico. Found mainly throughout the southwestern portion of Arizona, its range can extend into parts of Gila and Graham Counties. The species can be found in cottonwoods or other trees in riparian areas at lower elevations. Primary diet consists of insects, especially ants, as well as fruits and berries. Habitat loss is the highest threat to the gilded flicker (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.16 GOLDEN EAGLE
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and is a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. It is known to occur in all Analysis Areas (eBird 2019). The golden eagle
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 59 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
occurs year-round throughout Arizona and New Mexico and is known to use a variety of habitats. The species prefers open country in prairies, open wooded country, and barren areas, particularly in hilly or mountainous regions. In the western mountains, golden eagles were found to build nests at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 10,000 feet amsl on rock ledges, cliffs, and large trees. A typical breeding cycle for golden eagles includes nest-building around early January, offspring hatching in March–June, and young staying in the nest until late August (Kochert et al. 2002). The diet of the species includes small mammals such as rabbits and ground squirrels but can also include insects, snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion. The main threats to the species include degradation of habitat and collisions with vehicles, power lines, and other structures. The species is also prone to bioaccumulation of pesticides/contaminants, ingestion of lead, and to shooting and trapping (AZGFD 2002d; BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.17 GRAY VIREO
Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and a State of New Mexico Threatened Species. The species has the potential occur at the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Gray vireos are strongly associated with pinyon-juniper and scrub oak habitats and prefer gently sloped canyons, rocky outcrops, ridgetops, and moderate scrub cover. Gray vireos occur in the western half of New Mexico and are only present during the breeding season. The species is common throughout much of Arizona during the breeding season and can be found in southwestern Arizona during the non-breeding season. The diet of the species varies geographically; in the western portion of its range, the species is primarily frugivorous, whereas in the east, the species is primarily insectivorous. The primary threats to the species include degradation of habitat via clearing/cutting for forage production and for firewood, introduction of livestock, and disturbance at nest and roost sites (Barlow et al. 1999; BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.18 NEOTROPIC CORMORANT
Neotropic cormorant (Phalacrocorax brasilianus) is listed as a State of New Mexico Threatened Species. It is known to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas (eBird 2019) and has the potential occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Breeding habitat occurs in all three areas. The species occurs along the Rio Grande and around New Mexico at ponds or lakes where fish are present. The species nests near or over water in snags or live trees (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.19 NORTHERN BEARDLESS TYRANNULET
Northern beardless-tyrannulet (Camptostoma imberbe) is listed as a State of New Mexico Endangered Species for Grant and Hidalgo Counties. This species occurs in Eddy, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties within New Mexico. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area (eBird 2019) and has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Northern beardless-tyrannulet occurs in southwestern New Mexico and is known to breed in Guadalupe Canyon and along the Gila River between Redrock and Virden. The species is typically only present in New Mexico from March through August. The preferred habitat of the northern beardless tyrannulet in New Mexico is lowland riparian woodland with adjacent scrub. Typical plant species in these areas include willow (Salix spp.), cottonwood, mesquite, and canyon hackberry (Celtis reticulata) (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.20 NORTHERN GOSHAWK
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is listed as a USFS Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species and is a BLM Sensitive Species for the Gila District Office. It has the potential to occur at the San Francisco River Analysis Area. Goshawks occur year-round throughout the mountainous portions of New Mexico. The species tends to choose mature or old-growth deciduous,
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 60 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
coniferous, or mixed forests at elevations ranging from 4,750 to 9,120 feet amsl. The typical plant communities for the species in Arizona are ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. The diet of the species includes squirrels, cottontails, and larger bird species such as quail and dove. Threats to the northern goshawk include logging, fire suppression, loss of prey habitat, insect and tree disease outbreaks, and grazing (AZGFD 2013e; BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.21 PINYON JAY
Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona. This species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Where it occurs in Arizona and New Mexico, this species is a year-round resident. Habitat is typically in the Upper Sonoran and Lower Transition zone habitat types in the foothills and mid- elevations. Pinyon-juniper woodland is used most often, but flocks have also bred in sagebrush, scrub oak, and chaparral communities. This species occurs in central and northern New Mexico and is present year-round in the state. In Arizona, occurrences of the species are across the northern half of the state, extending as far south as Greenlee County (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.22 SPRAGUE’S PIPIT
Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. The preferred habitat of the species includes shortgrass prairies as well as overgrazed areas and agricultural fields. The species is known to occur in these habitats throughout New Mexico during the non-breeding season. Sprague’s pipits forage secretively on the ground for seeds during the non-breeding season. Threats to the species include overgrazing of grassland, shrub invasion, and urban development (AZGFD 2010a; BISON-M 2019; Davis et al. 2014).
4.2.6.2.23 VARIED BUNTING
Varied bunting (Passerina versicolor) is a State of New Mexico Threatened species. This species is known to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area (eBird 2019) and has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Breeding habitat occurs within these areas. Habitat includes dense stands of mesquite and associated growth in canyon bottoms. In New Mexico, this species is common within arid lowlands. This species winters south of the border and regularly breeds in New Mexico (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.2.24 VIRGINIA’S WARBLER
Virginia’s warbler (Oreothlypis virginiae) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species New Mexico and is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas (eBird 2019). Virginia’s warbler breeding habitat occurs in a relative narrow range of mid elevations and consists of pinyon-juniper, oak woodlands, and mixed-conifer forests with scrubby vegetation also present. Habitat in migration includes a wide array of habitats from urban areas to riparian corridors to pine woodlands. The species occurs throughout the state but is only present during migration and the breeding season. The species is particularly prone to human disturbance during the breeding season and is very negatively impacted by the practice of controlled burning to remove understory plants (Olson and Martin 1999).
4.2.6.2.25 WESTERN BURROWING OWL
The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona, and a USFS Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 61 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Species. It has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. Western burrowing owls are found throughout the western United States, and both breeding and migratory populations are present in New Mexico and Arizona. The species generally begins pair formation and breeding in March. They feed opportunistically on small mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects, and forage in prairie dog colonies, croplands, pastures, fallow fields, and sparsely vegetated areas. Threats to the species include habitat loss to urbanization and predation by raptors as well as some terrestrial species (USFWS 2003).
FISH
4.2.6.3.1 DESERT SUCKER
Desert sucker (Catostomus clarki) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona and is a Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species. The species is known to occur in all Analysis Areas (BLM 2018; NMDGF 2018b). In addition, this species was caught during 2018 fish surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area as detailed in the technical report (see SWCA 2019c). Desert sucker occurs in the Gila Basin and San Francisco drainage in New Mexico, with an elevational range of 480 to 8,840 feet amsl. The preferred habitat for adult fish includes rapids and flowing pools of streams, typically over bottoms of gravel-rubble with sandy silt. Juvenile suckers are typically found in quiet pools along the bank. Adults of the species tend to feed on diatoms and algae from stones while juveniles primarily eat chironomid larvae. The species has been found to have a low tolerance to reduced oxygen in streams. The main threats to the species include climate change, groundwater pumping, alteration of historic flow regimes, and competition or hybridization with nonnative fish (AZGFD 2002e; BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.3.2 LONGFIN DACE
Longfin dace is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species Arizona. It is known to occur in all portions of the Analysis Areas indicated by long-term monitoring by the NMDGF and the BLM in Arizona (BLM 2018; NMDGF 2018c). In addition, this species was caught during 2018 fish surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, as detailed in the technical report (see SWCA 2019c). Longfin dace inhabits riffle areas with moderate to rapid water velocities and moderate to high gradients. The species is most common in the interstitial spaces in cobble and rubble. The longfin dace occurs in the San Francisco River from the Upper Frisco Box downstream to the Arizona border (Catron County, New Mexico), the Tularosa River downstream from Cruzville (Catron County, New Mexico), and the Gila River from the Forks area (Catron-Grant County line, New Mexico) to the Middle Box (Grant County, New Mexico). Historically, the species was found in the Bill Williams and Gila River drainages in Arizona and New Mexico, and south into Mexico (BISON-M 2019; Sublette et al. 1990).
4.2.6.3.3 SONORA SUCKER
Sonora sucker is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona. It is also listed as a Sensitive Species for the Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. This species is known to occur in all of the Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila (BLM 2018; NMDGF 2018b). In addition, this species was caught during 2018 fish surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area as detailed in the technical report (see SWCA 2019c). Sonora sucker occurs in the Gila and San Francisco drainages at elevations ranging from 1,210 to 8,730 feet amsl. Habitat for Sonora suckers includes warm-water rivers to trout streams. The species prefers gravelly or rocky pools with relatively deep, quiet waters. Both adults and juveniles feed on algae, diatoms, and macroinvertebrates. The species begins spawning in late winter and continues through mid-summer. Management factors to consider with this species include the alteration of historic flow regimes,
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 62 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
watershed erosion that minimizes pool habitat, and competition from nonnative species (AZGFD 2002a; BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.3.4 SPECKLED DACE
Speckled dace is listed as a BLM species for Arizona. This species is known to occur in the following Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley. In addition, this species was caught during 2018 fish surveys of the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area (see SWCA 2019c). A bottom dweller that favors shallow headwater pools and runs, and small to medium rivers, speckled dace is rarely observed in lakes. Prime elevational range is between 6,560 and 9,840 feet amsl, but the species can be observed at elevations as low as 1,550 feet amsl. It is found in the Colorado, Bill Williams, and Gila River drainages of Arizona (AZGFD 2002g).
INVERTEBRATES
4.2.6.4.1 A CADDISFLY
A caddisfly (Lepidostoma apache) is listed as a Sensitive Species for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Larval habitat not yet known. In Arizona, this species was recently described in the Blue River, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests, Greenlee County, Arizona (USFS 2013b). The Blue River confluences with the San Francisco River within the San Francisco River Analysis Area. Very little is known about this species’ range and habitat requirements, and the precise location of the occurrence within the Blue River is not known. However, this species is mobile, and it is not unreasonable to suspect that it has the potential to occur within the San Francisco River Analysis Area. However, this species is unlikely to occur in the Direct Impacts Area, as the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area is 20 miles away from the confluence of the San Francisco and Blue Rivers.
4.2.6.4.2 A CADDISFLY
A caddisfly (Lepidostoma knulli) is listed as a Sensitive Species for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. It occupies cool-water springs, streams, and rivers of swift-flowing current. Large cobbles with low embeddedness are common features in the habitat. This species has been found in two sites in Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests in eastern Arizona and two sites in Apache and Coconino Counties, Arizona (USFS 2013b). Very little is known about this species’ range and habitat requirements, and the precise location of the occurrence within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests is not known. Thus, this species has the potential to occur within the San Francisco River Analysis Area.
4.2.6.4.3 DASHED RINGTAIL
Dashed ringtail (Erpetogomphus heterodon) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species. The species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Dashed ringtail occurs in two rivers in the Upper Gila Watershed in Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico. The species occurs in shallow, rocky streams in mountains, in open desert or pine-oak woodland. The species prefers riparian bands with shrubs. This species has larvae that overwinter in the streams and emerge as adults. Threats to the species include overgrazing, forest fires, and groundwater pumping in the watersheds of the streams where the species occurs (BISON-M 2019; IUCN 2017b).
4.2.6.4.4 GILA MAYFLY
“Gila” mayfly (Lachlania dencyanna) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species. The species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. This species has only been observed in two
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 63 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
locations: 1 mile south of Cliff, New Mexico in an unnamed tributary to the Gila River and within the east fork of the Gila River; however, this species has not been observed in any location since 1967 (USFWS 2012e). The species was found in a high-gradient, warm, medium-size river. The area where it was located was characterized as a warm, unshaded, turbid, and rapid stream. All juvenile mayflies are generally herbivores or detritovores and adult mayflies do not eat. Specific threats are generally unknown, but likely anything that would affect other macroinvertebrates, such as diversions or other dewatering of streams, reduced dissolved oxygen, pollution, or increased sediments could be considered threats. Distribution appears to be limited to the Gila River drainage in New Mexico, and it is the only endemic mayfly in New Mexico (BISON-M 2019; NatureServe 2019).
4.2.6.4.5 MONARCH BUTTERFLY
Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona. The species has the potential occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas and is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b). Portions of the Analysis Area would be used for migration or breeding.
Monarch occurs in a variety of habitats throughout New Mexico and Arizona. The larvae of this species feed upon milkweed plants (Asclepias spp.). This species is migratory; it typically overwinters in Mexico or southern California. Monarchs in New Mexico typically overwinter in Mexico only, whereas Arizona monarchs may overwinter in either location, or may overwinter in low-elevation desert areas. Individuals are not known to overwinter in New Mexico. Monarchs migrate north in spring months, beginning as early as March. Monarchs typically spend several generations breeding in higher-elevation areas during the summer months before migrating south in a long fall migration period, typically from September to November (Cary and DeLay 2016; Morris et al. 2015; Southwest Monarch Study, Inc. 2019).
The species does not breed in New Mexico; it is strictly a migrant. Adults use a wide variety of flowering plants for nectar in their adult stage. Drastic reduction in milkweed species within their breeding areas through pesticide use, land conversions, development, and climate change are listed as threats to the species (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.4.6 NOTODONTID MOTH
Notodontid moth (Euhyparpax rosea) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species. The species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. The species occurs in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. In New Mexico, this notodontid moth is known to occur near Silver City, Grant County in southwestern New Mexico, but no specific locations are noted in Arizona (USFWS 2009). This species is thought to occur on shrubs, trees, and leguminous plants, likely oak- juniper or oak-pine-juniper, and the larvae may feed on oaks otodontid moth. Threats to the species include loss of habitat from development or catastrophic wildfires and competition from nonnative plants with the species’ preferred plants (BISON-M 2019; NatureServe 2019).
MAMMALS
4.2.6.5.1 ALLEN’S LAPPET-BROWED BAT
Allen’s lappet-browed bat (Idionycteris phyllotis) is listed as a Sensitive Species for Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. The species has the potential to occur in all of the Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila. The seasonal movements of this species are unknown; it is presumed to be a year-round resident of Arizona and New Mexico. Allen’s lappet-browed bat has been documented in Catron, Grant,
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 64 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Sierra, and Socorro Counties of New Mexico. The preferred habitat of the species includes ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, and riparian areas with sycamores, cottonwoods, and willows. The species has an elevational range of 1,320 to 9,800 feet amsl. Allen’s lappet-browed bats are frequently captured near suitable roosts in cliffs, outcroppings, boulders, and lava flows and are known to roost in tree snags. Limiting factors for most bat species include accessibility to surface water, suitable roost sites, and prey. Threats to the species include disturbances at maternity colonies, loss of habitat, and disease (AZGFD 2001c; BISON-M 2019; Williams et al. 2002).
4.2.6.5.2 ARIZONA GRAY SQUIRREL
Arizona gray squirrel (Sciurus arizonensis arizonensis) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species. The species is known to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area (NatureServe 2019). Arizona gray squirrel occurs in New Mexico in Catron, Grant, and Luna Counties. The species is limited to deciduous riparian forest of the San Francisco River drainage. Preferred habitat for the species includes dense, mixed broad-leaf forested canyon floors and drainages within conifer or evergreen forests. The species tends to associate with large oaks, sycamores, walnuts, big-tooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), boxelder, and ash trees. The elevational range of this species is 3,500 to 7,500 feet amsl. The species is a forager and feeds on walnuts, acorns, juniper berries, fungi, hackberries, and pine seeds throughout the year. This species tends to have only one litter per year, likely in mid-June. Threats to the species include loss of riparian habitat from water diversions or groundwater pumping, and over-hunting (AZGFD 2014a; BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.5.3 ARIZONA MYOTIS
Arizona myotis (Myotis occultus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. This species has the potential to occur in the following Analysis Areas: San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila. This species’ life history is not well understood; water appears to be more important to this species than vegetation zone. This species is a year-round resident. Ponderosa pine and oak-pine woodlands near water are habitat this species prefers in Arizona during the summer months. It has been observed in riparian areas of the desert along the Lower Colorado and Verde Rivers. No winter hibernacula have been observed in Arizona. It is primarily found at relatively high elevations, between 3,200 and 8,620 feet amsl (AZGFD 2011a; Williams et al. 2002).
4.2.6.5.4 BANNER-TAILED KANGAROO RAT
Banner-tailed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spectabilis) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species in Arizona. It has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. Habitat consists of well- developed grasslands with shrubs. Hard soils are preferred to support burrow construction. The species can be found throughout southeastern Arizona as well as in parts of Apache and Navajo Counties (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.5.5 CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT
The California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. This species has the potential occur in the San Francisco River and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. It is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b). This year-round resident in Arizona favors day roosts in rock shelters, caves, and mines during the summer months. In the winter months, mines which extend over 100 feet from the entrance are preferred for warmth. There is little variation in summer and winter ranges as the species is common in central, south-central, southwest, and west-central parts of Arizona (AZGFD 2014b; Williams et al. 2002).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 65 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.6.5.6 CAVE MYOTIS
The cave myotis (Myotis velifer) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. This species has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. It is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b). It roosts in caves, tunnels, and bridges near water and is found in desertscrub of creosote bush, palo verde, and cacti. The cave myotis migrates to winter roosts in September or October and returns in March. Small year-round populations have been recorded in southeastern Arizona, though most migrate farther south. This species is largely found throughout central and southern Arizona (AZGFD 2002b; Williams et al. 2002).
4.2.6.5.7 GREATER WESTERN MASTIFF BAT
The greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. This species has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. Roosts consist of deep, tight rock crevices near cliffs of the Lower and Upper Sonoran desertscrub. A year-round resident, this bat is found throughout all of Arizona except in the counties of Apache, Navajo, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai. This species is insectivorous and is limited to using sources of water more than 100 feet long owing to its wing structure. Threats to this species include threats to its maternity colonies, and residential, commercial, and infrastructure construction (AZGFD 2014c; Williams et al. 2002).
4.2.6.5.8 GUNNISON’S PRAIRIE DOG
Gunnison's prairie dog (prairie population) (Cynomys gunnisoni) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. The species is possible to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area and is known to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. Gunnison’s prairie dog occurs in the San Juan, Jemez, and Sangre de Cristo Mountains, as well as in San Miguel, Sierra, and Catron Counties. Preferred habitat for the species includes shortgrass and midgrass prairies and grass- shrub habitats with an elevational range of 6,700–12,000 feet amsl. The species feeds mainly on grasses and forbs. The species’ breeding season is March and April with pups emerging in late May. Threats to the species include control practices by humans, the species’ susceptibility to sylvatic plague, and habitat loss (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.5.9 HOODED SKUNK
Hooded skunk (Mephitis macroura milleri) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Hooded skunk occurs in the Upper Gila Watershed in Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna Counties of New Mexico. Hooded skunks in New Mexico have been documented from various habitat types ranging from ponderosa pine forest to deserts, typically near water or riparian vegetation. The species prefers intermediate elevations and occurs near rocky slopes, bases of cliffs, or rocky sides of arroyos. The diet of the species is primarily insects and the species can be active year-round. Threats to the species include over-hunting and loss of its preferred riparian habitat from groundwater pumping or water diversions (BISON-M 2019).
4.2.6.5.10 LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT
Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae) is listed by the State of New Mexico as Threatened for Grant and Hidalgo Counties and was delisted by the USFWS in 2018 owing to recovery (USFWS 2018). It is also listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona. This species has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. The Virden Valley Analysis Area
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 66 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
is within the range of this species (USFWS 2008c), and a known roost occurs in the Peloncillo Mountains (USFWS 2016b), south of the Virden Valley Analysis Area, within the 40-mile foraging radius of this species. The Lower Gila River area is within the range of the species, and known roosts occur within the 40-mile foraging range of this species (USFWS 2016b).
These bats occur in southwestern New Mexico, in Grant and Hidalgo Counties. The preferred habitat includes desert grasslands, canyons, and scrublands including lower edges of oak woodlands. In Arizona, New Mexico, and northwestern Mexico this species is migratory, occurring mostly between July and October. Their daytime roosts include caves, rock fissures, and abandoned mines, but they are also known to roost in trees, culverts, and buildings. The species feeds on the nectar from the flowers of agaves, silk trees, saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), and organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi). The main threats to the species include loss of roosting/breeding sites, human disturbances, and loss of food sources (BISON- M 2019).
4.2.6.5.11 TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT / PALE TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT
Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) is listed as Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species and is a subspecies of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) that is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona. The species has the potential to occur in all Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila. This species is a year-round resident found in a variety of xeric to mesic habitats: scrub-grassland, desertscrub, semidesert shrublands, chaparral, saxicoline brush, tundra, open montane forests, spruce-fir, mixed hardwood-conifer, and oak woodlands and forests. Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat has been documented at elevations ranging from 550–7,520 feet amsl. Typical roosts for the species include abandoned buildings, caves, and mines. The primary diet of this species is small moths. The species’ breeding season spans from late April to mid-July. The main threats to the species include human disturbance and vandalism at maternity and hibernating sites, and the loss of roosting and foraging habitats via mine closures and deforestation (AZGFD 2003a; BISON-M 2019; Williams et al. 2002).
4.2.6.5.12 SPOTTED BAT
Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) is listed as a Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species; a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona; and a State of New Mexico Threatened Species in Catron and Grant Counties. The species could occur in all of the Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila. Spotted bat occurs in the Upper Pecos and Upper Pecos Black River Basins of New Mexico. Preferred habitat is seasonal; during warm months the species is found in ponderosa pine woodlands; during cooler months, the species is found at lower elevations in pinyon-juniper woodlands and semi-desert shrublands. The elevational range of the species is 110–8,670 feet amsl. This species tends to roost singly in crevices and cracks in cliff faces. Cliff faces and nearby water sources are characteristics of spotted bat habitat. The main prey item of the spotted bat is small moths. Breeding season for the species ranges from May to July. This species occurs in the Analysis Areas only during the warm months. The major threats to the species include the loss of prey through pesticides, and habitat loss or degradation (AZGFD 2003b; BISON-M 2019; Williams et al. 2002).
4.2.6.5.13 SPRINGERVILLE SILKY POCKET MOUSE
Springerville silky pocket mouse (Perognathus flavus goodpasteri) is listed as an Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species and has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. The species is found in habitat of sparse vegetation of shortgrass and tumbleweeds with the
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 67 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
presence of sandy, rocky areas. Its range is from Greenlee County to the far northern and far eastern parts of Gila and Graham Counties. The species’ range also extends north into Apache and Navajo Counties (AZGFD 2002c).
4.2.6.5.14 WESTERN RED BAT
Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is listed as a Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species. The species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Western red bat occurs in Catron, Doña Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna Counties of New Mexico. In Arizona, the species’ range is from the south-central to southeastern portion of the state, with observations documented along the Colorado River. The species occurs in New Mexico during the warmer months and migrates south in winter. The preferred habitat of the species includes riparian and wooded areas at elevations ranging from 1,900–7,200 feet amsl. Roosts for the species are typically in tree foliage, but also in saguaro boots and cave-like situations. Threats to the species include loss of its riparian habitat and loss or disturbance of roosting sites (AZGFD 2011b; BISON-M 2019; Williams et al. 2002).
REPTILES
4.2.6.6.1 GILA MONSTER AND RETICULATE GILA MONSTER
The reticulate Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum suspectum) is the only subspecies of Gila monster that occurs in southwest New Mexico (where it is known from Hidalgo, Grant, Luna, and Doña Ana Counties) and western or southwestern Arizona. The reticulate Gila monster is a State of New Mexico Endangered species in Grant and Hidalgo Counties. The Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) is listed at the species level as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico. It has potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Preferred habitat for the species includes the lower slopes of mountains and nearby outwash plains, especially in canyons and arroyos where water is at least periodically present. Typical cover in this habitat is provided by boulders, rock crevices, downed vegetation, and litter. The reticulate Gila monster occupies burrows both in winter for hibernating and in summer to retreat from high and low temperatures. The diet of this species includes small mammals, snakes, lizards, eggs, and invertebrates. Major threats to the species include climate change, land transformation, and illegal collection (AZGFD 2013e; BISON-M 2019; Degenhardt et al. 1996).
4.2.6.6.2 GREEN RATSNAKE
Green ratsnake (Senticolis triaspis) is listed as a State of New Mexico Threatened Species in Hidalgo County and has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. In New Mexico, this species has only been verified in the Peloncillo and Guadalupe Mountains of Hidalgo County, and there are unverified reports from the Animas Mountains and Mule Mountains of Grant County. The green ratsnake is typically a montane species, occurring at elevations ranging from 4,000– 7,500 feet amsl. The species prefers rocky canyon bottoms near streams or in areas with intermittent water. Typical plant species include pines, Arizona sycamore, Arizona walnut, willows, oaks, and canyon grape. Threats to the species include loss of riparian habitat and illegal collection (AZGFD 1998; BISON- M 2019; Degenhardt et al. 1996).
4.2.6.6.3 SONORA MUD TURTLE
Sonora mud turtle is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona. It is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (BLM 2019b) and Upper Gila Analysis Area, where it was also observed (SWCA 2019d), and has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley and San Francisco River Analysis Areas
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 68 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
(AZGFD 1999). Habitats where this species can occur includes creeks, streams, ponds, or any waterhole. This species was observed within the Upper Gila Analysis Area along the Gila River on transect GRT- 105 during the herpetological species-specific surveys (SWCA 2019d). The species is known to occur in Arizona in the Gila River drainage, Quitobaquito Spring, Laguna Dam, and Big Sandy-Burro River drainage (AZGFD 1999).
4.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species Twenty-eight (28) Federally listed, proposed, and experimental population species were evaluated for their potential to occur in the Analysis Area (Table 4-4). Of the 28 species, 14 species have the potential to occur or are known to occur on some portion of the Analysis Area. The remaining sensitive wildlife species have been excluded from analysis because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of the species or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both. Species included in the analysis are: Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis), northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops), narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus, interior least tern7 (Sternula antillarum), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupusbaileyi), Gila chub (Gila intermedia), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae), loach minnow, razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and spikedace. Of these 14 species, 9 have designated or proposed critical habitat within the Analysis Areas. The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) has unoccupied critical habitat in the Virden Valley and Lower Gila Analysis Area. Proposed or designated critical habitat for wildlife species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is displayed in Appendix A.
These species are summarized in Table 4-4 above. Detailed species descriptions follow. Any remaining species have been excluded from analysis because the Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of the species or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both.
AMPHIBIANS
4.2.7.1.1 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG
Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) is listed as Threatened under the ESA. The historic range of the species includes the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas (HerpNET 2014; USFWS 2006a). However, no Chiricahua leopard frog have been detected from 1985–2010, and it is likely extirpated from these areas due to competitive and predatory pressures related to an abundance of nonnative species, such as bullfrogs and crayfish, both of which were observed during field surveys and by other investigators (Gori et al. 2014; Jennings 1987; Jennings and Christman 2016; SWCA 2019d; USFWS 2012a). Therefore, the species is unlikely to occur in the analysis area in New Mexico. Although the species is unlikely to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area in Arizona, it is known to occur in the San Francisco River within Arizona, which is part of the San Francisco River Analysis Area (AZHGIS 2019; Ritter 2019). The analysis for this species is extended out to 1 mile from the Direct Impact Areas to account for overland dispersal. This species may use dispersal and nonbreeding habitat that are not more than 1 mile overland, 3 miles along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, or 5 miles along perennial drainages, or some combination of these not exceeding 5 miles from a breeding population in areas that provide vegetative cover or structural features that would provide shelter, habitat for foraging, protection
7 On October 24, 2019, the USFWS proposed to delist the interior least tern (see the Proposed Rule available at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-23119).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 69 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline from predators, and areas that are free of barriers that block movement (i.e., highways, development, walls, or other structures that physically block movement) (USFWS 2012a).
Critical habitat is not designated in the Upper Gila Analysis Area; however, it is designated approximately 21 miles upstream on the West Fork of the Gila River. From the 2012 Federal Register, the following Recovery Units were listed as occupied at time of the Federal Register critical habitat listing (p. 16346): • Recovery Unit 6, Tularosa River Unit (approximately 15 miles upstream of the San Francisco River project location)—Occupied at the time of listing and occupied when the Federal Register notice was published • Recover Unit 6, West Fork Gila River Unit (approximately 21 miles upstream of the Upper Gila project location)—Occupied at the time of listing and occupied when the Federal Register notice was published • Recovery Unit 7, Blue Creek Unit—Occupied at the time of listing and occupied when the Federal Register notice was published. • Recovery Unit 7—All remaining units in Arizona were identified as unknown occupancy at time of listing but occupied at the time the Federal Register notice was published.
Surveys for this species were conducted in October 2018 within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area and within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with two transects partially extending into the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area to the north along the Gila River. No adult or larval individuals were observed, but suitable habitat was observed within the Analysis Areas surveyed—Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley (SWCA 2019d). Surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area in October 2018 also found abundant nonnative species including American bullfrogs, crayfish, and nonnative fish. Preferred habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog includes springs, livestock tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers at elevations of 3,281–8,890 feet amsl. The species is typically found where nonnative species either have yet to invade or habitats are marginal. These habitats are found in a wide array of vegetation communities including oak, mixed oak and pine woodlands, but also chaparral, grassland, and desert habitats. The diet of the species includes arthropods and other invertebrates for adults while larvae are herbivorous. The species is typically active from February through November (AZGFD 2015c; BISON-M 2019).
Potential threats to the species include the introduced fungal skin disease (Chytridiomycosis [chytrid]) and predation by nonnative species such as bullfrogs, fishes (sport fish), and crayfish. Other threats include drought, floods, wildfires, degradation and destruction of habitat, water diversions and groundwater pumping, disruption of metapopulation dynamics, an increased chance of extirpation resulting from small numbers of populations and individuals, and environmental contamination (USFWS 2012a).
BIRDS
4.2.7.2.1 INTERIOR LEAST TERN
Interior least tern (Sternula antillarum) is listed as endangered under the ESA and is a State of New Mexico Endangered Species. It is known to occur within the Lower Gila Analysis Area (eBird 2019), which contains migratory habitat. Habitat includes sandy beaches, sandbars, gravel pits, or exposed flats along shorelines of inland rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and drainage systems. In the western United States, the species occurs along the Pacific Coast and is considered transient inland (USFWS 2009).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 70 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.7.2.2 MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL
Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) was listed as threatened under the ESA in 1993 for two primary reasons: historical alteration of habitat as the result of timber-management practices and the threat of these practices continuing, as evidenced in existing national forest plans; and the danger of stand-replacing fire (USFWS 1995b). This species has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area, where there is designated critical habitat (Unit UGM 7) for this species (USFWS 2004). Generally, the Mexican spotted owl is found in mature montane forests and woodlands and steep, shady, wooded canyons but can also be found in mixed-conifer and pine-oak vegetation types. Mexican spotted owls generally nest in older forests of mixed conifers or ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)–Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) or in steep canyon habitats. Nests are placed in live trees on natural platforms (e.g., dwarf mistletoe [Arceuthobium spp.] brooms), snags, and canyon walls at elevations between 4,100 and 9,000 feet amsl. Activities that may affect the Mexican spotted owl include domestic and wild ungulate grazing, recreation, fuels reduction treatments, resource extraction (e.g., timber, oil, gas, metals, and non-metals), urban or rural development (USFWS 1995b, 2013b), and associated noise (Delaney et al. 1999).
4.2.7.2.1 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER
The southwestern willow flycatcher is a State of New Mexico Endangered Species and was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1995 because of the loss and modification of southwestern riparian habitats and brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (USFWS 1995a). This species is known to occur within all Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila (AZGFD 2019a; eBird 2019; Shook 2018a; USFWS unpublished data). The southwestern willow flycatcher utilizes riparian woodland corridors for dispersal and migration even when conditions are not suitable for breeding (USFWS 2005, 2013a). The Analysis Area for this species includes the 0.25-mile buffer around project components as well as riparian vegetation within and downstream of the Cliff-Gila, San Francisco, and Virden Valley project locations.
Southwestern willow flycatchers are neotropical migrants, arriving on their breeding grounds starting in late April and departing by mid-September (Sogge et al. 2010). They typically nest in dense riparian vegetation near surface water or where soil moisture is high enough to maintain dense vegetation. Surface water may be present only during the early portion of the breeding season (i.e., May and part of June) or only during wet years (Sogge et al. 2010). Activities that may affect the southwestern willow flycatcher include urban and agricultural development; stream channelization, diversion, or impoundment; groundwater pumping; and livestock grazing. Another threat that has emerged during recent years is the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda spp.), which can reduce canopy cover in southwestern willow flycatcher nesting areas and is associated with southwestern willow flycatcher breeding failure (USFWS 2013a). Tamarisk is not currently a significant component of the vegetation within the Analysis Area, and tamarisk beetles have not yet been detected within the Analysis Area, although the beetle has been documented in 2016–2017 east of Silver City in Hanover Creek and on the Mimbres River near Deming, New Mexico (RiversEdge West 2018). Tamarisk beetle was also documented along Interstate 10 in Lordsburg, New Mexico, in 2017. Surveys conducted in 2018 in the Gila River in Duncan, Arizona and in the San Simon River in San Simon, Arizona did not detect any tamarisk beetles (RiversEdge West 2018).
Designated critical habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher is present in each of the Analysis Areas. Within the Direct Impacts Area, there are about 2,708.4 acres of critical habitat with an additional 15,084.2 acres within the Indirect Impacts Area. This critical habitat is broken out at each project location by the Direct and Indirect Impacts Areas. At Cliff-Gila, there are 936.7 acres in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with 2,803.5 acres in the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. At the Virden Valley location, there are 991.7 acres of critical habitat in the Direct Impacts Area and 671.3 acres in the Indirect Impacts
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 71 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
Area. At the San Francisco River Analysis Area, there is critical habitat on 780.1 acres in the Direct Impacts Area and 1,584.7 acres in the Indirect Impacts Area. There are 10,024.7 acres of critical habitat for the species in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area.
4.2.7.2.1 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO
The western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo was listed as Threatened under the ESA in 2014. This species is known to occur with breeding habitat within all portions of the Analysis Area: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila (AZGFD 2019b; eBird 2019; Griffin 2016; Shook 2018a). This population was listed because of the loss and degradation of riparian habitats in western North America as the result of livestock grazing, agricultural encroachment, conversion of native habitats to nonnative vegetation, and alteration of the hydrological processes that are necessary for the creation and maintenance of riparian habitats (National Park Service 2014). Yellow- billed cuckoos are migratory, arriving on their breeding grounds starting in late May and departing by mid-September. They typically nest in blocks of low- to moderate-elevation mature riparian woodlands that cover 50 acres or more, and habitat patches that are at least 200 acres in size and at least 330 feet wide are used more frequently than are smaller patches (USFWS 2016a). Yellow-billed cuckoos feed primarily on large arthropods such as cicada, grasshoppers, and caterpillars, and population levels and breeding activity may be influenced by the availability of prey items (USFWS 2016a).
Proposed critical habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo is found on about 4,434.8 acres in the Direct Impacts Area. There are an additional 19,449.1 acres of critical habitat within the Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, there are 2,157.5 acres of critical habitat with an additional 3,285.9 acres in the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, there are 1,198.1 acres of critical habitat and an additional 475.3 acres in the Virden Valley Indirect Impacts Area. Within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, there is critical habitat on 1,079.2 acres and on an additional 1,371.9 acres in the San Francisco Indirect Impacts Area. There are 14,315.9 acres of critical habitat for the species in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area.
FISH
4.2.7.3.1 GILA CHUB
A scientific review of the data indicated that the roundtail chub, the headwater chub, and the Gila chub are not discrete taxonomic entities listable as separate species under the ESA and should be considered one species: the roundtail chub (Gila robusta) (USFWS 2017a). USFWS guidance at this time is to evaluate the taxa as separate species until this taxonomic change is final (Gruhala 2018).
Gila chub (Gila intermedia) is listed as endangered under the ESA and is a State of New Mexico Endangered Species in New Mexico in Catron and Grant Counties. Historically, the chub was found throughout the Gila River basin in southern and central Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and northeastern Sonora Mexico. Today, only 22 populations remain (USFWS 2014b); all are small, isolated, and threatened. The Gila chub now occupies about 10% to 15% of its historical range. Current populations of Gila chub are now scattered in small disjunct habitats in Yavapai, Maricopa, Gila, Coconino, Pinal, Graham, Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Greenlee Counties in Arizona, and Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico. This species is known to occur within the Upper Gila Analysis Area in Turkey Creek approximately 8 miles upstream of the proposed Cliff-Gila diversion site, and within the Lower Gila Analysis Area in Bonita Creek. This species is known to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area in Harden-Cienega Creek, Arizona, and has been repatriated into Mule Creek, a San Francisco River tributary approximately 10 miles downstream from the San Francisco River Analysis Area. No records exist in the Virden Valley Analysis Area.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 72 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.7.3.2 GILA TROUT
Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) is listed as Threatened under the ESA and is a State of New Mexico Threatened Species for Catron and Grant Counties. The species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area, but only through stocking efforts near the Gila forks area. Habitat for the trout includes small headwater streams with limited pool availability and generally low base flows. These streams are generally narrow and shallow, and rarely exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Plant species typically found along Gila trout streams include shrub willows (Salix spp.), tree species of subalpine forests, and cold-temperate riparian species. Gila trout use cover composed of stream improvement structures, branches, logs, and undercut banks. The species is typically found at elevations ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 feet amsl. Gila trout are known to spawn during spring and summer in New Mexico. This species feeds on aquatic invertebrates, small fishes, adult and nymph stages of aquatic insects, trichopterans, ephermeropterans, chironomids, coleopterans, and terrestrial insects. Threats to this species include habitat loss, predation, competition and hybridization with nonnative fish, and threats from natural disasters such as floods, fires, and drought (AZGFD 2002f; BISON-M 2019; USFWS 2006b).
In New Mexico, Gila trout formerly occurred in the Gila River from its confluence with Mogollon Creek upstream through its headwaters and in tributaries of the San Francisco River (Propst et al. 1992). Although Gila trout historically inhabited a variety of stream habitats, it now occurs mainly in small headwater streams (Propst et al. 1992). The NMDGF actively stocks Gila trout for recreational purposes at the Heart Bar Wildlife Management Area in the West Fork Gila River (NMDGF 2018b). The species could potentially occur in the San Francisco drainage of New Mexico, but it is unlikely to be found in the Analysis Area as it generally occupies cooler headwater streams within the drainage.
4.2.7.3.3 GILA TOPMINNOW
Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) is listed as Endangered under the ESA and is also listed as Threatened by the State of New Mexico for Grant County. Habitat for the species includes headwater springs, and vegetated margins and backwater areas of intermittent and perennial streams and rivers. Gila topminnow prefer shallow warm water in a moderate current with dense aquatic vegetation and algae mats. The vegetative community typically associated with Gila topminnow includes cottonwood/willow or burrobrush (Hymenoclea salsola)/mule-fat terrestrial riparian communities. The species can withstand a wide range of water temperatures, from near freezing to 100°F. The species has a known elevational range of 1,320 to 7,510 feet amsl, with most records below 5,000 feet amsl. The Gila topminnow is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Lower Gila Analysis Areas and has the potential to occur within the San Francisco River and Virden Valley Analysis Areas.
The Gila topminnow reproductive season normally lasts from April through November but can occur year-round in some springs. Threats to the species include predation by and competition with nonnative fishes, spring habitat development, aquifer pumping, habitat destruction, and drought (AZGFD 2001b; BISON-M 2019; USFWS 2008a).
The Gila topminnow historically occurred in the Gila and San Francisco Rivers but was extirpated in the 1950s. Within the Analysis Area, efforts to reestablish in 1989 and again in 2005 in the Red Rock Wildlife Management Area were unsuccessful (NMDGF 2018b). In 2008, Gila topminnow were introduced to Burro Cienega northeast of Lordsburg, New Mexico, and appear to have established (Ferguson and Ruhl 2019). In the Lower Gila area, Gila topminnow populations exist in Bonita Creek, Bylas Springs, and Cold Springs. The Gila topminnow is only found in tributaries in the Analysis Area and is unlikely to occur in the Gila and San Francisco Rivers.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 73 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.7.3.4 HEADWATER CHUB
Headwater chub (Gila nigra) is listed as a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and a State of New Mexico Endangered Species for Catron and Grant Counties.
A scientific review of the data indicates that the roundtail chub, the headwater chub, and the Gila chub are not discrete taxonomic entities listable as separate species under the ESA and should be considered one species: the roundtail chub (USFWS 2017a). USFWS guidance at this time is to evaluate the taxa as separate species until this taxonomic change is final (Gruhala 2018). The headwater chub is known to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area near the forks upstream of the proposed diversion. Habitat for the species includes middle to headwater reaches of headwaters, creeks, and small rivers, typically in pools and runs near cover such as rocks, root wads, undercuts, or deep water. Headwater chubs occur in the upper Gila River Basin of New Mexico at elevations ranging from 4,347–6,562 feet amsl. Threats to the species include predation/competition from nonnative fishes, habitat destruction and modification from dewatering, impoundments, and watershed degradation from groundwater pumping, mining, grazing, roads, water pollution, and development (BISON-M 2019; NatureServe 2019).
4.2.7.3.5 LOACH MINNOW
Loach minnow is listed as Endangered under the ESA and Endangered by the State of New Mexico for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties. The species prefers moderate to swift current velocity and gravel or cobble substrates. The typical vegetative community in loach minnow habitat includes open, low-growing riparian type community composed mostly of grass and shrubs. The species has a documented elevational range of 2,325 to 8,240 feet amsl. Spawning season for the species has been documented in late winter to early spring in Arizona, and from late March to early June in New Mexico. The diet of the loach minnow is typically bottom-dwelling larval ephemeropterans, simuliid, and chironomid dipterans. Threats to the loach minnow include habitat destruction from damming, channel alteration, riparian zone modification and destruction, channel down-cutting, water diversion and groundwater pumping, and competition and predation from nonnative fish species (AZGFD 2010b; BISON-M 2019; USFWS 2012b).
The loach minnow has designated critical habitat within all portions of the Analysis Area and is known to occur in the upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Area, indicated by long-term monitoring by the New Mexico Department of Fish and Game (NMDGF 2018c; USFWS 2012c). In addition, this species was caught during 2018 fish surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area as detailed in the technical report (see SWCA 2019c). The species has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley and lower Gila Analysis Areas, but no recent records exist. This species occurs in the Gila River and its tributaries including the West, Middle, and East Forks of the Gila River, and Mangas and Bear Creeks (Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties), the San Francisco River and its tributaries Tularosa River and Whitewater Creeks, and Negrito Creek (tributary to the Tularosa) (Catron County); and the Blue River and its tributaries Campbell Blue, Dry Blue, Pace, and Frieborn Creeks (Catron County). Habitat for the species includes turbulent, rocky riffles of mainstream rivers and tributaries.
Designated critical habitat for the loach minnow is found in each of the project locations and includes about 98,019 feet along the Gila and San Francisco Rivers within the Direct Impacts Area and along an additional 859,765.6 feet within the Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, there are about 46,410.4 feet of designated critical habitat along the Gila River. There are an additional 413,549.2 feet of critical habitat within the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area there are 47,212.1 feet of critical habitat. Within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, there are 4,396.6 feet of critical habitat. An additional 446,216.4 feet of critical habitat are present along the San Francisco River within the San Francisco Indirect Impacts Area.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 74 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.2.7.3.1 RAZORBACK SUCKER
Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) is listed as Endangered under the ESA. Critical habitat is designated from the Arizona/New Mexico border downstream to the San Carlos Reservoir in Arizona. Razorback suckers prefer to live over sand mud, or gravel bottoms. They can inhabit a diversity of habitats from mainstream channels to the backwaters of medium and large streams of rivers. The razorback sucker spends most of its life at depths where ultraviolet light cannot penetrate, but these fish move into the shallows to spawn (USFWS 2002). The species is considered extirpated from the Analysis Area as only historical (pre-1940) accounts of the species are documented.
Designated critical habitat for the razorback sucker is found in Virden Valley, San Francisco River, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas and includes about 0.6 acres limited to the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area and along an additional 2,808.1 acres within the Indirect Impacts Area.
4.2.7.3.2 ROUNDTAIL CHUB
Roundtail chub is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona; a Gila National Forest and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive Species; and a State of New Mexico Endangered Species (Lower Colorado River populations) for Grant and Hidalgo Counties. This species was a Candidate for listing under the ESA and then was proposed for Threatened status. However, scientific review of the data indicated that the roundtail chub, the headwater chub, and the Gila chub are not discrete taxonomic entities listable as separate species under the ESA and should be considered one species: the roundtail chub (USFWS 2017a). USFWS guidance is to evaluate the taxa as separate species until this taxonomic change is final (Gruhala 2018). Prior to the recent taxonomic changes, roundtail chub were considered extirpated from the Gila and San Francisco Rivers in New Mexico. In the Lower Gila Analysis Area, populations of roundtail chub are known to occur in Eagle Creek and the Blue River, tributaries of the Gila River. No recent records exist of roundtail chub in the Gila River (BLM 2018).
The species has an elevational range of 1,210–7,220 feet amsl. The preferred habitat of the species includes cool to warm water in mid-elevation streams and rivers where pools up to 6.5 feet deep occur adjacent to swifter riffles and runs. Along these streams and rivers, cover is typically provided by large boulders, tree root wads, submerged large trees and branches, undercut cliff walls, or deep water. Typical vegetation that provides cover for the species includes Fremont cottonwood, mule-fat, velvet ash, and tamarisk. Roundtail chubs breed in spring and early summer. The diet of the chub is primarily carnivorous, feeding on aquatic and terrestrial insects, other fishes, and algae. Major threats to the species include groundwater pumping, stream diversion, and competition with nonnative fish (AZGFD 2015d; BISON-M 2019; USFWS 2006c).
4.2.7.3.1 SPIKEDACE
Spikedace is listed as Endangered under the ESA and by the State of New Mexico in Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties. This species is known to occur in all four of the Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, San Francisco River, Virden Valley, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas. The species has a documented elevational range of 1,620–4,500 feet amsl. Habitat for the species includes mid-water habitats of runs, pools, and swirling eddies. Spikedace prefer water less than 3.3 feet deep and concentrate in the downstream ends of riffles and eddies, although many have been collected in the upstream portions of shear zones less than 1.1 feet deep. Spawning season for the species occurs in spring and summer. The diet of the species includes aquatic and terrestrial insects. Threats to the species include loss of habitat from damming, channel alteration, riparian zone modification and destruction, channel downcutting, water diversion and groundwater pumping, and competition and predation from nonnative fish (AZGFD 2013c; BISON-M 2019; USFWS 2012d).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 75 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
This species is known to occur and has designated critical habitat in the Gila River and its tributaries including the West, Middle, and East Forks of the Gila River (Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties) (NMDGF 2018b; USFWS 2012c). Until 2017, the last record of spikedace in the San Francisco River was collected in 1950 near Glenwood, New Mexico. However, efforts began in 2008 to reintroduce spikedace in the San Francisco River at a site 20 miles upstream of Glenwood and additional efforts to establish spikedace in the Blue River began in 2012. These efforts appear to be successful as the spikedace appears to persist in the San Francisco (NMDGF 2018b; Hickerson 2019, Hickerson and Robinson 2019). Recent surveys suggest that spikedace are likely dispersing out of the Blue River and persisting in the San Francisco River (Hickerson 2019, Hickerson and Robinson 2019). In addition, this species was caught during 2018 fish surveys of the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area near the W-S Diversion in Catron County, New Mexico, as detailed in the technical report (see SWCA 2019c).
Designated critical habitat for the spikedace is found in the Analysis Area and includes about 91,499 feet along the Gila and San Francisco Rivers within the Direct Impacts Area and along an additional 857,144 feet within the Indirect Impacts Area. There are about 39,890.0 feet of critical habitat along the Gila River in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and an additional 413,549.2 feet in the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. Critical habitat is designated on 4,396.6 feet of the San Francisco River in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area with an additional 443,594.7 feet in the San Francisco Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Virden Valley Analysis Area, there is about 47,212.1 feet of critical habitat designated along the Gila River within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area.
MAMMALS
4.2.7.4.1 MEXICAN GRAY WOLF
The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the only subspecies of gray wolf (Canis lupus) that currently occurs within Arizona and New Mexico. Gray wolf subspecies or populations by region were originally listed individually. However, in March 1978, the gray wolf was listed as an endangered population at the species level. The 1978 rule made clear that subspecies would continue to be maintained and conserved. When the gray wolf was proposed for delisting in 2013, the Mexican gray wolf was proposed for listing as an endangered subspecies to maintain protections. In 2015, the Mexican gray wolf was listed as Endangered under the ESA, and revisions to the regulation for the nonessential experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf were finalized. The Mexican gray wolf is listed as Endangered wherever it is found, except where listed as an experimental population. The Mexican gray wolf experimental population area consists of those portions of Arizona and New Mexico south of Interstate 40 (USFWS 2015b, 2017b). The Mexican gray wolf is also listed Endangered by the State of New Mexico in Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties. This subspecies is possible to occur in portions of the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas.
The species was reintroduced in 1998 to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona and has been allowed to disperse throughout the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and nearby Gila National Forest. As of April 2019, there are 64 wolves in Arizona and 67 in New Mexico (USFWS 2019c). Surveys for and information gathered from radio-collared individuals have documented Mexican gray wolves approximately 11 miles east of the San Francisco River Analysis Area and approximately 24 miles north of the Upper Gila Analysis Area (USFWS 2019c). The species tends to not be tied to a significant vegetation type so long as the habitat is adequate to support sufficient prey populations and human- induced mortality is controlled. Historically the species occurred in montane woodlands, upper Sonoran woodlands and grasslands, Madrean evergreen woodland, and semidesert grasslands. Mexican gray wolves are found at elevations ranging from 3,000 to 12,000 feet amsl, sometimes lower if the species is in transit. Threats to the species include poaching and loss of movement corridors between habitats and populations (AZGFD 2001a, 2019c; BISON-M 2019; USFWS 2008b).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 76 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
REPTILES
4.2.7.5.1 NARROW-HEADED GARTERSNAKE
Narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) is listed as Threatened under the ESA and is a State of New Mexico Threatened Species for Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties. The species is known to occur within all Analysis Areas: Upper Gila, Virden Valley, San Francisco River, and Lower Gila (USFWS 2014a). The Gila River Subunit, which is considered occupied, overlaps with the Lower Gila Analysis Area (USFWS 2014a). Although there are no records within the Gila Mainstem in Arizona (Tonn 2019), there are records within 3 miles of the analysis area (AZHGIS 2019), and this species may use the Gila River for dispersal.
This species was not observed during species-specific surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, although some areas of suitable habitat were observed (see SWCA 2019d). Nonnative species including bullfrogs, crayfish, and nonnative fish were abundant in many of the locations surveyed in 2018.
This highly aquatic species is restricted to montane and immediately adjacent regions at elevations of 2,300 to 8,200 feet amsl. This species occurs in shallow, swift-flowing, rocky rivers and streams where it typically uses predominantly pool and riffle habitat that includes cobbles and boulders. While this species uses upland areas and often basks along the shore, this species is highly aquatic and usually flees to the water when disturbed. This species is surface active generally between March and November. It feeds almost exclusively on fish and is a sit-and-wait predator. Native fish species are the most commonly used prey species, though fingerling size classes of predatory nonnative fish species may also be prey for this species. Nonnative fish species with spiny dorsal fins are typically not suitable prey items due to the risk of injury to the gartersnake during ingestion. The most significant threat to this species is the presence of harmful nonnative species that directly prey on narrow-headed gartersnakes and compete with them for prey (Jennings and Christman 2016). These harmful nonnative species are also responsible for the decline of this species’ primary prey base, native fishes. Additional threats to the species include dams, diversions, groundwater pumping, and other human activities that reduce flows or dewater habitat; large- scale wildfires; and climate change–induced drought (AZGFD 2012a; BISON-M 2019; Degenhardt et al. 1996; USFWS 2014a).
Proposed critical habitat for the narrow-headed gartersnake is found at each location in the Analysis Area and on about 4,644.9 acres within the Direct Impacts Area. It is also found on an additional 9,628.4 acres within the Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, there are 1,861.2 acres of critical habitat with an additional 2,923.5 acres in the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. Within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, there are 1,400.8 acres of critical habitat with an additional 3,722.3 acres in the San Francisco Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, there are 1,382.8 acres of critical habitat with an additional 2,819.9 acres in the Virden Valley Indirect Impacts Area. There are an additional 162.6 acres of critical habitat in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area.
4.2.7.5.2 NORTHERN MEXICAN GARTERSNAKE
The northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops) is listed as Threatened under the ESA and is a State of New Mexico Endangered Species for Grant and Hidalgo Counties. The species is known to occur in the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas and has the potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. There are occurrence records for the northern Mexican gartersnake within the Upper Gila Analysis Area, including a record from 2015 and another from 2018 of individuals dead on roads (VertNet 2018). The Virden Valley Analysis Area occurs within the historic distribution of this
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 77 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
species, and a historic record (from 1973) occurred in the Gila River near Virden, New Mexico (USFWS 2014c). Proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake that is considered occupied occurs within both the Upper Gila and Virden Direct Impacts Areas (USFWS 2013c). A small portion of this species’ proposed critical habitat occurs within the San Francisco Indirect Impacts Area where Mule Creek confluences with the San Francisco River. The Mule Creek Unit is considered occupied (USFWS 2013c), and there are occurrences at three small ponds within Mule Creek, approximately 1 mile south of the rancher’s settlement (Degenhardt et al. 1996). However, specific locations are not given for all occurrence records (VertNet 2018). This species is known to occur in the San Francisco River (Degenhardt et al. 1996). There are no recent records for this species within 13 miles of the Arizona portions of the Analysis Area (Tonn 2019).
This species was not observed during species-specific surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, although some areas of suitable habitat were observed (see SWCA 2019d). Nonnative species including bullfrogs, crayfish, and nonnative fish were abundant in many of the locations surveyed in 2018.
This species occurs at elevations ranging from 130 to 8,497 feet amsl; however, in New Mexico, this species is found from 4,265 to 5,905 feet amsl. This species is a “terrestrial-aquatic generalist” and is a riparian obligate, that is, this species is found in riparian areas when not dispersing, gestating, or hibernating. This species is found in the following general habitat types (USFWS 2014a:38679): “(1) small, often isolated wetlands (e.g., cienegas [mid-elevation wetlands with highly organic, reducing (basic or alkaline) soils], or stock tanks [small earthen impoundment); (2) large-river riparian woodlands and forests; and (3) streamside gallery forests (as defined by well-developed broadleaf deciduous riparian forests with limited, if any, herbaceous ground cover or dense grass).” Stream situations in which this species occurs within New Mexico are generally characterized as having shallow, slow-moving, and at least partially vegetated bodies of water. This species is an active predator and is surface active at temperatures between 71°F and 91°F, and is typically most active in July and August, followed by June and September. This species hibernates in riparian areas away from water.
The preferred prey of northern Mexican gartersnakes are native fishes and adult and larval native ranid frogs. They may also consume earthworms, rodents, toads, salamanders, and leeches. When native prey species are not present, this species may consume nonnative mosquitofish or larval or juvenile American bullfrogs. The most significant threat to this species is the presence of harmful nonnative species that directly prey on northern Mexican gartersnakes and compete with them for prey. These harmful nonnative species are also responsible for the decline of this species’ primary prey base, native fishes and native ranid frogs. Additional threats to the species include dams, diversions, groundwater pumping, and other human activities that reduce flows or dewater habitat; large-scale wildfires; and climate change–induced drought (AZGFD 2012b; BISON-M 2019; Degenhardt et al. 1996; USFWS 2014a).
Proposed critical habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake is found at the Upper Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas on about 3,244.0 acres within the Direct Impacts Area. It is also found on an additional 5,766.4 acres within the Indirect Impacts Area. Within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, there are 1,861.2 acres of critical habitat with an additional 2,923.5 acres in the Upper Gila Indirect Impacts Area. Within the San Francisco Indirect Impacts Area, there are 22.0 acres of critical habitat. Within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, there are 1,382.8 acres of critical habitat with an additional 2,819.9 acres in the Virden Valley Indirect Impacts Area. There is an additional 1.0 acre of critical habitat in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 78
CHAPTER 5 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
5.1 VEGETATION 5.1.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative
Under Alternative A, the NM Unit would not be constructed and no new impacts on vegetation communities or special status plant species would occur as a result of construction and operation of a NM Unit. Push-up diversion activities and existing agricultural and land use practices (including mining) within the Analysis Area would continue as currently operated, and adverse impacts on vegetation communities and special status plant species would continue to occur. These potential impacts would include vegetation removal, direct loss of individual plants and habitat and soil compaction during push- up diversion maintenance, spread of noxious weeds due to a lack of BMPs to minimize spread of noxious weeds (e.g., cleaning equipment prior to entering the site) and impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation from modifications to surface and groundwater hydrology.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Vegetation communities within the Analysis Area has been previously disturbed as a result of previous and ongoing land uses within and adjacent to the river corridors. This disturbance would continue under Alternative A. The Analysis Area contains approximately 10,457.5 acres of agricultural land and 167.3 acres of medium- to high-intensity developed land (see Table 4-1). Land uses including grazing and water diversions have likely influenced the extent and distribution of existing vegetation and would continue to do so under Alternative A.
Groundwater depths have decreased (HDR 2019c). Groundwater pumping and water diversions increase the depth to groundwater in specific areas (see Section 5.1.1.6). Creation and maintenance of diversion structures, grazing, and other disturbances have also created disturbed areas that provide suitable conditions for noxious weed establishment and spread (see Section 5.1.1.7). In addition, current ongoing diversions of the water from the river to irrigation ditches create dry reaches within the riverbed below the diversion sites; individual plants may experience reduced vigor or death as a result of river drying below push-up diversions. However, vegetation within or adjacent to unlined irrigation ditches would receive diverted water and continue to experience beneficial impacts from diversion.
ESA PLANT SPECIES
No effects on ESA-protected plant species from Alternative A are expected to occur as none of these species are present in the Analysis Area. The Analysis Area is beyond the known geographic or elevational range of the species or does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to support the listed species, or both.
NEW MEXICO ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES
Three (3) New Mexico endangered plant species have potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Table 4-3): Wilcox’s pincushion cactus in the Virden Valley and Upper Gila Analysis Area; and night-blooming cereus and Parish’s alkali grass in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. Individuals of these species could continue to be adversely impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. However, ongoing impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for any of these species because project activities would continue to impact a limited amount of suitable habitat compared with the amount of habitat available to these species within the Analysis Area and vicinity. In addition, potential impacts on
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 79 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
Wilcox’s pincushion cactus and night-blooming cereus would be less likely as these species do not occur in riparian habitats where disturbance and hydrological changes associated with Alternative A would occur.
USFS SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
Three (3) USFS Sensitive Plant Species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Table 4-3): Parish’s alkali grass in the Virden Valley Analysis Area, Arizona alum root in the San Francisco River Analysis Area, and Greene milkweed in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Individuals of these species could continue to be adversely impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. However, impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for any of these species because project activities would impact limited suitable habitat compared with the amount of habitat available to these species within National Forest lands. In addition, impacts on Greene milkweed would be unlikely to occur because this species does not occur in riparian habitats, where disturbance associated with maintenance and hydrological changes from operations would continue occur as a result of Alternative A.
BLM SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
Four (4) BLM Sensitive Plant Species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Table 4-3): Parish’s alkali grass and night-blooming cereus in the Virden Valley Analysis Area; Clifton rock daisy in the San Francisco River and Lower Gila Analysis Areas; and Pima Indian mallow in the Lower Gila Analysis Area. These species could be adversely impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. However, potential impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for these species because the amount of suitable habitat that is impacted for project activities is limited compared with the amount of habitat available within BLM-administered lands. In addition, the Clifton rock daisy and Pima Indian mallow would only experience indirect impacts, owing to hydrological changes, as known occurrences of these species are downstream of all Direct Impacts Areas.
WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS
Depths to groundwater and historic groundwater pumping have adversely impacted wetland and riparian vegetation within the Analysis Area. In the period from 1985 to 2017, groundwater levels have decreased up to 59 feet, with some areas experiencing an increase due to decreased water usage (HDR 2019c). In places, the depth to groundwater may be too great to support riparian vegetation; however, in other areas, the depth to groundwater would support riparian gallery vegetation (HDR 2014; SWCA 2014). Riparian and wetland vegetation occur along the river channels. Water diversion through unlined ditches would continue to contribute to localized increases in groundwater levels.
The current depth to groundwater within the Analysis Area is not well documented; however, data are available from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Water Rights Reporting System, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Portal, and the Arizona Department of Water Resources Groundwater Site Inventory to assess depths to groundwater. These sources indicate that depths to groundwater range from 5 feet below ground surface to 150 feet below ground surface in upland areas at distances between 100 and 1,500 feet from the Gila and San Francisco River channels. Soles and Cooper (2014) report median depths in the Upper Gila Analysis Area varied between 1.8 feet to 7.6 feet below the ground surface with variation between the maximum and minimum depths ranging from 1.8 feet to 8.1 feet. There are seasonal variations in median depth to groundwater, with the least depth to groundwater occurring during the Snowmelt-Runoff period and the greatest depths occurring during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period. Over a 10-year period, from 2007 to 2017, HDR (2019c) reports declines in groundwater levels ranging from 1.2 feet to 3.0 feet in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area; 1.9 feet to
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 80 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
9.0 feet in the Virden Direct Impacts Area; and 5.5 feet to 7.2 feet in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area. Data presented in Soles and Cooper (2014) indicate that greater depths to groundwater support mesic to xeric vegetation. This suggests that continued trends in declining groundwater levels could result in a transition from wetland and riparian vegetation to more mesic or xeric vegetation communities.
5.1.1.6.1 WETLAND AREAS
Potential wetlands mapped by NWI as Freshwater Emergent Wetland and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland are found on approximately 3,960.5 acres in the Direct Impacts Area and on approximately 27,385.6 acres in the Indirect Impacts Area. Under Alternative A, potential adverse impacts to wetlands would include ongoing disturbance from heavy equipment on wetland vegetation during push-up diversion maintenance activities; increased potential for noxious and invasive weed colonization and spread into wetland areas; and a reduction in the health and areal extent of wetlands and wet meadows due to increasing depth to groundwater from ongoing diversions and pumping in the area. Weedy species could create conditions that limit the normal growth and reproduction of native plant species and special status plant species.
Depth to groundwater within the Analysis Area is too great at places to support wetland vegetation; however, there are areas where the depth to groundwater is near enough to the surface to support wetlands and wetland vegetation (HDR 2014; SWCA 2014).
5.1.1.6.2 RIPARIAN AREAS
Riparian areas occur on a total of approximately 2,700.4 acres (10.3% of the Analysis Area) as mapped by SWReGAP. The NWI data indicate that Forested/Shrub Riparian and Herbaceous Riparian vegetation occur on about 1,897.0 acres in the Direct Impacts Area and on about 20,022.0 acres in the Indirect Impacts Area.
Ongoing adverse impacts on riparian vegetation from Alternative A would include disturbance to riparian vegetation during maintenance activities at push-up diversions and along ditches; increased potential for noxious and invasive weed colonization and spread in disturbed areas; a reduction in the overall health and areal extent of riparian vegetation communities due to reductions in available surface water and groundwater during diversions; and decreased recruitment/survivorship of native riparian trees and other groundwater-dependent species due to increased depth to groundwater. Diversions from the main river channels into unlined ditches have created and maintained stringers of mixed native and nonnative riparian trees along those ditches.
Within the Analysis Area, there are four reaches of river where surface flows dry up during portions of the irrigation season. These areas include three reaches on the Gila River and one on the San Francisco River. On the Gila River, flows become intermittent along a reach downstream of the Fort West push-up diversion; a reach upstream of the Sunset Diversion; and at Cosper Crossing in Duncan Valley, Arizona. The San Francisco River dries at times between the W-S Diversion and Glenwood. Riparian vegetation may be limited or stressed in these areas due to reduced surface water availability.
NOXIOUS WEEDS
The creation and maintenance of existing push-up diversions utilizing heavy equipment in the riparian corridor would continue to create the potential for the establishment and spread of noxious weeds due to ground disturbance and removal of native vegetation. Equipment that has been used in locations
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 81 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
containing noxious weeds may introduce noxious weed propagules in contaminated mud, materials, or plant parts.
5.1.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives CONSTRUCTION
Direct long- and short-term impacts on vegetation communities from all action alternatives would be associated with construction activities, including construction of diversions, ditch/canal improvements, ground clearing, and/or construction of water storage features. Long-term impacts to vegetation include direct loss of individual plants and habitats. Short-term impacts include removal and/or crushing of individual plants, disturbance to vegetation communities, soil compaction and disturbance, and increased potential for noxious and invasive weed establishment. For the purposes of this analysis, the short-term disturbance areas were determined using a 50-foot buffer around project features, with long-term disturbance areas calculated using a 25-foot buffer around project features. On-site conditions may require minor shifting of planned component locations, which could adversely affect any individual plants within the shifted construction footprint. In the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas, there would be minor adverse short- and long-term impacts. As noted in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3, there would be minor adverse impacts to vegetation across all land cover types and total vegetation for all action alternatives. Impacts for total vegetation are less than 5% of the vegetation occurring in the Direct Impacts Areas.
Vegetation communities occurring within the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, San Francisco River, and Lower Gila Indirect Impact Areas would not be directly impacted by construction or operations activities and would experience indirect impacts ranging in severity from negligible to minor as no disturbance is planned in these areas.
Wetland and Riparian Vegetation. Similar to vegetation communities, there would be minor adverse effects to wetland and riparian vegetation across all action alternatives. Some existing wetland and riparian vegetation would be disturbed or removed during construction activities. Construction would primarily impact narrow stringers of vegetation along ditches within the riparian areas along the Gila and San Francisco Rivers. Riparian vegetation near the Gila and San Francisco Rivers would also be impacted by project facilities within the riparian corridor. Riparian and wetland vegetation may recover in areas of temporary disturbance; however, conditions created by construction activities may affect species composition by favoring the establishment of nonnative riparian vegetation including tamarisk and Russian olive. Implementation of BMPs (see Appendix H) would avoid or minimize impacts on wetland areas.
Seeps and Springs. No potential impacts on seeps and springs are anticipated during the construction phase of the proposed project as none occur within the project component footprint of short-term and long-term disturbance areas.
Noxious weeds. Construction activities could lead to increased potential for introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds from clearing of vegetation; changes to habitat from noxious and invasive weed establishment and spread; and direct and indirect adverse impacts on and competition with native vegetation and special status plant species. Areas of bare soil resulting from construction disturbance are more likely to be colonized by noxious and invasive weed species that could then serve as source populations for the spread of these species into adjacent areas. Weedy species could compete with and create conditions that limit the normal growth and reproduction of special status plant species. Equipment used in construction may spread seeds or propagules of these weedy species and increase their abundance
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 82 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
locally within the Analysis Area. BMPs, including revegetation and equipment cleaning (see Appendix H), would be employed to mitigate disturbed areas and prevent or slow the spread of weedy species.
Special Status Plant Species. Potential impacts on special status plant species would be similar in nature to those previously described above for vegetation communities. However, the magnitude of impacts may be greater for special status plant species due to their more limited ranges and more specific habitat requirements. Construction activities may adversely impact individual special status plants, but these impacts are anticipated to be minor to moderate to the local and regional populations of these species due to the limited area of potential impacts in relation to the overall habitat availability for these species. Potential impacts on special status plant species are discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.3.4.
5.1.2.2.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Potential impacts on vegetation communities and special status plant species from all action alternatives would occur during operation and maintenance activities. Potential long-term impacts from operation would include changes in vegetation structure and establishment due to modifications to the surface flow regime; reduced recruitment and retention of riparian and wetland vegetation from increases in depth to groundwater in shallow aquifers; and creation of conditions that could increase noxious and invasive weed establishment and spread.
The potential impacts associated with maintenance would be similar in nature to those described above for construction of project components. Long-term disturbances would occur in less than 5% of the area for each land cover type and total vegetation in the Direct Impacts Areas for all project locations. Because maintenance activities would occur infrequently, in limited areas that have been previously disturbed, and for a shorter duration than during construction, the magnitude of potential impacts would be less than that of construction activities. There would be negligible to minor direct, adverse effects to vegetation communities related to operation and maintenance activities across all action alternatives.
5.1.2.2.2 WETLAND AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION.
Potential operational impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation would be related to changes in surface water hydrology and groundwater hydrology associated with water diversions, storage areas, and pumping activities. Potential adverse impacts could include a reduction in the areal extent of wetlands due to a reduction in water availability present within the rooting zone of wetland vegetation and changes in the frequency, magnitude, duration, and timing of flood events. These impacts could include reduced wetland and riparian vegetation establishment near the rivers in the Direct Impacts Areas due to changes in the amount and timing of surface water flow; reduced recruitment of riparian and wetland vegetation, reduced health of riparian vegetation that relies on having groundwater within the rooting zone; and creation of conditions that could favor the establishment and spread of nonnative riparian species. Recovery of wetland and riparian vegetation after construction-related disturbance may be limited due to potential increases in depth to groundwater associated with the operation of the proposed project.
Diversions for all action alternatives would occur primarily between September and January, which would not impact levels or timing of spring and early summer flows when riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood and Goodding’s willow produce seed. Flows in the Gila River could be reduced when AWSA water is diverted. Modeling does not indicate large changes in flows in the San Francisco River Analysis Area (HDR 2019a). Potential adverse impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation from changes to surface water flow and timing would be minor under all action alternatives.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 83 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
Proposed surface water diversions or storage are not anticipated to significantly reduce near-surface groundwater recharge (SSPA 2013; Stone and Samson 2014). Lined ponds and ditches would reduce groundwater flow to the alluvial aquifer near the rivers in comparison to Alternative A. However, the proposed storage sites that are lined are modeled to have a minor impact on the deeper aquifer under all action alternatives.
Additional seepage and groundwater recharge may occur in unlined ditches (HDR 2019c), resulting in a local increase in narrow stringers of riparian vegetation. Thus, there could be a localized minor beneficial impact to wetland and riparian vegetation.
5.1.2.2.3 NOXIOUS WEEDS
Conditions that would support or favor nonnative weedy species establishment and spread include increasing the depth to groundwater and changes in timing, magnitude, and duration of flood events and low flow/drying events that favor nonnative weedy species such as tamarisk and Russian olive over native tree species. The proposed diversions would occur primarily between September and January, which would not impact levels or timing of spring and early summer flows when riparian trees such as Fremont cottonwood and Goodding’s willow produce seed and seed sets in areas where flows have created bare, mineral soil. As such, the anticipated change in timing of flows would continue to support the establishment of native riparian trees and would be unlikely to increase conditions that favor tamarisk or Russian olive near the Gila and San Francisco Rivers.
5.1.2.2.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Potential impacts on special status plant species from operation of the proposed project would be similar in nature to those described above for general vegetation. Potential impacts on special status plant species are discussed in more detail below in Section 5.1.3.4. MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES Potential permanent and temporary impacts on vegetation resources, including general vegetation wetlands and riparian areas, sensitive species, and ESA species, would be reduced or mitigated through the application of BMPs (see Appendix H) during implementation. Implementation of Vegetation BMPs V-1 through V-5 would minimize potential disturbance to species and habitats. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, minimizing vegetation disturbances, allowing for natural revegetation or implementing site-specific revegetation efforts using native, certified weed-free seed, and cleaning construction equipment prior to entering the construction site. The BMPs are based on Reclamation direction and policy, best available science, and site-specific evaluations. Implementation of BMPs are common to all action alternatives. 5.1.3 Analysis of Action Alternatives
Potential impacts on vegetation communities from the action alternatives would be as described above in Section 5.1.2. Acres of disturbance to vegetation communities are given to show the magnitude of the potential effects and the differences between action alternatives. Acres of disturbance to vegetation communities for all action alternatives are given below in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3 for the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and San Francisco River Analysis Areas, respectively. There would be no direct impacts on vegetation in the Lower Gila Analysis Area. SWReGAP landcover maps, by alternative, are in Appendix A, Figures A.38–A.40 for the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area; Figure A.41 for the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area; and Figures A42–A.45 for the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 84 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
Table 5-1. SWReGAP Land Cover Impacts within the Upper Gila Analysis Area
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Indirect Total Acreage Direct Impacts Impacts Area Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Land Cover in Analysis Area Impacts Impacts Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Area (acres) (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Agriculture 1,977.7 88.6 1,889.1 51.7 39.6 38.4 35.1 0 0 1.7 0.3 (2.7%) (2.1%) (2.3%) (1.9%) (2.1%) (<0.1%) Apacherian- 1,514.7 1,034.7 480.0 15.5 13.5 13.9 12.6 0 0 7.4 5.5 Chihuahuan (3.2%) (2.8%) (2.9%) (2.6%) (1.5%) (1.2%) Mesquite Upland Scrub Apacherian- 1,242.2 105.8 1,136.4 74.2 67.0 63.9 61.7 0 0 94.7 84.6 Chihuahuan (6.5%) (5.9%) (5.6%) (5.4%) (8.3%) (7.4%) Piedmont Semi- Desert Grassland and Steppe Chihuahuan 423.5 401.2 22.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub Madrean Encinal 0.9 0 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Madrean Juniper 100.6 1.1 99.5 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 0 0 1.9 1.0 Savanna (3.2%) (2.9%) (2.7%) (2.7%) (1.9%) (1.4%) Madrean Pine-Oak 15.4 4.2 11.2 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest and (4.5%) (0.9%) Woodland Madrean Pinyon- 3,237.2 233.0 3,004.2 74.9 52.7 52.8 41.8 0 0 136.1 111.3 Juniper Woodland (2.5%) (1.8%) (1.8%) (1.4%) (4.5%) (3.7%) Mogollon Chaparral 2,635.0 680.1 1,954.9 153.9 114.3 90.3 80.9 0 0 87.5 68.2 (7.8%) (5.9%) (4.6%) (4.1%) (4.5%) (3.5%) North American 1,436.8 1,020.9 415.9 7.7 4.0 0 0.3 0 0 7.2 Warm Desert Lower (1.9%) (1.0%) (0.1%) (1.7%) 3.6 Montane Riparian (0.9% Woodland and Shrubland North American 72.0 36.2 35.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.5 9.4 Warm Desert Wash (2.7%) (3.3%) Sonoran Mid- 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elevation Desert Scrub
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 85 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Indirect Total Acreage Direct Impacts Impacts Area Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Land Cover in Analysis Area Impacts Impacts Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Area (acres) (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Total 12,656.2 3,606.0 9,050.1 381.6 294.1 262.5 235.0 0 0 346.1 284.0 (4.2%) (3.3%) (2.9%) (2.9%) (3.8%) (3.1%)
Note: Percent is the percentage of Direct Impacts Area acreage. Sums may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Table 5-2. SWReGAP Land Cover Impacts within the Virden Valley Analysis Area
Alternatives B, C, D, and E Total Acreage in Indirect Impacts Area Direct Impacts Area Land Cover Analysis Area Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) Direct, Short-Term Direct, Long-Term Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) Agriculture 3,352.4 134.2 3,218.2 25.3 21.9 (0.8%) (0.7%) Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 3,686.8 2,041.2 1,645.6 74.0 66.5 (4.5%) (4.0%) Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert 158.6 55.4 103.2 4.5 4.0 Grassland and Steppe (4.4%) (3.9%) Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn 2,054.7 31.7 2,023.0 27.3 23.3 Scrub (1.3%) (1.2%) Developed, Medium - High Intensity 27.0 27.0 0 0 0 Madrean Juniper Savanna <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 5.9 0.8 5.1 0 0 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 5.6 5.6 0 0 0 Mogollon Chaparral 116.0 58.6 57.4 0 0 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 803.2 627.8 175.4 0 0 Woodland and Shrubland North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 1.8 1.8 0 0 0 Shrubland North American Warm Desert Wash 2.0 0 2.0 0 0 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 30.9 14.0 16.9 0.4 0.3 Scrub (2.4%) (1.8%) Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 137.3 131.1 6.2 0 0
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 86 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
Alternatives B, C, D, and E Total Acreage in Indirect Impacts Area Direct Impacts Area Land Cover Analysis Area Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) Direct, Short-Term Direct, Long-Term Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 108.2 89.1 19.1 0 0 Total 10,490.4 3,218.3 7,272.1 131.5 116.0 (1.8%) (1.6%)
Note: Percent is the percentage of Direct Impacts Area acreage. Sums may not add up exactly due to rounding.
Table 5-3. SWReGAP Land Cover Impacts within the San Francisco River Analysis Area
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Total Indirect Direct Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Acreage in Impacts Area Impacts Area Short- Short- Short- Long- Land Cover Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Short-Term Analysis Impacts Impacts Term Term Term Term Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Area (acres) (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Agriculture 507.0 13.5 494.0 0.3 0.04 0.7 0.5 0 0 1.1 0.5 (0.1%) (<0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.1%) Apacherian- 2,150.8 1,469.3 681.5 3.1 1.4 27.3 22.6 0 0 38.9 31.9 Chihuahuan Mesquite (0.5%) (0.2%) (4.0%) (3.3%) (5.7%) (4.7%) Upland Scrub Apacherian- 460.3 81.7 378.6 1.4 0.7 12.5 9.9 0 0 14.7 11.5 Chihuahuan Piedmont (0.4%) (0.2%) (3.3%) (2.6%) (3.9%) (3.0%) Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe Chihuahuan 56.3 40.8 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub Colorado Plateau 3.9 2.8 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland Developed, Medium - 140.4 140.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High Intensity Invasive Southwest 4.7 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Madrean Encinal 2.9 0.1 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Madrean Juniper 16.0 4.0 12.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Savanna
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 87 Chapter 5. Effects of the Action
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Total Indirect Direct Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Acreage in Impacts Area Impacts Area Short- Short- Short- Long- Land Cover Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Short-Term Analysis Impacts Impacts Term Term Term Term Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Area (acres) (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Madrean Pine-Oak 26.2 18.0 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest and Woodland Madrean Pinyon- 1,916.5 216.4 1,700.1 1.7 0.8 60.7 50.9 0 0 87.7 74.6 Juniper Woodland (0.1%) (<0.1%) (3.6%) (3.0%) (5.2%) (4.4%) Mogollon Chaparral 1,481.5 822.7 658.8 3.0 1.5 6.4 4.7 0 0 14.9 8.2 (0.5%) (0.2%) (1.0%) (0.7%) (2.3%) (1.2%) North American Warm 1,219.6 877.0 342.6 6.1 3.1 3.5 2.0 0 0 11.1 5.6 Desert Lower Montane (1.8%) (0.9%) (1.0%) (0.6%) (3.2%) (1.6%) Riparian Woodland and Shrubland North American Warm 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Open Water 2.6 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sonoran Mid-Elevation 96.9 96.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desert Scrub Sonoran Paloverde- 25.7 25.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub Total 8,113.1 3,818.0 4,295.0 15.5 7.7 111.1 90.7 0 0 168.4 132.4 (0.4%) (0.2%) (2.6%) (2.1%) (3.9%) (3.1%)
Note: Percent is the percentage of Direct Impacts Area acreage. Sums may not add up exactly due to rounding.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 88 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Potential impacts on riparian vegetation and wetlands would be as described above in Section 5.1.2. Within the project footprint, a direct loss of individual plants would occur; however, these impacts would be minor on the riparian and wetland communities due to the small percentage of these communities that would be directly impacted in relation to the amount of the communities present in the Analysis Area. Acreages of direct disturbance to riparian areas and wetlands from the action alternatives are presented for the Upper Gila Analysis Area (Table 5-4), Virden Valley Analysis Area (Table 5-5) and the San Francisco River Analysis Area (Table 5-6). There would be no direct impacts on riparian areas or wetlands within the Lower Gila Analysis Area. NWI mapping is in Appendix A, Figures A.46–A.48 for the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area; Figure A.49 for the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area; and Figures A.50–A.53 for the San Francisco Direct Impacts Area.
5.1.3.2.1 UPPER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
Alternative B
Project components unique to the Upper Gila Analysis Area under Alternative B include lining existing ditches and the operation of five production wells. Seepage from lined ditches would be reduced, adversely impacting the stringers of native riparian and wetland vegetation adjacent to lined sections. The potential impact would be minimal because locations for lining were selected to avoid wetland and riparian vegetation. Direct short- and long-term impacts are summarized in Table 5-4.
The potential impacts related to operation of production wells may adversely impact native riparian and wetland vegetation that occurs within the groundwater drawdown cone of depression. It is anticipated that approximately 10 feet of groundwater drawdown would occur at each of the five production wells, with depth decreasing to 5 feet of groundwater drawdown at a distance of 540 feet from each production well, and 1 foot of drawdown at a distance of 2,100 feet from the production wells (HDR 2019c). Production wells 3 and 5 would each impact an approximately 0.5-mile reach of the Gila River where depth to groundwater would increase 1 to 5 feet (HDR 2019c). Roots for established riparian species are able to draw water from depths greater than 5 feet (Rood et al. 2013) and modeled changes would not be expected to occur at a rate that would exceed the ability of the riparian trees to grow roots to maintain a connection with groundwater (SSPA 2013). The potential impacts would be moderate on riparian vegetation in the two 0.5-mile stretches of the Gila River but would be minor elsewhere.
Freshwater Emergent Wetland and Herbaceous Riparian vegetation types may be impacted by drawdown within the 5-foot drawdown contour on about 1.9 acres and on about 87.7 acres within the 1-foot drawdown contour; no riparian or wetland vegetation is anticipated to occur within the 10-foot drawdown contour area (Table 5-7). Impacts on groundwater levels expected from production wells 3 and 5 would adversely impact wetland vegetation.
Alternative C
Proposed project components do not include lining irrigation ditches or production wells. The proposed diversions consist of rock vane weirs in the general location of the existing push-up diversions. Impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation would be similar to those of Alternative A, No Action. Seepage from unlined irrigation ditches would continue to support riparian and wetland vegetation adjacent to the irrigation ditches. Decreased surface water flow may impact riparian and wetland vegetation along the river edge. However as demonstrated by Hathaway et al. (2016) and SSPA (2013), changes in surface water flows would not have greatly affect streamside vegetation. There would be negligible to minor impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 89 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Alternative D
No project components are proposed in the Upper Gila Analysis Areas under Alternative D.
Alternative E
Project components that would impact riparian and wetland areas include lining irrigation ditches, unlined storage in Winn Canyon, and implementing aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. Similar to Alternative B, seepage from lined ditches would be reduced, adversely impacting the stringers of native riparian and wetland vegetation adjacent to lined sections. The potential impact would be minimal because locations for lining were selected to avoid wetland and riparian vegetation. There would be 67.9 (3.8%) acres of riparian and wetland vegetation affected in the short-term and 56.8 acres (3.1%) acres of riparian and wetland vegetation affected in the long-term due to storage in Winn Canyon (see Table 5-4). There would be minor to moderate impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation and all vegetation communities due to storage in Winn Canyon.
ASR wells are designed to recover water from unlined storage in Winn Canyon and release water back to an unlined ditch (HDR 2019c). There may be localized beneficial impacts due to increased recharge from the unlined ditches. The ASR wells are approximately 60 feet deep and may create a cone of depression. The impacts have not been modeled; however, the impacts may be similar to those described for the production wells. The potential impact would be minor.
Under Alternative E, impacts arising from the construction of additional power lines would be as described in Alternative B.
5.1.3.2.2 VIRDEN VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA
Alternatives B, C, D, and E
All action alternatives in the Virden Valley are the same. Project diversions would not affect spring runoff, there may be some recharge from unlined storage ponds and unlined ditches from AWSA water (HDR 2019c). There would be a minor beneficial impact on wetland and riparian vegetation due to increased seepage in unlined storage ponds and unlined ditches. Direct short- and long-term impacts are summarized in Table 5-5. Direct impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation would be negligible to minor for all action alternatives.
5.1.3.2.3 SAN FRANCISCO RIVER ANALYSIS AREA
Alternative B
Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation would be as described Section 5.1.1.6. Seepage from unlined ditches may have localized beneficial impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation. Project diversions do not affect spring runoff, allowing for downstream recharge (HDR 2019c). Direct short- and long-term impacts are summarized in Table 5-6). There would be negligible to minor direct impacts.
Alternative C
Proposed project components that would impact riparian and wetland vegetation include the rock vane weir near the existing Thomason Flat push-up diversion near Spurgeon Ditch # 2, expanding unlined ditches, and water storage in an unlined reservoir in Weedy Canyon. There would be minor impacts to riparian and wetland areas and minor to moderate impacts to all vegetation communities due to storage in
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 90 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Weedy Canyon. There may be localized negligible to minor beneficial impacts due to groundwater seepage from expanded, unlined ditches or from the unlined storage at Weedy Canyon.
Alternative D
No project components are proposed in the San Francisco River Analysis Areas under Alternative D.
Alternative E
Impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation would be as described Section 5.1.1.6. Alternative E includes constructing 36-inch pipelines and a siphon, reconstructing and widening the existing Pleasanton West Side Ditch, and constructing an unlined reservoir with an unlined earthen embankment at Weedy Canyon.
Constructing pipelines and the siphon would minimize seepage. These new components would not support riparian and wetland vegetation. To the extent these features are constructed in the riparian areas there would be a loss of riparian and wetland vegetation (see Table 5-6). Seepage from unlined storage and unlined ditches may have localized beneficial impacts on wetland and riparian vegetation. Project diversions do not affect spring runoff, allowing for downstream alluvial recharge (HDR 2019c).
There would be minor impacts to riparian and wetland areas and minor to moderate impacts to all vegetation communities due to storage in Weedy Canyon.
Table 5-4. Upper Gila Analysis Area Riparian/Wetland Direct Impacts
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative E Total Indirect Direct Direct, Direct, Direct, Acreage Impacts Impacts Direct, Direct, Direct, Short- Short- Short- Analysis Area in Area Area Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Term Term Term Analysis Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forested/Shrub 1,770.0 1,214.8 555.2 15.1 10.0 6.8 5.8 5.8 4.9 Riparian (2.7%) (1.8%) (1.2%) (1.0%) (1.0%) (0.9%) Freshwater 361.5 198.0 163.5 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.2 29.6 28.7 Emergent (1.3%) (0.7%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (18.1%) (17.6 %) Wetland Freshwater 965.3 613.1 352.2 17.4) 9.9 5.4 3.4 14.7 8.5 Forested/Shrub (4.9%) (2.8%) (1.5%) (1.0%) (4.2%) (2.4%) Wetland Freshwater Pond 11.6 0 11.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0 0 (9.5%) (9.5%) (9.5%) (9.5%) Herbaceous 523.8 377.6 146.2 0.6 0.1 0 0 0 0 Riparian (0.4%) (0.1%) Riverine 1,715.6 1,137.9 577.7 14.2 9.4 3.9 2.7 17.7 14.7 (2.5%) (1.6%) (0.7%) (0.5%) (3.1%) (2.5%) Total 5,347.8 3,541.4 1,806.4 50.4 31.6 17.6 13.2 67.9 56.8 (2.8%) (1.7%) (1.0%) (0.7%) (3.8%) (3.1%)
Source: USFWS (2019b): NWI Wetland types used for calculation of total riparian/wetland vegetation acreage: Forested/Shrub Riparian, Freshwater Emergent Wetland: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, Herbaceous Riparian, and Riverine. Note: There are no project components proposed for Alternative D in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. Percent is the percentage of the Direct Impacts Acres. Sums may not add up exactly due to rounding.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 91 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-5. Virden Valley Analysis Area Riparian/Wetland Direct Impacts
Indirect Total Acreage Direct Impacts Alternatives B, C, D, and E Impacts Area Analysis Area in Analysis Area Impacts Impacts Direct, Short-Term Direct, Long-Term Area (acres) (acres) Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) Forested/Shrub Riparian 1,840.9 1,214. 626.1 0 0 Freshwater Emergent 250.6 198.0 52.6 0 0 Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub 655.7 613.1 42.6 0 0 Wetland Freshwater Pond 5.5 0 5.5 0 0 Herbaceous Riparian 519.3 377.6 141.7 0 0 Riverine 1,708.4 1,137.9 570.5 3.0 2.1 (0.5%) (0.4%) Total 4,980.2 3,540.6 1,438.8 3.0 2.1 (0.2%) (0.1%)
Source: USFWS (2019b): NWI Wetland types used for calculation of total riparian/wetland vegetation acreage: Forested/Shrub Riparian, Freshwater Emergent Wetland: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, Herbaceous Riparian, and Riverine. Note: Percent is the percentage of Direct Impacts Area acreage. Sums may not add up exactly due to rounding.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 92 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-6. San Francisco River Analysis Area Riparian/Wetland Direct Impacts
Indirect Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative E Total Acreage Impacts Area Impacts Area Analysis Area in Analysis Direct, Short- Direct, Long- Direct, Short- Direct, Long- Direct, Short- Direct, Long- Impacts Impacts Area Term Impacts Term Impacts Term Impacts Term Impacts Term Impacts Term Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Forested/Shrub 1,840.9 1,214.8 626.1 8.6 4.6 8.6 6.1 20.1 11.7 Riparian (1.4%) (0.7%) (1.4%) (1.0%) (3.2%) (1.9%) Freshwater 250.6 198.0 52.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Emergent Wetland Freshwater 655.7 613.1 42.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.8 Forested/Shrub (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.5%) (0.2%) (3.1%) (1.9%) Wetland Freshwater Pond 5.5 0 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Herbaceous 519.3 377.6 141.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riparian Riverine 1,708.4 1,137.9 570.5 2.9 3.9 2.9 3.9 3.8 2.7 (0.5%) (0.7%) (0.5%) (0.7%) (0.7%) (0.5%) Total 4,980.2 3,541.4 1,438.8 11.7 8.5 11.8 10.1 25.2 15.2 (0.8%) (0.6%) (0.8%) (0.7%) (1.8%) (1.1%)
Source: USFWS (2019b): NWI Wetland types used for calculation of total riparian/wetland vegetation acreage: Forested/Shrub Riparian, Freshwater Emergent Wetland: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, Herbaceous Riparian, and Riverine. Note: There are no project components proposed for Alternative D in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. Percent is the percentage of the Direct Impacts Acres. Sums may not add up exactly due to rounding.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 93 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-7. Vegetation Potentially Impacted by Drawdown related to the Production Wells in the Upper Gila Analysis Area (Alternative B)
Acres within Drawdown Contour NWI Wetlands Class 1-foot contour 5-foot contour 10-foot contour
Forested/Shrub Riparian 62.2 1.7 0.0 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 12.5 0.0 0.0 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 44.5 0.0 0.0 Freshwater Pond 3.9 0.0 0.0 Herbaceous Riparian 25.5 0.2 0.0 Riverine 62. 1 2.6 0.1
Source: USFWS (2019b): NWI Wetland categories used for calculation of riparian/wetland vegetation acreage.
SEEPS AND SPRINGS
Potential impacts on seeps and springs would be as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Potential impacts are related to the operation of the production wells. Seeps and springs in upland areas would not be expected to be impacted by flow alterations. Alternative B would have the highest potential to impact seeps and springs due to the five production wells in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. Potential impacts on seeps and springs from operation of the proposed project would include reduced flows from seeps and springs in areas where groundwater pumping from production wells could locally increase the depth to groundwater, which could affect riparian and wetland vegetation within the Direct Impacts Area. Upland vegetation would likely not be impacted. These impacts are discussed above in Section 5.1.3.1 and based on HDR (2019c), seven seeps or springs occur between 540 and 2,100 feet from a production well and could see changes in flows associated with increases in depth to groundwater of 1 to 5 feet under Alternative B (see Appendix A; Figure A.54). These potential impacts on seeps and springs would be expected to range in severity from minor to moderate for Alternative B. Potential impacts on seeps and springs from all other action alternatives would be anticipated to be less than Alternative B but similar to each other, and impacts would range from negligible to minor.
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Potential direct impacts on special status plant species would be similar to those described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Seven special status plant species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area and some species have special status under multiple jurisdictions (see Table 4-3). Table 5-8 gives the potential impacts on suitable habitat for these species by acres of short- and long-term disturbance to habitat for each of the special status species. Potential impacts on special status plant species were estimated by using disturbance of suitable habitat to quantify potential impacts.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 94 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-8. Acres of Short- and Long-Term Direct Disturbance to Special Status Plant Species Habitat
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Species Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Acres* Acres* Acres* Acres* Acres* Acres* Acres* Acres* Arizona alum 6.1 3.1 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 5.6 root (1.8%) (0.9%) (1.0%) (0.6%) (3.2%) (1.6%) Clifton rock 6.1 3.1 3.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 5.6 daisy (1.8%) (0.9%) (1.0%) (0.6%) (3.2%) (1.6%) Parish’s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 alkali grass Night- 31.8 27.3 31.8 27.3 31.8 27.3 31.8 27.3 blooming (1.4%) (1.2%) (1.4%) (1.2%) (1.4%) (1.2%) (1.4%) (1.2%) cereus Wilcox’s 394 315.5 101.7 90.1 101.7 90.1 314.6 269.1 pincushion (2.6% (2.1%) (1.7%) (1.5%) (1.7%) (1.5%) (2.1%) (1.8%) cactus Greene 245.8 204.7 205.5 178.4 0 0.0 354.5 297.3 milkweed (2.3%) (1.9%) (1.9%) (1.7%) (3.3%) (2.8%) Pima Indian N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A mallow
* Percent is the percentage of the short-term and long-term impacts.
Reductions in riparian, wetland, and seeps/spring habitats from construction and maintenance-related disturbance (see Table 5-6) and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology from operations could reduce habitat for Arizona alum root (San Francisco River Analysis Area only), Clifton rock daisy (San Francisco River Analysis Area and Lower Gila Analysis Area), and Parish’s alkali grass (Virden Valley Analysis Area only) (see Table 5-5). Localized increases in groundwater due to seepage from unlined storage areas or increased water distribution in unlined ditches may increase habitat for these species.
Special status plant species that are limited to upland vegetation communities include night-blooming cereus (Virden Valley Analysis Area only), Pima Indian mallow (Lower Gila Analysis Area only), Greene milkweed (Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas), and Wilcox’s pincushion cactus (Virden Valley and Upper Gila Analysis Areas). Potential impacts on these species would include the potential for direct loss from crushing or removal by construction and maintenance equipment and from the development of impoundments in upland areas. The acres of potential disturbance to upland vegetation communities are given in Table 5-8 by alternative. These species would not be likely to be impacted from pumping and other changes to surface and groundwater hydrology. The level of impact on these species is discussed by action alternative below.
5.1.3.4.1 ALTERNATIVE B
Acres of potential impacts and percent of habitat to be disturbed for special status plant species are given above in Table 5-8. For all special status plant species except Pima Indian mallow and Parish’s alkali grass, which would have negligible impacts, the potential impacts under Alternative B would be minor on these species at the population level due to the small percent of the available habitat to be disturbed in relation to in the overall Analysis Area.
Potential minor adverse impacts on habitat for Arizona alum root and Clifton rock daisy would occur only in the San Francisco River Analysis Area in the riparian area (see Table 5-8). Clifton rock daisy also has the potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area; however, no impacts on this species are
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 95 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
anticipated in this area as no direct disturbance is planned and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology would be negligible in this area.
Potential impacts on Parish’s alkali grass would be limited to the Virden Valley Analysis Area. None of the habitats utilized by this species would be disturbed under any of the action alternatives (see Table 5-8). This species also has the potential to occur at seeps and springs in this area. However, no impacts on seeps and springs are expected in the Virden Valley Analysis Area as changes in groundwater levels would be minor (HDR 2109c). As such, potential impacts on the species from Alternative B and all other action alternatives would be negligible.
As none of the special status species that are found in riparian areas are possible or known to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area, there would be no potential impacts from Alternative B on these species from increasing depth to groundwater from cones of depression associated with production wells.
Potential minor adverse impacts on night-blooming cereus from Alternative B would be limited to minor direct disturbance-related impacts only in the Virden Valley Analysis Area (see Table 5-8).
Potential impacts on Wilcox’s pincushion cactus in the Virden Valley and Upper Gila Analysis Areas would be limited to direct disturbance to habitat for the species (see Table 5-8).
Pima Indian mallow has the potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area; however, no impacts on this species are anticipated in this area as no disturbance is planned and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology would be negligible in this area.
Greene milkweed has the potential to occur in both the Upper Gila Analysis Area and the San Francisco River Analysis Areas in upland vegetation communities. Within the Upper Gila Analysis Area, short- and long-term impacts would occur on about 164.6 acres of habitat for the species short-term and 133.2 acres respectively, which would be about 12.3 and 10.5 percent, respectively, of the habitat for the species in this Analysis Area (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-3).8 There would be minor to moderate adverse impacts to Greene milkweed. Within the San Francisco River Analysis Area, short- and long-term impacts would occur on about 6.2 acres of habitat for the species short-term and 2.9 acres respectively, which would be about 0.9 and 0.4 percent, respectively, of the habitat for the species in this Analysis Area (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-3). These impacts would be minor to moderate.
5.1.3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE C
Acres of potential impacts and percent of habitat to be disturbed for special status plant species are given above in Table 5-8. Potential minor adverse impacts on Arizona alum root and Clifton rock daisy would occur only in the San Francisco River Analysis Area in riparian areas. Clifton rock daisy has the potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area; however, no impacts on this species are anticipated in this area as no direct disturbance is planned and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology would be negligible in this area. As Parish’s alkali grass and night-blooming cereus occur only in the Virden Valley portion of the Analysis Area, the potential impacts on these species from Alternative C would be the same as those given for Alternative B above. Potential impacts on Wilcox’s pincushion cactus in the Virden Valley Analysis Area under Alternative C would be exactly as described above for Alternative B. Wilcox’s pincushion cactus is also possible to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. Approximately 101.7 acres of suitable habitat would be disturbed under Alternative C (see Table 5-8).
8 SWReGAP land cover types used include Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub, Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe, and Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 96 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Pima Indian mallow has the potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area; however, no impacts on this species are anticipated in this area as no direct disturbance is planned and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology would be negligible in this area.
Greene milkweed has the potential to occur in both the Upper Gila Analysis Area and the San Francisco River Analysis Areas in upland vegetation communities. Within the Upper Gila Analysis Area, short- and long-term impacts would occur on about 130.6 acres of habitat for the species short-term and 116.1 acres respectively, which would be about 10.3 and 9.4 percent, respectively, of the habitat for the species in this Analysis Area (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-3). Within the San Francisco River Analysis Area, about 100.5 acres of short-term and 83.4 acres of long- term disturbance would occur on suitable habitat for Greene milkweed. This would be about 10.9 and 8.9 percent, respectively, of the available suitable habitat for the species in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. These impacts would be minor to moderate.
5.1.3.4.3 ALTERNATIVE D
Acres of potential impacts and percent of habitat to be disturbed for special status plant species are given above in Table 5-8.
As there would be no disturbance to habitat for Arizona alum root and Clifton rock daisy under Alternative D, no impacts would be expected on these species.
As Parish’s alkali grass and night-blooming cereus occur only in the Virden Valley in the Analysis Area, the potential impacts on these species from Alternative D would be the same as those given previously for Alternatives B and C, above.
Potential impacts on Wilcox’s pincushion cactus in the Virden Valley Analysis Area under Alternative D would be exactly as described above for Alternatives B and C.
As there would be no disturbance to habitat for Wilcox’s pincushion cactus in the Upper Gila Analysis Area, no impacts on this species within this Analysis Area would be expected.
Pima Indian mallow also has the potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area; however, no impacts on this species are anticipated in this area as no direct disturbance is planned and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology would be negligible in this area.
As there would be no disturbance to habitat for Greene milkweed under Alternative D, no impacts on the species would be expected.
5.1.3.4.4 ALTERNATIVE E
Acres of potential impacts and percent of habitat to be disturbed for special status plant species are given above in Table 5-8.
It is anticipated that individual plants may be lost but the overall impact on Pima Indian mallow would be minor due to the small percent of the available habitat to be disturbed in relation to that present in the overall Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas.
Potential minor impacts on habitat for Arizona alum root and Clifton rock daisy would occur only in the San Francisco River Analysis Area in the riparian area. Short-term impacts would occur on 11.1 acres (3.2%) and long-term impacts would occur on 5.6 acres (1.6%).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 97 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Potential impacts on Parish’s alkali grass and night-blooming cereus would be as described above for Alternatives B–D.
Potential disturbance to habitat for Wilcox’s pincushion cactus in the Virden Valley and Upper Gila Analysis Areas would include short-term disturbance of 314.6 acres (2.1%) and long-term disturbance of 269.1 acres (1.2%) (see Table 5-8).
Pima Indian mallow has the potential to occur in the Lower Gila Indirect Impacts Area; however, no impacts on this species are anticipated in this area as no disturbance is planned and changes to surface and groundwater hydrology would be negligible in this area.
Greene milkweed has the potential to occur in both the Upper Gila Analysis Area and the San Francisco River Analysis Areas in upland vegetation communities. Within the Upper Gila Analysis Area, short- and long-term impacts would occur on about 238.2 acres of habitat for the species short-term and 201.4 acres respectively, which would be about 14.4 and 12.3 percent, respectively, of the habitat for the species in this Analysis Area (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-3).9 There would be minor to moderate impacts to Greene milkweed. Within the San Francisco River Analysis Area, short- and long-term impacts would occur on about 141.3 acres of habitat for the species short-term and 118.0 acres respectively, which would be about 14.7 and 12.1 percent, respectively, of the habitat for the species in this Analysis Area (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-3). These impacts would be minor to moderate.
5.2 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE 5.2.1 Alternative A, No Action GENERAL WILDLIFE
Under Alternative A, ongoing adverse impacts on wildlife species would continue to occur resulting from diversion water for agricultural purposes, but there would be no additional impacts on general wildlife species from construction or operation of a NM Unit. Ongoing impacts on wildlife species and habitat would include: injury or mortality of individuals during repair of the push-up diversions; increased turbidity during push-up diversion construction or breaches and greater potential for contamination from heavy equipment in the river channel, which may adversely impact aquatic or semi-aquatic species and their habitats; behavioral changes in individuals due to noise and disturbance during the breeding/nesting season, that may in turn lead to lowered fecundity, lower foraging or predation success, increased predation, or lowered survival. In addition, there would be ongoing disruption of the natural flood regime, which could alter the distribution and quality of aquatic and riparian habitat in the long term; increase backwater habitat created by the diversions, which may increase habitat for nonnative species known to cause adverse impacts on native species through predation, competition, or increased prevalence of disease or parasites; and, in the event of heavy machinery failure, the potential for fuel or chemical pollution release into the water, which could adversely impact wildlife individuals by direct mortality, injury, or habitat degradation. Conveyance ditches provide riparian habitat through seepage losses providing beneficial impacts on native species.
Continued operation of the push-up diversions may lead to the direct mortality of aquatic and semiaquatic species from river drying downstream, aquatic or semi-aquatic individuals being entrained into ditches and agricultural fields from which they may not return to the river, and the increase of habitat alteration upstream by backing water up into pool habitat which favors nonnative species and siltation which would
9 SWReGAP land cover types used include Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub, Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe, and Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 98 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
affect aquatic or semi aquatic individuals. Downstream impacts to salinity (see HDR 2019d) may affect aquatic or semi-aquatic individuals.
SPRING, SEEPS, AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS
There are a total of 52 springs, seeps, and water improvements within 1 mile of the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas. These areas may be frequented by wildlife and used by livestock in areas where grazing occurs. Springs, seeps, and ponds may provide habitat for amphibians and reptiles and provide dispersal habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (USFWS 2012g). Additionally, these features provide habitat for nonnative species, including American bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish (Global Invasive Species Database 2019; Rinne 1994; Rosen and Schwalbe 1995; USFWS 2014c). There are insufficient available data to determine the magnitude of any effects that may have occurred or are ongoing. Any ongoing effects (e.g., reduced flows) would continue to occur under Alternative A.
IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS
Impacts on the IBAs from Alternative A are ongoing. The Gila-Cliff IBA, which overlaps with the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, receives minor adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of bird habitat of the IBA from the construction and maintenance of the currently in-use Upper Gila, Fort West, and Gila Farms push-up diversions. Equipment may crush plants, reduce the amount of habitat available, and disturbance from noise or human presence may cause birds to change their behavior or temporarily avoid the vicinity while work occurs. All four IBAs that overlap with the analysis area—the Blue and San Francisco Rivers Ecosystem, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests IBA; Gila-Cliff IBA; Gila River Bird Area IBA; and, Lower Gila Box IBA—experience minor adverse impacts on bird habitat suitability through reduction in flow of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers from existing diversions. Diversion of water for agricultural use has created the existing distribution and influenced the abundance of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats downstream within these IBAs. However, these impacts on the quality and quantity of bird habitat cannot be quantified as the diversions have been in operation for many years and there are other factors (e.g., groundwater pumping or climate change) that may have contributed to the current state of riparian, wetland, and aquatic bird habitat downstream of diversions. All four IBAs would continue to provide habitat for birds, including special status bird species.
AMPHIBIANS
Four special status amphibians species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Table 4-4), including: Arizona toad, a BLM Sensitive Species for New Mexico and Arizona, with potential to occur in all portions of the Analysis Area; Chiricahua leopard frog, an ESA-listed species with potential to occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area within Arizona; lowland leopard frog, a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona known to occur in the Lower Gila and Virden Valley Analysis Areas within Arizona; and Sonoran desert toad, a New Mexico State Threatened species with the potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. The Chiricahua leopard frog is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5.
Many of the special status amphibian species could continue to be impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. Individuals within the river or adjacent riparian corridor at the time of maintenance activities could be injured or killed. Individuals may avoid the area while maintenance occurs, disrupting natural behaviors and leading to increased predation or reduced foraging success. Ongoing water diversion could reduce the availability of or further degrade aquatic and riparian habitat downstream of the diversions. This would reduce available habitat for special status amphibian species, decrease potential breeding habitat or increase predation upon adults or larvae, and increase both intra- and inter-species competition.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 99 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
BIRDS
Twenty-seven special status bird species are known to occur or have the potential occur within the Analysis Area (see Table 4-4). Four of these special status bird species are listed under the ESA: Mexican spotted owl, least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo. Potential impacts on these species are discussed in detail below in Section 5.2.5.
BLM Sensitive bird species that may occur or are known to occur in the Analysis Area include American peregrine falcon, Arizona Bell’s vireo, Arizona Botteri’s sparrow, bald eagle, Bendire’s thrasher, chestnut collared longspur, desert purple martin, ferruginous hawk, gilded flicker, golden eagle, northern goshawk, pinyon jay, Sprague’s pipit, Virginia’s warbler, and western burrowing owl.
USFS Sensitive species that are known to or have potential to occur in the Analysis Area include Abert’s towhee, American peregrine falcon, Arizona Bell’s vireo, bald eagle, common black hawk, common ground-dove, Costa’s hummingbird, Gila woodpecker, gray vireo, northern goshawk, and western burrowing owl.
State of New Mexico protected bird species that may occur in the Analysis Area include Abert’s towhee, American peregrine falcon, Arizona Bell’s vireo, bald eagle, broad-billed hummingbird, common black hawk, common ground-dove, Costa’s hummingbird, Gila woodpecker, gray vireo, least tern, neotropic cormorant, northern beardless tyrannulet, and varied bunting.
Under Alternative A, many of the special status bird species could continue to be impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities and associated impacts on habitat. Abert’s towhee (year-round), common black hawk (breeding), broad-billed hummingbird (breeding), common ground- dove (year-round), Gila woodpecker (year-round), gilded flicker (year-round), neotropic cormorant (breeding), northern beardless tyrannulet (breeding), Virginia’s warbler (breeding and migration), and varied bunting utilize riparian areas and would be expected to experience impacts from ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities.
Individual birds occurring in the Direct Impacts Areas would be expected to flee and avoid the area and during maintenance activities as a result of the noise levels and equipment. Adult individuals would be unlikely to experience mortality or injury related to diversion construction or maintenance activities, if construction is conducted outside of the nesting season. Behavior changes or avoidance of the area could result in a reduced foraging or predation success, or reduced breeding success by nest abandonment or disruption of courtship or nest building behavior. Ongoing water diversion could reduce the availability of aquatic and riparian habitat available downstream of the diversions either temporarily within the river areas that dry due to diversion or permanently if the quality and quantity of riparian habitat is impacted.
No breeding habitat for the peregrine falcon or golden eagle occurs within the Analysis Area, and only foraging habitat for these species would be impacted under Alternative A. Because the size of the area experiencing impacts from noise or equipment is a limited area compared with the overall territory size of these raptors, impacts from Alternative A on these species are extremely minor. River drying downstream of diversions could alter or reduce the availability of prey for these raptors. However, ongoing disturbance from heavy machinery impacts would likely continue to be minor as they would occur in small portions of the Analysis Area for short periods of time. While there is breeding habitat for bald eagle within the Analysis Area, the species is a very uncommon breeder in New Mexico (Stahlecker 2009).
The following species are primarily associated with uplands and would not be expected to experience impacts from ongoing maintenance activities and would only experience minor impacts on suitable
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 100 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
habitat through ongoing diversion activities (e.g., if preferred habitat is not maintained owing to water loss or if species occasionally uses riparian areas to forage or disperse): Arizona Botteri’s sparrow (breeding population), Bendire’s thrasher (year-round), chestnut-collared longspur (nonbreeding), Costa’s hummingbird (nonbreeding), desert purple martin (breeding), and gray vireo (breeding).
The following special status bird species use agricultural fields or disturbed areas and may experience beneficial impacts arising from the ongoing diversion of water under Alternative A, which helps maintain current agricultural uses and cleared, disturbed areas in the Direct Impacts Areas: common ground-dove, ferruginous hawk (nonbreeding), Sprague’s pipit (nonbreeding), and western burrowing owl (migratory and year-round). These species would be expected to experience adverse impacts from ongoing maintenance activities when these activities can be seen or heard from the species’ preferred habitat. The northern goshawk is known to occur in the Analysis Area only in mature forests within the San Francisco River Analysis Area. As such, this species is unlikely to use the areas within the Analysis Area for anything other than dispersal activities and potential impacts would be limited to those small time periods.
NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS AND BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLES
Ongoing impacts on migratory birds and bald and golden eagles under Alternative A would be similar to those described above for General Wildlife. Existing push-up diversions would continue to be used, and associated impacts from operations and maintenance would continue to occur. Bird species are highly mobile and would be unlikely to be injured or killed during maintenance activities. However, noise from maintenance activities may cause individual birds to flee the area and could cause lowered reproductive success if human disturbance caused nearby birds to abandon nests, or delayed or altered breeding behaviors. Ongoing water diversion could reduce or eliminate flows downstream, which would in turn decrease quality and quantity of breeding, foraging, and migratory habitat for bald eagles that utilize riparian, wetland, or aquatic areas downstream of push-up diversions. Although eagle breeding habitat would not be impacted, disturbance or reduced flow could alter or reduce the quality or quantity of available foraging habitat. However, ongoing disturbance impacts from heavy machinery would likely continue to be minor as they would occur in small portions of the Analysis Area for short periods of time.
FISH
Nine special status fish species occur or potentially occur in the Analysis Area: desert sucker, Gila chub, roundtail chub, Gila trout, loach minnow, longfin dace, Sonora sucker, speckled dace, and spikedace. Another species, Gila topminnow, has unlikely potential to occur. All fish species that occur are directly impacted by the current conditions under Alternative A. The construction and maintenance of the push-up diversions in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas may lead to direct mortality of any fish that are in the immediate area by crushing and habitat destruction and downstream of the area by sedimentation and/or river drying. In the Upper Gila Analysis Area there is observed loss of aquatic habitat of up to 1.2 miles downstream of the Fort West diversion created by the river drying when the push-up diversions are in place and the river is flowing less than 100 cfs. Fish passage and genetic flow upstream may be blocked for much of the year.
INVERTEBRATES
A total of six special status invertebrate species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Table 4-4): two caddisfly species (Lepidostoma apache and L. knulli), dashed ringtail, Gila mayfly, monarch butterfly, and a notodontid moth.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 101 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Both caddisfly species are Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive species with the potential to occur within riverine and riparian areas within the San Francisco River Indirect Impacts Area downstream of the existing diversion. Continued operation of the push-up diversions and the W-S Diversion may continue to impact habitat and individuals. However, impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for these species because project activities under Alternative A would continue to impact a small amount of suitable habitat compared with the amount of habitat available to these species within USFS lands.
Dashed ringtail and Gila mayfly are Gila National Forest Sensitive species that occur within aquatic and riparian areas. Dashed ringtail has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas, and Gila mayfly has the potential to occur within the Upper Gila Analysis Area. The Gila mayfly is extremely rare and has not been observed since 1967; however, one of its historical occurrence locations was mapped as occurring within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area. Impacts on these species under Alternative A include continued hydrological alterations (and resulting impacts on riparian/wetland vegetation downstream) arising from ongoing river diversion. In addition, individuals of these species may be injured or killed by equipment in the riparian corridor, or equipment may cause behavior changes that could reduce foraging success, disrupt breeding, or increase predation upon individuals.
The monarch butterfly is a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona and New Mexico that is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area and has potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. Monarch butterflies are migratory within the Analysis Areas and would only be expected to occur from spring to fall. Impacts on monarch butterflies under Alternative A may occur from hydrological alterations (and resulting impacts in riparian/wetland vegetation downstream) arising from ongoing river diversion. In addition, individual monarch butterflies may be injured or killed by equipment in the riparian corridor during maintenance activities, or equipment may cause behavior changes that could reduce foraging success, disrupt breeding, or increase predation upon individuals.
The notodontid moth species is a Gila National Forest Sensitive Species and has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Because this species occurs within upland areas, impacts are not expected to occur to this species as a result of Alternative A.
MAMMALS
Fifteen special status mammal species are known to occur or have the potential to possibly occur within the Analysis Area (see Table 4-4). One species, the Mexican wolf, is listed under the ESA and is discussed in detail below in Section 5.2.5.
BLM Sensitive mammal species that may or are known to occur in the Analysis Area include Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Arizona myotis, banner-tailed kangaroo rat, California leaf-nosed bat, cave myotis, greater western mastiff bat, Gunnison’s prairie dog (prairie population), lesser long-nosed bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and spotted bat.
USFS Sensitive mammal species that may occur or are known to occur in the Analysis Area include Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Arizona gray squirrel, Gunnison’s prairie dog (prairie population), hooded skunk, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Springerville silky pocket mouse, and western red bat.
New Mexico State protected mammal species that may occur in the Analysis Area include lesser long- nosed bat and spotted bat.
Under Alternative A, many of the special status mammal species would continue to be impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. Nine special status bat species are known to occur or have potential to occur within the Analysis Area. Bat species typically do not experience direct impacts
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 102 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
under Alternative A. Maintenance work on the existing diversions would be conducted during daytime hours, when these nocturnal species are not active, and maintenance activities do not increase the amount of nighttime lighting. Insect populations (prey species for insectivorous bats) may experience minor fluctuations with ongoing maintenance activities.
Bat species that particularly rely on water or riparian areas, including Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Arizona myotis, cave myotis, and western red bat, may experience adverse impacts on their habitat. Ongoing water diversion could reduce or eliminate flows downstream, which would in turn decrease quality and quantity of breeding, foraging, and migratory habitat for bat species that utilize riparian, wetland, or aquatic areas downstream of push-up diversions.
Lesser long-nosed bat would not be impacted under Alternative A. This species relies on forage plants that generally occur in uplands, away from the riparian corridor. No forage plants would be removed as a result of the ongoing maintenance activities in Virden Valley, and no known roosts are present in the Analysis Area.
The Arizona gray squirrel is a riparian obligate species found in the San Francisco River Analysis Area, and the hooded skunk is often associated with riparian areas within the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Under Alternative A, these two species could continue to be impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. Individuals occurring in the Direct Impacts Analysis areas would be expected to flee the area and avoid it as a result of the noise and equipment as long as maintenance activities are occurring. Individuals would be unlikely to experience mortality or injury related to diversion construction or maintenance activities. Behavior changes or avoidance of the area could result in a reduced foraging or predation success, or reduced breeding success, or disruption of courtship or other intraspecific behaviors.
Banner-tailed kangaroo rat and Gunnison’s prairie dog (prairie population) are primarily associated with upland areas, and would not be expected to experience impacts from ongoing maintenance or operational activities under Alternative A.
REPTILES
Five special status reptile species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the Analysis Area (see Table 4-4): northern Mexican gartersnake, a species listed under the ESA; narrow-headed gartersnake, a species listed under the ESA (could occur in any or all of the Analysis Areas); reticulate Gila monster, a BLM Sensitive Species and State of New Mexico Endangered species with potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area; green rat snake, a State of New Mexico Threatened species with potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas; and Sonora mud turtle, a BLM Sensitive Species that is known to occur in the San Francisco River and Lower Gila Analysis Areas and has the potential to occur in the Virden Valley Analysis Area. The northern Mexican gartersnake and narrow-headed gartersnake are discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5. The remaining special status species could continue to be impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities under Alternative A.
The reticulate Gila monster is primarily associated with uplands and would not be expected to experience impacts from ongoing maintenance activities and would only experience minor impacts on suitable habitat through ongoing diversion activities (e.g., if species occasionally uses riparian areas downstream to forage or disperse). The green ratsnake occurs in riparian areas, and the Sonora mud turtle occurs within creeks, streams, and waterholes. Individuals of these species within the river or adjacent riparian corridor at the time of maintenance could be injured or killed during maintenance activities. However, this is unlikely to occur as individuals may avoid the area while maintenance is occurring. Potential
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 103 Chapter 5. Effects of Action impacts from maintenance would include disrupting natural behaviors of these species, which could lead to increased predation or reduced foraging success. Ongoing water diversion could reduce the availability of aquatic and riparian habitat available downstream of the diversions. However, impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for either of these species because project activities would impact a small amount of suitable habitat compared to the amount of habitat available to these species within the Analysis Area.
5.2.2 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives
Table 2-1, Table 2-2, and Table 2-3 contain descriptions of individual proposed project components by location and action alternative. The following Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives may not occur at each individual location for all alternatives. These Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives are intended to be a general discussion of impacts, to avoid repetition with more specific discussion provided under each alternative below. Some action alternatives could result in different or additional impacts, and these are discussed separately for each action alternative. For example, Alternative D would not result in construction of diversions or components within the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas, although clay-lined storage ponds would still be constructed within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, along with associated pump facilities and power line alterations. Alternatives C and E would result in construction of Weedy Canyon Reservoir storage in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area along with all the co-occurring components including pumps and power lines.
SURFACE WATER ALTERATIONS
Changes in the geomorphology and surface water flows resulting from anthropogenic and natural process have shaped the existing riparian vegetation the project area. Existing riparian vegetation is influenced by conversion to agriculture and grazing, land development, and levee construction; and vegetation is structured by flood disturbance and water availability (Kindscher 2014). HDR (2019a, 2019b) and references therein describe hydrologic and geomorphic alterations that have occurred since the 1890s. These alterations include human-induced changes attributable to extensive timber harvesting and overgrazing in the valleys and upland areas, construction of levees and sediment control dams on local drainages, and the construction and operation of the push-up diversions and irrigation water conveyances. Natural factors include wildfire and stochastic natural and periodic occurrence of large precipitation and flood events, and drought (HDR 2019c; Horner and Dahm 2014). HDR (2019c), and references contained therein, describe a change from a narrow, deeper, single-channel river in the 1890s to the now wide, shallow, and multi-braided channel subject to lateral migration across its floodplain. Temporary diversion structures and levees, many of which have been breached, locally affect vegetative conditions. Surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals in the Upper Gila Analysis Area support irrigated agriculture, accounting for 87% of the total water use (HDR 2019c). Mining accounts for an additional 5% of the water used within the Gila River watershed. Agricultural water use also accounts for significant surface water diversions in the Virden Valley and San Francisco River Analysis Areas.
Under Alternative A, operation and maintenance of the existing push-up diversions and existing land use, including agricultural and mining, determine surface gains and losses and groundwater/surface water interaction in the Cliff-Gila project location between the Gila River near Gila gage (USGS 09431500). Existing conditions are hard to model due to the lack of adequate river gages and data within the Direct Impacts Area. The Gila River near Gila gage is upstream of the proposed diversion and the downstream gages used in the surface water modeling (i.e., Gila Near Redrock-USGS 09431500) are downstream of the return flows from irrigation ditches and tributaries. Therefore, surface water modeling (HDR2019a) cannot accurately predict site-specific conditions within the Direct Impacts Area related to the three push- up diversions, their associated ditches, and the river drying that sometimes occurs immediately downstream of the diversions. Soles and Cooper’s (2014:158) description of Surface Flow Summary
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 104 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
states, “Streamflow through the project reach is perennial except at two transects, where diversions periodically dewater the river. At one of these transects, seepage from the adjacent irrigation ditch maintains groundwater levels high enough to sustain a perennial wetland. At the other, however, channel drying is persistent during dry seasons, and often extends > 1 km downstream.” Aerial imagery and ISC observations have shown that when flows entering the Cliff-Gila Valley are low, the Gila River can become intermittent from the Fort West point of diversion to below the Gila Farms Ditch point of diversion (Intera 2014). During fish surveys conducted in October 2018, SWCA observed the push-up diversion in place just upstream of Gila Farms diverting all the river flow into the irrigation ditch, and the river channel downstream was reduced to isolated pools for more than 1.2 miles (the extent of their survey area on The Nature Conservancy land). According to ISC, the diversions remain in place throughout the year, even outside irrigation season, and are only removed by spring high-flow and storm events that typically occur in the monsoon season (July–September). The three ditches associated with the push-up diversions have the following capacity: Fort West–30 cfs, Upper Gila–30 cfs, and Gila Farms– 40 cfs (ISC 2000, Madrid). It can therefore be assumed that the Gila River is intermittent between the Fort West diversion and the Gila Farms Ditch during flows at or below 100 cfs at any time of the year the push-up diversions are left in place.
A similar case occurs when attempting to model the existing conditions at the Spurgeon and Thomason Flat Diversions at the San Francisco River location; the gages on the San Francisco River are upstream (San Francisco Near Alma-USGS 09443000; not active) of the diversions and downstream (San Francisco Near Glenwood-USGS 09444000) of ditch return flows. The landowner does not allow access to the property, but the Spurgeon push-up diversion can be seen from the road and has been observed in place multiple times throughout the year, including early November 2018 during SWCA’s fish and biological surveys. The two ditches have capacities of 27 cfs for Spurgeon and 23 cfs for Thomason Flat (ISC 2000, Madrid). It can therefore be assumed that the San Francisco River is dry between the Spurgeon and Thomason Flat diversions and the Thomason Flat ditch return during flows at or below 50 cfs at any time of the year the push-up diversions are left in place.
Two permanent diversion structures, Sunset and New Model, are present at the Virden location. SWCA was not granted access to complete biological or fish surveys in this project location. However, during a preliminary site visit in June 2018, the river flow was diverted into the Sunset Canal. Groundwater and seepage through the Sunset Diversion structure still allowed for some water to be in the channel but at a much lower volume than above the diversion. Most of the observed habitat was shallow, interconnected pools.
5.2.2.1.1 HYDROLOGIC MODELING SUMMARY
The modeled timing of the proposed diversions and consumptive use of water under the AWSA may impact the surface water hydrology of the riverine environment. Analysis of the timing of proposed diversions and the potential changes to the surface water flow conditions is based on the New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft EIS Surface Water Resources Technical Memorandum (HDR 2019a). Indicators of Hydrological Alteration (IHA) (Mathews and Richter 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2009) was used to determine the effects within the Direct Impacts Areas for the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. USGS stream gages used in the HDR 2019a modeling include: • Flow upstream of Cliff-Gila project location is described with the Gila River near Gila, New Mexico (09430500) gage. • Flows downstream of the Cliff-Gila project location is described in the Gila River near Redrock, New Mexico (09431500) gage and the Gila River below Blue Creek, near Virden, New Mexico (09432000) gage.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 105 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
• Flow downstream of the San Francisco location is described with the San Francisco River near Glenwood, New Mexico (09444000) gage. This gage is located downstream of the Pleasanton location. • Flow upstream of the Virden location is described with the Gila River below Blue Creek, near Virden, New Mexico (09432000) gage. • Flow near the confluence of the San Francisco and Gila Rivers are recorded by San Francisco River at Clifton, Arizona (09444500) and Gila River near Clifton, Arizona (09442000). The San Francisco gage is located 10.9 river miles above the confluence with the Gila River, and the Gila River gage is located 6.5 river miles above the above confluence with the San Francisco River. • Downstream of the confluence, Gila River at Head of Safford Valley, near Solomon (09448500), records flow upstream of the San Jose canal diversion. Flows upstream of San Carlos reservoir are recorded by Gila River at Calva, Arizona (09466500).
Surface Water Flow Modeling
Implementation of the proposed NM Unit would potentially affect the quantity of surface water. HDR (2019a) modeled the hydrographic changes resulting from the operation of the project. Analysis of impacts is based on the modeled mean monthly flow variation from Alternative A. The Alternative A conditions used in the model include the following: • Export of water to Bill Evans Lake and Tyrone Mine and the trans-basin depletions from Silver City Well. • Adjudicated irrigation above the Gila-San Francisco River confluence in New Mexico. • Historical irrigation in the Duncan and Safford Valley. • Gains and losses in reaches between USGS stream gages, including influences on Mangas Trench and Mimbres basin pumping and riparian evapotranspiration.
Modeling output from HDR (2019a) were used to compare Alternative A with the action alternatives. The analysis presented below is for all years included in the model (see HDR 2019a for detailed discussion).
Indicators of Hydrological Alteration
The HDR 2019a surface water modeling uses data from gages that are downstream from the point of irrigation return flows and inputs from tributaries. Therefore, the surface water modeling does not adequately reflect potential changes immediately downstream due to the construction and operation of the proposed diversions. To address these changes, HDR and SWCA developed and analyzed an IHA model (Mathews and Richter 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2009). The IHA model was developed for Alternative B. Based on the results of the surface water modeling summarized in HDR (2019a), the changes in surface water flows in Alternatives C and E in the Gila and San Francisco project locations follow a similar trend as modeled in Alternative B and are all within the range of variation for all years modeled. Therefore, Alternatives C and E were not modeled. No diversions are proposed under Alternative D in the Gila and San Francisco project locations. In the Virden Valley project location, Alternatives B, C, D, and E are the same. However, impacts to the Virden Valley conditions from Alternative D are not comparable to the other alternatives because there are no upstream diversions.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 106 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Indicators of Hydrological Alteration Parameters
IHA are a set of statistics developed to support environmental flow assessments, derived from daily stream gage monitoring records that express the magnitude, frequency, duration, and timing of streamflow conditions. IHA statistics are used to compare flow conditions before and after flow-altering events such as installation of a diversion structure. To compare pre- and post-event conditions, a sufficient record of daily streamflow is needed both prior to and following the event. For projected events, such as those examined herein, synthetic daily streamflow data are developed from a common historical record modified to reflect anticipated changes in flow conditions. In addition to IHA statistics (Appendix G, Table G.1), the IHA software also calculates parameters for five types of “environmental flow conditions” (EFCs) including extreme low flows, low flows, high-flow pulses, and small and large floods (Appendix G). All five EFC types are considered ecologically relevant by research ecologists (The Nature Conservancy 2009). See Appendix G for a more detailed discussion of the IHA parameters and IHA modeling results for the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, San Francisco River, and Lower Gila Analysis Areas.
HYDROLOGIC ALTERATION IMPACTS
The modeled timing of diversions and effects on instream surface water flow determine the impacts on biological resources. To assess impacts, SWCA used the block approach identified by Horner and Dahm (2014) to determine the period when flow alterations may be most likely to affect biological resources. We defined the Fall/Winter Base Flow period from October through January, the Snowmelt/Runoff period from February through May, the Summer Low Flow period from June through July, and the Monsoon period from August through September. These periods approximate the dates identified by Horner and Dahm (2014). A summary of the hydrological alterations by Analysis Area and impacts on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and their habitats follows.
5.2.2.2.1 UPPER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
For Alternatives B, C, and E, for which there are proposed diversions, the impacts from hydrological alterations are greatest in the Direct Impacts Area. Potential impacts in the downstream Indirect Impacts Area are reduced by irrigation return flows and inputs from tributaries, such as Mangas Creek. The timing of diversions is modeled to occur from August through January, with the largest diversion occurring from October through December for all alternatives (Appendix G). Surface water modeling (HDR 2019a) results suggest decreased instream flows are greatest during the Fall/Winter Base Flow Period with increased instream flows during the late Snowmelt Runoff and Summer Low Flow periods. IHA modeling of monthly median flows (Appendix G, Table G.7) and monthly median low flow (Appendix G, Table G.8) support these results with increased flows from April through October in the Direct Impacts Area, but with minor to negligible changes in the Indirect Impacts Area. IHA modeling indicates decreases in 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, and 30-day maximum flows at all gages and a decrease in high flow peaks, with the greatest decrease occurring in the Gila Farms location. Fall rates are modeled to decrease. These results suggest the operation of the proposed diversion for Alternative B (and presumably for Alternative C and E based on the HDR [2019a] surface water modeling results) would be to attenuate the high flow and low flow peaks. In the Direct Impacts Area there may be increased instream surface water flow and less drying versus the current operation of the push-up diversions, assuming the diversion timing is as modeled. The increase in flows during the Snowmelt Runoff and Summer Low Flow periods may be attributable to the change in operations from the current Live Ditch practice where the push-up diversions divert the entire river to the irrigation ditches (see HDR 2019a for a complete discussion) versus metered diversions associated with implementation of the proposed diversion structures under the action alternatives.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 107 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
5.2.2.2.2 VIRDEN VALLEY ANALYSIS AREA
In the Virden Valley Analysis Area, the trends are similar to those in the Upper Gila Analysis Area. However, since all action alternatives divert water from existing permanent diversion structures, the impacts are greatly reduced, especially in the Direct Impacts Area. Diversions are modeled to occur from August through January, with the greatest diversion occurring in December (HDR 2019a). Decreases in average monthly flows are modeled to occur from September through February. Modeled increases, generally less than 1 cfs, are modeled to occur from March through August. IHA median monthly and median monthly low flow results are consistent with the surface water modeling. IHA models an increase in minimum flows, a small increase in extreme low flow peaks and duration, an increase in high flow peak but a decrease in frequency, and no change in small flood parameters. These results suggest the system will continue to be stable with decreased flow during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period and small increases in flows during the Summer Low Flow period.
5.2.2.2.3 SAN FRANCISCO RIVER ANALYSIS AREA
Similar to the Upper Gila Analysis Area, diversions are proposed in the San Francisco River Analysis Area under Alternatives B, C, and E. Surface water diversions under Alternative B are negligible. Diversions for Alternatives C and E are modeled to occur primarily in January and February, with lesser diversions in March and April and September through December. Average monthly instream flows are modeled to increase from March through June, with the largest percentage increases occurring in June for Alternatives C and E. Alternative B shows negligible changes in average surface water flows. IHA modeling results, however, suggest large increases in median monthly and median monthly low flows immediately downstream of the proposed diversion for Alternative B, perhaps due to the change from the current live ditch operation versus the proposed metered diversion at Spurgeon. IHA modeling indicates a decrease in extreme low peak flows, a decrease in high flow peak but increases in duration and frequency, small increases in small flood events, and small decreases in fall rate. The results of the modeling suggest negligible changes in hydrologic conditions under Alternative B. Changes would be related to small increases in instream flows on the magnitude of approximately 1 to 4 cfs. Hydrologic changes for Alternative C and E would be similar to those described for the Upper Gila Analysis Area. These include decreased instream flow during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period and small increases in flow in the Snowmelt Runoff and Summer Low Flow periods. The extreme low flow and high flow peaks may be attenuated.
5.2.2.2.4 LOWER GILA ANALYSIS AREA
Hydrologic alterations in the Lower Gila Analysis Area follow the changes described above. Since there are no diversions or project components proposed, the changes are limited to changes in surface water flows. Those changes include minor decreases in instream flows during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period and negligible increases during the Snowmelt Runoff and Summer Low Flow periods. These changes are not expected to rise above negligible to minor impacts for all biological resources.
5.2.2.2.5 IMPACTS SUMMARY
The effects of surface water flow alteration on all alternatives are varied and affect biological resources differently at different times. To the extent that the flow rate mimics a more natural system and contributes to the establishment of new riparian woodlands and a dynamic riverine system, there may be beneficial impacts for riparian or wetland dependent species and aquatic species. Maintaining flows during the spring, summer, and monsoon seasons minimizes impacts. The largest impacts noted are related to reduced flows during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period, from November through January associated with the modeled diversion timing, and changes in surface water average monthly low-flow
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 108 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
conditions. The overall reduction in surface water flows under the proposed action may decrease available subsurface flows during the dormant season and may increase the overall depth to the water table across the Analysis Area. Modeling conducted by HDR (2019c) indicates that AWSA diversions in the Upper Gila Analysis Area could result in up to a 1-foot decrease in local groundwater levels. However, groundwater levels would recharge approximately 2 weeks after AWSA diversions end. Groundwater levels in the Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Impacts Areas may increase during the spring runoff and summer base flow and monsoon seasons in response to increased surface water flows, as indicated in the IHA modeling (Appendix G, Tables G.7 and G.8). Hathaway et al. (2016) and SSPA (2014) concluded the potential changes in groundwater depths are not expected to have a large effect on riparian and wetland vegetation for a diversion project with the maximum amount of water diverted allowed under CUFA throughout the growing season. Thus, adverse impacts to riparian and wetland vegetation would be negligible during AWSA diversions conducted during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period. There may be minor beneficial impacts due to increased surface water flow and associated increases in groundwater levels during the Snowmelt Runoff and Summer Low Flow periods.
Changes in the rate of river recession, as measured by fall rate, may influence groundwater levels (Hathaway et al. 2016; SSPA 2014). Declining fall rates (e.g., the rate of recession is slower) would be expected to have beneficial impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation. Conversely, increases in the fall rate (e.g., the rate of recession is faster), would have adverse effects on groundwater and riparian/wetland vegetation.
Proposed diversions for all alternatives result in modeled changes in downstream flows that are within the normal range of variation. Changes would most likely impact aquatic and terrestrial wildlife during low flow conditions. Diversions during dry to moderate dry conditions may impact vegetation and could lead to increased water stress leading to decreased health, extent, and future recruitment of riparian and wetland vegetation as well as an increase in nonnative species that are more adapted to dry conditions in affected areas. Potential impacts would be similar in nature for all action alternatives, differing only in the magnitude of impacts.
Table 5-9 summarizes the seasonal impacts on wildlife groups and impacts on breeding/juvenile rearing, migratory, and active adult seasons related to surface water flow alterations. Impacts are addressed for each wildlife group and may vary depending on the timing of the impact and be adverse or beneficial. Adverse impacts may range from negligible to moderate; beneficial impacts may range from negligible to minor. Impacts are common to all alternatives where there are proposed diversions. Alternative D does not include proposed diversions for the Upper Gila and San Francisco River project locations. At the Virden Valley project location, Alternatives B, C, D, and E are the same. Impacts in the Direct Impacts Areas are greater than those in the Indirect Impacts Areas. The discussion that follows provides more detail on the impacts that may accrue as a result of implementing the proposed action or alternatives.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 109 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
This page intentionally left blank.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 110 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-9. Seasonal Surface Water Flow Alterations Impacts on Wildlife Common to All Action Alternatives
Snowmelt/Runoff Summer Low Flow Monsoon Fall/Winter Base Flow Comments Wildlife Group Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Migrating Birds Negligible to minor, No impact No Impact No Impact Negligible to minor, No impact Reduced flow reduces habitat for water bird stopover, and decreases adverse impact adverse impact availably prey for migrating birds, which may impede migration or reduce survival. Breeding Birds No impact Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct No impact No impact Increased flow may increase prey availability, leading to increased survival Area: Beneficial minor impact; Indirect Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; or breeding success. Decreased flow may decrease prey availability Analysis Areas: Adverse negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Adverse negligible Indirect Analysis Areas: Adverse leading to decreased survival or breeding success. Habitat is maintained impact to minor impact negligible to minor impact or created with increased surface water for better survival rates and breeding success, whereas with low flow amount of suitable habitat is reduced, adversely impacting individuals. Southwestern willow No impact Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct No impact Increased surface water raises humidity, increases invertebrate prey, and flycatcher Area: Beneficial minor impact; Indirect Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; may expand breeding habitat for breeding success and increased nesting Analysis Areas: Adverse negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Adverse negligible Indirect Analysis Areas: Adverse habitat, while decreased surface water lowers breeding success and impact to minor impact negligible to minor impact quantity of habitat; additional surface water increases tree vigor in growing season while lower flows may reduce tree vigor, which impacts nesting substrate and breeding success. Yellow-billed cuckoo No impact Upper Gila and San Francisco Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct No impact Increased surface water raises humidity, increases invertebrate prey, and Direct Impacts Area: Beneficial Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; may expand breeding habitat for increased breeding success, while minor impact; Indirect Analysis Indirect Analysis Areas: Adverse negligible Indirect Analysis Areas: Adverse decreased surface water lowers breeding success and quantity of habitat. Areas: Adverse negligible to minor to minor impact negligible to minor impact Additional surface flow increases tree vigor in growing season while lower impact flows may reduce tree vigor. Increased tree vigor provides suitable nesting habitat and increases breeding success. Mexican spotted owl Negligible No impact No Impact No Impact Negligible adverse impact Some individuals migrate to lower elevations in winter, low flow in winter adverse impact could reduce available prey. In summer/breeding season, this species only occurs in Indirect Analysis Areas, and effects are expected to be extremely minor. Lower flows may reduce suitable canyon habitat values by decreasing prey or humidity, while higher flows would increase canyon habitat values by increasing prey or humidity. Migrating Bats No impact Negligible beneficial Negligible beneficial impact No impact Predation success may increase with increased quantity of insect prey impact (increases with water); surface water may create or maintain habitat for species that are associated with water. Breeding Bats No impact Negligible adverse No impact Negligible impact Negligible impact No impact Breeding success may depend on presence of water and presence of impact insect prey (increases with water); quantity of flow determines amount of habitat for species associated with water. Mammals Negligible adverse impact No impact Negligible Breeding success is dependent upon quantity of forage or prey (increases adverse impact with increased flow); aquatic or wetland habitat creation or maintenance and increased vigor of riparian woodland during breeding season (increases with increased flow). Invertebrates No impact Negligible beneficial impact Negligible to minor, beneficial or adverse Negligible to minor, beneficial or adverse No impact Breeding success could increase with increasing quantity of water impact impact because of increased habitat and better water quality. Lower or absent surface water flow may reduce habitat and water quality, adversely impacting survival or reproduction. Herpetofauna No impact Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Impacts Negligible to minor, Negligible to minor, Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Negligible to No impact Increased surface flow could increase prey, increase suitable wetland or Area: Beneficial minor impact; Indirect beneficial or adverse beneficial or adverse Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; minor, aquatic habitat, increase humidity, and lower heat, all of which provide Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor adverse impact impact Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to beneficial or beneficial impacts on some species by increasing survival, available prey, impact minor adverse impact adverse foraging success, or breeding success. Decreased surface flow could impact adversely impact these species by reducing prey, habitat, or providing suboptimal microhabitats. Nonnative species (e.g., bullfrog) could adversely impact species through predation and competition pressure. Narrow-headed and No impact Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Impacts Negligible to minor, Negligible to minor, Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Negligible to No impact Increased surface water could increase amount of suitable clear stream Northern Mexican Area: Beneficial minor impact; Indirect beneficial or adverse beneficial or adverse Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; minor, habitat and native fish prey species for this gartersnake, whereas gartersnakes Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor adverse impact impact Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to beneficial or decreased surface water decreases it. Survival, breeding success, and impact minor adverse impact adverse predation success increase when surface flow increases but decrease with impact flow decreases. Nonnative species (e.g., bullfrog) could adversely impact species through predation and competition pressure.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 111 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Snowmelt/Runoff Summer Low Flow Monsoon Fall/Winter Base Flow Comments Wildlife Group Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Chiricahua leopard No impact Negligible adverse impact Negligible adverse Negligible adverse Negligible adverse impact Negligible No impact Chiricahua leopard frogs are not known to occur in any of the Direct frog impact impact adverse Impacts Areas. This species may occur within the Arizona portion of the impact San Francisco River Indirect Analysis Area and within the Lower Gila Analysis Area. Increased surface water during breeding period would increase breeding habitat (pools, backwater). Surface water increase post- breeding would maintain habitat for adults and larvae; increase foraging opportunity to increase survival; and increase water quality which has beneficial impacts for individuals and their prey. Surface water decrease reduces habitat for adults and larvae and decreases water quality, reducing survival by decreasing availability of prey and amount of habitat, and by increasing predation upon individuals concentrated into remaining habitat. Fish Minor to moderate adverse impacts Minor adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to moderate adverse impacts Lower flows during spawning could reduce spawning habitat and/or Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; spawning cues, higher flows during spring/summer could increase Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to spawning and rearing habitat. Decreased winter flows may reduce riffle adverse impact minor adverse impact habitat. Increased low flows during Dry – Moderate Dry conditions may increase predation and competition from nonnative fish species. Loach minnow Minor to moderate adverse impacts Minor adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to moderate adverse impacts Same as described for all fish species. Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to adverse impact minor adverse impact Spikedace Minor to moderate adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to Minor to moderate adverse impacts Same as described for all fish species. Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; moderate Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to adverse adverse impact minor adverse impact impacts Roundtail/ Moderate to minor adverse impacts Minor adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to Minor adverse impacts Same as described for all fish species. Gila chub Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; moderate Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to adverse adverse impact minor adverse impact impacts Gila topminnow No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Gila topminnow are not present in the main stem of the Gila or San Francisco Rivers Found only in tributaries. Implementation of the NM Unit is unlikely to have an impact on the species. Gila trout No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact Gila trout are present in the Analysis Area only through stocking programs. Found upstream of the Analysis Area and would not be impacted by AWSA diversions Longfin dace Minor to Minor adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to Minor to moderate adverse impacts Same as described for all fish species. moderate Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; moderate adverse Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to adverse impacts adverse impact minor adverse impact impacts Speckled dace Minor to moderate adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to Minor to moderate adverse impacts Same as described for all fish species. Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; moderate Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to adverse adverse impact minor adverse impact impacts Suckers Minor to moderate adverse impacts Minor adverse impacts Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Upper Gila and San Francisco Direct Minor to Minor to moderate adverse impacts Same as described for all fish species. Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; Impacts Area: Beneficial minor impact; moderate Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to minor Indirect Analysis Areas: Negligible to adverse adverse impact minor adverse impact impacts
Note: Light shading = Breeding or juvenile rearing periods Dark shading = Migratory and active adult periods
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 112 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
CONSTRUCTION
Potential construction-related direct, adverse impacts from all action alternatives common to all wildlife groups including special status species would involve injury or mortality resulting from collisions with and crushing by construction vehicles during grading, diversion construction, modification or creation of conveyance ditches/pipes, storage pond construction, well construction, improvements to existing local roads for access, removal of clay used to line ponds, and power line improvements and installation of new power lines. Chemicals or fuel could be inadvertently released into the aquatic environment, killing or injuring individuals and lowering water quality. Wildlife species that are smaller, less mobile, or restricted to the river channel (e.g., small mammals, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, fish, eggs or young in nests or burrows, or estivating or hibernating individuals) would be expected to experience a greater magnitude of impacts than larger, more mobile would be expected to flee.
Construction of the diversion structures would also temporarily increase turbidity or sedimentation downstream of construction, which may cause direct, adverse impacts (e.g., death or injury) to aquatic or semi-aquatic species. While many individuals may be killed or injured, direct impacts from construction would be localized and would not continue to occur once construction is completed or habitat is removed from an area; thus direct construction impacts are not expected to rise the level of population wide impacts for any species.
Temporary impacts associated with the presence of workers and equipment may cause species to avoid using work areas or adjacent habitats during construction activities. Construction activity duration would vary with geographic location, and would be dependent on funding availability, but could last approximately 4–6 months in each location. Noise and vibration occurring from the use of equipment during construction activities would cause direct, adverse, temporary impacts on individuals. Noise and vibration associated with construction activities may temporarily change habitat use patterns for some species. Many wildlife species rely on meaningful sounds for communication, navigation, finding food, and to avoid danger (Federal Highway Administration 2004). Some individuals would likely move away from the source(s) of the noise/vibration to adjacent or nearby habitats, which may increase competition for resources within these areas. Noise/vibration and other disturbances may also lead to increased stress on individuals, which could decrease their overall fitness due to increased metabolic expenditures. Additional noise and vibration impacts may include decreased immune response, hearing damage, diminished intraspecific communication, increased predation risk, and reduced reproductive success (NoiseQuest 2011; Pater et al. 2009; Sadlowski 2011).
Potential minor impacts related to noise and vibration or human presence would be temporary and of short duration and would diminish with the completion of construction activities. Areas in which the construction would occur are already disturbed by human noise and presence owing to push-up diversion creation, agriculture, roads, and other human uses; while additional noise/vibration/human presence impacts from all alternatives would be higher in magnitude, adverse impacts would be temporary and localized.
Construction of diversions (Upper Gila and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas), storage ponds, and associated pumps and wells, would result in loss of wildlife habitat. Where conveyance ditches would be created, expanded, or lined, there would be a small permanent loss of foraging, dispersal, or breeding habitat. Expansion of power lines at Upper Gila and Virden Analysis Areas would cause minor loss, degradation, and fragmentation of wildlife habitats.
Disturbance associated with construction would result in some species losing breeding, foraging, or migratory habitat at the time of construction and into the future. Acres of vegetation communities to be disturbed can be found above (see Table 5-1, Table 5-2, Table 5-3). While not every wildlife species is
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 113 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
restricted to a given vegetation type and wildlife habitat includes physical features in addition to vegetation, these categories can be used as a reasonable proxy for habitat loss. For example, some species may be able to use disturbed or agricultural areas, whereas others may be restricted to aquatic, riparian, or wetland areas, and still others may use a variety of upland habitat types. Impacts on any given individual or species would depend on habitat requirements of that species, as well as its current distribution within the Direct Impacts Areas. However, data with this level of precision are not available and precise impacts or impact severity for most wildlife species or group cannot be determined. Impacts on special status species are in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.5.
As shown in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3, acres of vegetation communities to be disturbed compose a small percentage of the total acres of each vegetation type occurring in the Direct Impacts Areas for all action alternatives. Long-term impacted acres within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area would not exceed 3.0% of the total area within that Direct Impacts Area, and short-term impacted acres would not exceed 3.9% of the total, for any action alternative (see Table 5-1). Long-term impacted acres within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area would not exceed 1.6% of the total areas within that Direct Impacts Area, and short-term impacted acres would not exceed 1.8% of the total, for any action alternative (see Table 5-2). Long-term impacted acres within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area would not exceed 3.1% of the total areas within that Direct Impacts Area, and short-term impacted acres would not exceed 3.9% of the total, for any alternative (see Table 5-3).
The linear nature of impacts associated with conveyance channels or power lines could increase habitat fragmentation or edge effects compared with non-linear portions of the project. The expansion, reconstruction, lining, or creation of new conveyance ditches or pipes or new storage inlets and outfalls at the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas would cause loss, degradation, and fragmentation of wildlife habitats. Expansion of power lines at Upper Gila and Virden Analysis Areas would also cause loss, degradation, and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. These impacts may be of a relatively minor magnitude in areas where construction occurs within existing conveyance ditches or would involve the installation of pipes rather than ditches. Impacts of vegetation disturbance on any given individual or species would depend on habitat requirements of that species, as well as its current distribution within the Direct Impacts Areas. These direct adverse impacts would range from negligible to minor on vegetation communities that comprise terrestrial wildlife habitat.
Potential permanent and temporary impacts would be reduced or mitigated through the application of Conservation Measures (see Chapter 4) and BMPs during implementation and would minimize potential disturbance to species and habitats (see Appendix H). These BMPs are designed to minimize, avoid, or mitigate adverse effects that could occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, timing restrictions during migratory nesting season, pre-construction nesting surveys, pre-construction surveys for listed terrestrial species, utilizing a biological monitor for construction monitoring, stream block-netting to avoid impacts on aquatic species, and reducing the potential for sedimentation with stormwater pollution prevention plan regulations. The BMPs are based on the Joint Leads direction and policy, best available science, and site-specific evaluations.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Future maintenance may be required within the river channel at permanent diversions, or at other project components, or local access roads. Impacts resulting from maintenance activities would be similar to those experienced during construction; however, these impacts would occur for a short period of time and would be limited to the area surrounding maintenance activities.
The transition from push-up diversions that require frequent maintenance (several times per year) by heavy equipment in the channel to permanent or semi-permanent diversion structures (that require
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 114 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
infrequent maintenance) would have beneficial impacts on wildlife because individuals would not be disturbed, injured, or killed within the river channel as frequently, and individuals would experience fewer noise- or human disturbance–related impacts (e.g., behavior changes, reduced survival, reduced reproductive success) owing to these maintenance activities.
Potential changes to surface water hydrology and groundwater hydrology resulting from operations to divert AWSA water could result in the loss or modification of habitat for wildlife and special status species. If AWSA diversions occur during periods of low flows there would be seasonal reduction in flows, which could be a decrease in aquatic habitat. This could result in direct mortality of aquatic or semiaquatic species and a temporary loss of habitat. If drying occurs, the volume of water in pools and soil moisture downstream of the diversion would decrease, which could result in reductions in areal extent or health of riparian habitat and wildlife species that require moist soils and flowing water. A reduction of stream flow could impact water quality by creating stagnant conditions, reducing dissolved oxygen in the water, and increasing water temperature. These water conditions could constitute degraded habitat for some species or eliminate suitable habitat entirely for others (e.g., native fish, native frogs, aquatic invertebrates). Individuals may die directly from drying, or because predation attempts may succeed more often in smaller pools. As a result of degraded or reduced habitat, individuals may experience lowered health, lowered reproductive success, or, in the case of semiaquatic species, may need to expend additional metabolic energy foraging or searching for more appropriate habitat, leading to lowered survival.
These direct, adverse impacts on individuals and indirect, adverse impacts on habitat from river drying also occur under Alternative A, as ongoing impacts from push-up diversion. The precise length and duration of these dry reaches have not been mapped under current conditions and have not been quantified for any flow regime, and data are not available to quantify any changes to the length or duration of these dry reaches as a result of any of the action alternatives.
Although river drying downstream of the diversions would be expected to occur, the duration, length, and timing of river drying could change from current conditions; these changes would depend on many factors including rainfall, snowmelt, and diversion schedule and quantity of water diverted. Potential adverse impacts from direct mortality or reduced survival or health of individuals would be limited to areas where drying would occur.
Aquatic or semi-aquatic individuals may be entrained into ditches and agricultural fields from which they may not return to the river. Similar to river drying, the direct, adverse impacts on individuals through entrainment at the existing push-up diversions occurs but has not been quantified.
The intensity of the impact of river drying on wildlife habitat for all action alternatives would be minor in the Direct Impact Areas and negligible to minor in the Indirect Impact Areas when compared with Alternative A because the changes in overall distribution of riparian areas and wetlands as a result of all action alternatives (as described in Section 5.2 of the Biological Evaluation) would be expected to be negligible to minor and localized (HDR 2019b, 2019c).
The proposed permanent diversions would alter wildlife habitat by backing up water into upstream of the proposed diversions on the Gila and San Francisco Rivers. Permanent (Alternatives B and E) and semi- permanent (Alternative C) diversion structures would likely back up water at a broader range of flows than the current push-up diversion structures, which may be breached at higher flows. HDR (2019a) predicts that water would be backed approximately 1,640 feet on the Gila River and 1,400 feet on the San Francisco River. This would create an area of deeper pool habitat immediately upstream of the diversions. The precise amount of water backup at any given time would depend upon surface flow conditions (e.g., wet or dry year), time of year (e.g., during snowmelt or monsoon rains leading to more surface flow), and diversion schedule. However, deeper pools may create habitat that favors nonnative species,
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 115 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
including American bullfrogs or nonnative predatory fish (Global Invasive Species Database 2019; Rinne 1994; Rosen and Schwalbe 1995; USFWS 2014c), over native anuran and fish species, which evolved within more dynamic southwestern riverine systems. Potential impacts arising to native aquatic and riparian species from an increase of nonnative predator habitat and abundance could be death of individuals; lower survival of individuals; change in demographics or population dynamics locally; reduction or extirpation of local populations of native species arising from predation by and competition with nonnative species; or introduction of parasites or diseases.
Native wildlife would experience adverse impacts as a result of these nonnative species and the conversion of suitable habitat into habitat that favors nonnative species. Native species that are restricted to aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitats may experience impacts as a result of an increase of nonnative predator habitat and abundance. Aquatic, wetland, or riparian species would experience measurable adverse impacts long term; however, these nonnative species already occur under Alternative A, and are widespread and abundant in the Gila River and San Francisco River mainstems. The water backed up (pooled) upstream of potential diversions would not likely introduce new nonnative species into the region as most nonnative species are already documented in the area, nor would they be the only place where nonnative species occur within the Analysis Area. American bullfrogs may predate upon a wide variety of native species including bats, small mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and a wide variety of invertebrate prey including crayfish (Brennan 2008; Snow and Witmer 2010) or they may displace native prey items. Increases in abundance or distribution of aquatic nonnative species would have negligible potential impacts on upland wildlife species, as they would not come into contact with bullfrogs, predatory nonnative fish, or crayfish.
Similarly, the creation of storage ponds could create pool habitat that would favor nonnative species, which would result in adverse impacts on native aquatic and riparian species as described above. In addition, the creation of storage ponds may have beneficial impacts on some wildlife species that may use these areas for drinking, foraging, or hunting, which would increase survival of individuals. Because other, natural, water sources occur in the area, these pools would represent a small increase in potential habitat for wildlife species within the Analysis Area.
Operation of the action alternatives could allow for some persistence and establishment riparian habitat along stringers of riparian woodlands and narrow shelves adjacent to ditches. These areas exist currently along portions of the irrigation ditches in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area (SWCA 2019a). Lined new and reconstructed ditches would reduce the amount of water seepage, which may reduce the extent of the adjacent riparian woodland and wetland vegetation. However, narrow bands of riparian woodland and wetland vegetation could form or reform adjacent to the ditches where sedimentation within the conveyance ditches aggregates, or when water leaks through (e.g., from cracks in the lining). This could maintain and increase in areas of new construction the amount of perching, foraging, migration, hunting, or basking habitat for some wildlife species. The narrow distribution of these habitat types along the ditches would not be sufficient for species that require larger habitat blocks. Because riparian and wetland habitats already occur within the Direct Impacts Areas and these areas of habitat would be narrow, these increases would represent the potential for a minor beneficial impact on some species.
All action alternatives would increase the level of noise within the Direct Impacts Areas. Although specifics among alternatives vary, noise impacts would result from well pumps (ASR or production wells, depending on location and alternative), pumps to move water from storage ponds into ditches, and for some locations and alternatives, and operation of the Obermeyer gate diversion. These noise impacts are discussed for specific locations and alternatives in Section 5.3.3. Operational noise would only occur intermittently, when pumps or Obermeyer gates are engaged. Potential noise impacts would decrease with increasing distance from the source and would be expected to impact different wildlife species differently, as some species are not as sensitive to noise impacts as others.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 116 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Operational noise may temporarily change habitat use patterns for some species. Some individuals would likely move away from the source(s) of the noise to adjacent or nearby habitats, which may increase competition for resources within these areas. Noise may also lead to increased stress on individuals, which could decrease their overall fitness due to increased metabolic expenditures. Additional noise and vibration impacts may include decreased immune response, hearing damage, diminished intraspecific communication, increased predation risk, and reduced reproductive success (NoiseQuest 2011; Pater et al. 2009; USFWS 2011). These impacts would be intermittently occurring throughout the life of the project. Potential impacts from noise/vibration would likely be limited to individuals and would be unlikely to have impacts at the local or regional population level. In addition, some of the pumps (e.g., pond pumps at Upper Gila and Virden Valley Direct Impacts Areas) occur in close proximity to roads, development, or agriculture, where existing ambient noise levels would be expected to be higher.
Changes in surface flow and groundwater (i.e., changes in the magnitude of monthly water conditions, timing and duration of peak flows, low flow conditions, hydrograph changes, and extreme events such as flood pulses and extremely low flow conditions) within the San Francisco River and Lower Gila Analysis Areas could have hydrological impacts downstream of those areas within the Indirect Impacts Areas. Changes in hydrology could impact wildlife by reducing the areal extent or health of riparian and wetland habitats. The precise impacts and impact locations are not known. However, both the Gila and San Francisco Rivers are expected to have flow most months. There would be some changes to hydrology within the Lower Gila Analysis Area and portions of the other analysis areas downstream of diversions. There is more variability in the system from natural sources than upstream diversions would be expected to produce. Thus, potential impacts from diversions for all action alternatives would be expected to be minor because diversion activities would be within the natural range of variability for the river system.
Potential impacts on wildlife and special status wildlife species for all action alternatives would be associated with the AWSA diversion schedule, the total annual AWSA diversion, the return flow, and the consumptive use. These reductions in surface flows and changes to groundwater availability and timing of availability to support aquatic and riparian habitats could impact wildlife and wildlife habitat. The timing and quantities of proposed diversions could alter flow regimes necessary to retain aquatic habitats and riparian woodland vegetation in the long term; these areas are used as habitat by many wildlife and special status wildlife species. See Section 5.2.2.1.1 and Appendix G for a discussion of the indirect effects related to flow alteration. Seasonal wildlife indirect effects are summarized in Table 5-9.
MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Potential permanent and temporary impacts would be reduced or mitigated through the application of BMPs (see Appendix H) during implementation. Implementation of BMPs for threatened and endangered species, wildlife, and water quality would minimize potential disturbance to species and habitats. These BMPs are designed to minimize, avoid, or mitigate adverse effects which could occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, timing restrictions during migratory nesting season, pre-construction nesting surveys, pre-construction surveys for listed terrestrial species, utilizing a biological monitor for construction monitoring, stream block-netting to avoid impacts on aquatic species, and reducing the potential for sedimentation with stormwater pollution prevention plan regulations. The BMPs are based on Reclamation direction and policy, best available science, and site-specific evaluations.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 117 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
5.2.3 Analysis of Action Alternatives
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
Potential impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., diversions, storage ponds, conveyance ditches, and other components) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Direct, adverse impacts from construction- related activities (including mortality and injury as a result of collisions with equipment during construction or grading, or a temporary decrease in water quality downstream of diversion construction in the Gila River) would occur. These adverse impacts would be minor on populations of these species, as many individuals would be expected to flee the area of disturbance and adverse impacts would be localized to only areas within the project footprint or for a short distance downstream.
Temporary adverse impacts on wildlife from construction-related noise, vibration, or human presence potentially causing behavioral changes in individuals would be as described above in Section 5.2.2. These potential impacts would occur during construction and maintenance activities but cease once construction/maintenance is completed. The severity of impacts would decrease with increasing distance from the construction activities; thus, these impacts could be moderate on species within the Direct Impacts Area and would cease with the completion of construction and maintenance activities.
Wildlife habitat would be permanently or temporarily disturbed under Alternative B. Approximately 294.1 acres would be impacted long term within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with approximately 381.6 acres impacted in the short term (see Table 5-1 for a breakdown of disturbance to vegetation communities). Because some of the Analysis Area is currently disturbed, these areas are typically lower- quality wildlife habitat than undisturbed areas; and as these acreages of disturbance would represent less than 4% of the total of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, loss of habitat for any given wildlife species under Alternative B would minor at the population level for any species.
Existing power lines are available near all proposed facilities; however, various extensions of the power lines from the existing lines would need to be made (in collaboration with local utility companies). Most of these proposed expansions would occur within areas that are already moderately to highly disturbed (cleared areas, existing roads) and most of them would occur within upland areas, away from the riparian corridor. Thus, adverse, direct impacts on wildlife arising from habitat loss, degradation, or fragmentation associated with power line construction under Alternative B would be minor.
Indirect, adverse impacts are expected on wildlife from habitat loss and habitat fragmentation resulting from the buried pipe extension of the Upper Gila Ditch; widening and lining of existing ditches at the Upper Gila Ditch, Fort West Ditch, Gila Farms Connector Ditch, and McMillen Ditch; creation of an extension of the Fort West Ditch; and construction of a siphon at the Fort West Extension. Because many of these impacts occur within existing conveyance ditches or involve installation of pipes, permanent impacts on habitat and habitat fragmentation under Alternative B would be localized around areas of disturbance and would be minor.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
Potential impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., storage ponds, pump facilities, and power line extensions) would occur as described in Section 5.3.2,
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 118 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. These impacts would range from moderate for individuals within the area to be disturbed and minor at the population level, as many individuals would be expected to flee the area during disturbance; impacts would be localized to only areas within the project footprint or for a short distance downstream; and the habitat to be disturbed would be a small portion of the available habitat within the Analysis Area.
Temporary impacts on wildlife associated with construction and maintenance would include those described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. These would include impacts from noise, vibration, or human presence. These impacts would be temporary and could be moderate on species present in areas to be disturbed but would be anticipated to be minor at the population level.
Wildlife habitat would be permanently lost or temporarily impacted during construction and maintenance activities.
Approximately 116.0 acres would be impacted long term within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area with approximately 131.5 acres impacted in the short term (see Table 5-2). Because some of the area contains disturbed areas, which are typically lower-quality wildlife habitat and because these acreages represent less than 2% of the total of the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, loss of habitat for any given wildlife species would be minor and would not be expected to rise the level of population-wide impacts for any species.
Construction activities may adversely impact nesting western burrowing owls. Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures, such as avoiding construction during burrowing owl nesting and fledging periods and conducting pre-construction nesting surveys would minimize impacts to burrowing owls. While some individuals could be impacted impact individuals, there would not be likely be a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability Thus, these impacts would be minor to populations.
At the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, pond 10P would require a 500-foot extension from the existing power line and pond 11P would potentially require a realignment of approximately 2,100 feet of power line. Because these extensions would be short distances and would occur in areas that are moderately to highly disturbed (e.g., existing dirt roads or cleared areas), impacts on wildlife from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would be minor.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., diversions, conveyance ditch improvements, power line expansions, and temporary access roads) would occur as described in Section 5.3.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. These potential impacts would be minor on species at the population level. Wildlife habitat would be permanently or temporarily disturbed under Alternative B.
Approximately 7.7 acres would be impacted long term within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with approximately 15.5 acres impacted in the short term (see Table 5-3). Because some of the area contains disturbed areas, which are typically lower-quality wildlife habitat and because these acreages represent less than 4% of the total of the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, loss of habitat for any given wildlife species would be minor, depending on individual species life history and distribution, and would not be expected to rise the level of population-wide impacts for any species.
Indirect, adverse impacts are expected on wildlife from habitat loss and habitat fragmentation resulting from the buried pipe conveyance from Spurgeon Diversion to the Thomason Flat Ditch and would include a siphon under Pueblo Creek. Because a large portion of these impacts would involve installation of
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 119 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
pipes, permanent impacts on habitat would be minimal. There would not likely be permanent habitat fragmentation in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area as a result of the installation of buried pipe conveyance.
5.2.3.1.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
Maintenance may be required within the Gila River channel in the future to repair any damage occurring to the fixed crest weir diversion and accompanying components. Future maintenance may also be required for other project components (e.g., diversion ditches or wells). Impacts resulting from maintenance activities would be similar to those described above for construction; however, these impacts would occur for a short period of time and would be limited to the area surrounding maintenance activities, and thus be of a lower intensity than during construction. Potential impacts from maintenance activities could adversely impact individuals but would be minor at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area and the short duration of impacts. The transition from push-up diversions that require frequent maintenance (one to three times per year on average) by heavy equipment under Alternative A in the channel to permanent diversion structures (that require infrequent maintenance) would have minor beneficial impacts on wildlife because individuals would not be killed or injured within the river channel as frequently, and individuals would experience fewer noise- or human disturbance–related impacts (e.g., behavior changes, reduced survival, reduced reproductive success) owing to these maintenance activities.
Diversion operations would affect surface water flows downstream of the diversions. Surface water IHA modeling indicates that surface water flows may increase immediately downstream of the proposed diversion on the Gila River for the months in which diversions occur (see discussion in 5.2.2.1 and Appendix G). This would be due to the change from live-ditch operations to controlled diversions mostly during the Fall/Winter Base Flow period. Increasing flows during the Spring/Summer Low Flow and Monsoon period may have beneficial impacts on aquatic and semiaquatic species and their habitats. However, during low flow periods the Gila River could experience drying downstream of the permanent diversion as flows would be diverted into conveyance ditches at that time. This drying could lead to direct mortality of aquatic or semiaquatic species, and a temporary loss of habitat. As drying occurs, the volume of pools and soil moisture downstream of the diversion would decrease, which could result in minor direct adverse impacts on riparian habitat and wildlife species that require moist soils and flowing water. A reduction of stream flow could impact water quality by creating stagnant conditions, reducing dissolved oxygen in the water, and increasing water temperature. These water conditions could constitute degraded habitat for some species or eliminate suitable habitat entirely for others (e.g., native fish, native frogs, aquatic invertebrates). Individuals may die directly from drying, or because predation attempts may succeed more often in smaller pools. As a result of degraded or reduced habitat, individuals may experience lowered health, lowered reproductive success, or, in the case of semiaquatic species, may need to expend additional metabolic energy foraging or searching for more appropriate habitat, leading to lowered survival.
These direct, adverse impacts on individuals and indirect, adverse impacts on habitat owing to river drying also occur under Alternative A, as ongoing impacts from push-up diversion. The precise length and duration of these dry reaches have not been mapped under current conditions and have not been quantified for any flow regime, and data are not available to quantify any changes to the length or duration of these dry reaches as a result of any of the action alternatives. Under Alternative B, river drying downstream of the diversions may continue to occur. However, the duration, length, and timing of river drying could change from current conditions, depending on many factors including rainfall, snowmelt, and diversion schedule and quantity of water diverted (HDR 2019a). Because drying just
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 120 Chapter 5. Effects of Action downstream of the diversion is already occurring under Alternative A, and because these impacts on individuals and habitat would occur only locally and intermittently, impacts could range from minor to moderate at the population level, with potential for localized adverse impacts on individuals within the area where drying would occur.
Using disturbance to riparian or wetlands vegetation as a proxy for impacts on riparian or wetland species wildlife habitat, the intensity of the impact of river drying on wildlife habitat would be negligible to minor compared to Alternative A because the changes in overall distribution of riparian areas and wetlands would be expected to be negligible to minor and localized (HDR 2019b, 2019c).
The proposed permanent diversion on the Gila River would alter wildlife habitat by backing up water into upstream of the proposed diversion at a broader range of flows than the current push-up diversion structures. Impacts from nonnative species would be as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Nonnative species were commonly encountered during surveys of the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area (SWCA 2019a, 2019d). Aquatic, wetland, or riparian species would experience measurable adverse impacts long term from operation under Alternative B; however, because these nonnative species already occur, and are widespread within and abundant in portions of the Gila River mainstem (SWCA 2019d; USFWS 2014c), adverse impacts on native species would be considered minor at the population level.
Similarly, the creation of four storage ponds under Alternative B would create pool habitat that could favor nonnative species. Impacts from nonnative species would be as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Aquatic, wetland, or riparian species would experience measurable adverse impacts long term from operation under Alternative B; however, because these nonnative species already occur, and are widespread within and abundant in portions of the Gila River mainstem (SWCA 2019d; USFWS 2014c), adverse impacts on native species would be considered minor at the population level. In addition, the creation of storage ponds may have beneficial impacts on some wildlife species, as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Because other, natural, water sources occur in the area, these pools would represent a small increase in potential habitat for wildlife species within the Analysis Area.
Stringers of riparian woodlands and narrow shelves adjacent to ditches exist currently along portions of the irrigation ditches in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area (SWCA 2019a). The expansion in capacity of the Fort West Ditch would result in additional unlined surface area and increase in ditch flows which could allow for some persistence and establishment of riparian habitat in the Direct Impacts Area. These increases would represent the potential localized minor beneficial impacts on riparian habitat where lining occurs due to increased seepage from increased capacity in the ditches, as described in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives.
Conversely, sections of the Fort West Ditch and Fort West Extension would be lined resulting in localized minor adverse impacts on riparian habitat due to reduced seepage.
Operation of the five production wells would increase the level of noise within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area. Potential impacts would be minor for individuals and would be negligible at the population level. In addition, some of the pumps occur in close proximity to roads, development, or agriculture, where ambient noise levels would be expected to be higher.
Potential impacts on riparian and wetland habitats could occur from increasing depths to groundwater associated with operation of the five production wells see Table 5-7). Impacts on wetland and riparian habitats would be localized around each pump and would be, except where the cone of depression associated with pumps for wells #3 and #5 overlaps with the Gila River. For these wells, the depth to groundwater within the cone of depression would increase between 1 and 5 feet (HDR 2019c). This could
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 121 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
have a moderate effect on riparian and wetland vegetation in the area. As such, impacts on wildlife would be expected to arise from long-term loss or degradation of habitat and could be affect individuals within the cone of depression, but would be minor on populations of wildlife species due to the amount of additional riparian and wetland habitat present in the Analysis Area.
Potential impacts operation of additional power lines under Alternative B would include potential for birds striking electrical distribution lines. Small and agile bird species would be anticipated to have a very low potential for collisions. The presence of electrical distribution poles would provide perches as well as nesting habitat for some species, and could increase impacts on prey species nearby. While some individuals could be impacted, these impacts would be unlikely to occur and would be negligible to minor for bird populations.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
There would be no increase or decrease in diversion maintenance frequency in the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area as the existing Sunset and New Model Diversion structures would remain unmodified under Alternative B. Therefore, there would be no new impacts to wildlife from diversion construction or maintenance activities.
The creation of two clay-lined storage ponds at the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area could create pool habitat that would favor nonnative species. Impacts on wildlife from nonnative species would be as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Within the Virden Valley Analysis Area, native species that are restricted to the aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitats may experience minimal impacts as a result of an increase of nonnative predator habitat and abundance; however, these nonnative species already occur, and are widespread within and abundant in portions of the Gila River main stem (SWCA 2019d; USFWS 2014b). In addition, the creation of storage ponds may have beneficial impacts on some wildlife species, as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Because other, natural, water sources occur in the area, these pools would represent a small increase in potential habitat for wildlife species within the Analysis Area.
Potential impacts operation of additional power lines would include potential for birds striking electrical distribution lines. Small and agile bird species would be anticipated to have a very low potential for collisions. The presence of electrical distribution poles would provide perches as well as nesting habitat for some species, and could increase impacts on prey species nearby. While some individuals could be impacted, these impacts would be unlikely to occur and would be negligible to minor for bird populations.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Maintenance may be required within the San Francisco River channel in the future to repair any damage occurring to the fixed crest weir diversion and accompanying components. Impacts resulting from maintenance activities would be similar to those described above from construction; however, these impacts would occur for a short period of time and would be limited to the area surrounding maintenance activities, and thus be of a lower intensity than during construction. The potential impacts would be minor at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area and the short duration of impacts. The transition from push-up diversions that require frequent maintenance by heavy equipment in the channel to permanent diversion structures (that require infrequent maintenance) would have minor to moderate beneficial impacts on wildlife because individuals would not be killed or injured within the river channel as frequently, and individuals would experience fewer noise- or human disturbance–related impacts (e.g., behavior changes,
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 122 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
reduced survival, reduced reproductive success), less siltation and water quality degradation owing to these maintenance activities.
The proposed permanent diversions would alter wildlife habitat by backing up water into upstream of the proposed diversions on the Gila River. Permanent (Alternatives B and E) and semi-permanent (Alternative C) diversion structures would likely back up water at a broader range of flows than the current push-up diversion structures, which may be breached at higher flows. Aquatic habitat would be created that favors nonnative species as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Within the San Francisco River Analysis Area, native species that are restricted to the aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitats may experience minor impacts as a result of an increase of nonnative predator habitat and abundance. Aquatic, wetland, or riparian species would experience adverse long-term impacts from operation under Alternative B; however, because these nonnative species already occur and are widespread within and abundant in portions of the San Francisco River mainstem, impacts on native species would be minor at the population level.
There would be no storage ponds created or new power lines created in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area as a result of Alternative B; thus, there would be no impacts on wildlife from these features.
Diversion operations would affect downstream flows in the San Francisco River. The extent and location of drying near or downstream of the diversions may change as a result of implementation of Alternative B. However, little data are available about dry and wet reaches on the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area (see Section 4.2.1.1.4), and it is not possible to determine how this might change as a result of installation of a permanent diversion or what impacts on individuals would be. Overall impacts on riparian vegetation in the San Francisco River Analysis Area are expected to be minor (see Section 5.1.3.2.3). Thus, impacts on wildlife habitat as a result of Alternative B would also be expected to be minor.
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., diversions, storage ponds, clay sources, and temporary roads) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Impacts on wildlife would be minor to populations of these species as many individuals would be expected to flee the area of disturbance and impacts would be localized to only areas within the project footprint or for a short distance downstream. Wildlife habitat would be permanently lost or temporarily impacted (see Table 5-1). Approximately 235.0 acres would be impacted long term within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with approximately 262.5 acres impacted in the short term.
Under Alternative C, the potential impacts on wildlife arising from construction of the four storage ponds would be the same as described above for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.1).
Because no changes would be made to conveyance ditches in the Upper Gila Analysis Area under Alternative C, impacts on wildlife would be the same as those described for Alternative A (see Section 5.2.1).
Because ponds 7P and 8P would require pump facilities for delivery of water from ponds into ditches under Alternative C, impacts on wildlife from power line installation would be similar to those discussed
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 123 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
previously under Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.1). Because both proposed power lines would be in areas that have been previously disturbed, adverse impacts on wildlife arising from habitat loss, degradation, or fragmentation would be negligible.
The multiple rock vane diversion structures proposed under Alternative C may potentially discourage fish from moving upstream due to the need to pass through three structures, but there would be enough distance between the diversion to allow for resting habitat. Downstream movement may be impacted due to the increased opportunity for entrainment into the three ditches. Fish passage incorporated into the design of the rock vane weirs would provide a minor beneficial impact to fish populations. However, the rock vane weirs would provide habitat for nonnative species that would be similar to the current push-up diversions.
As the structures in Alternative C are semi-permanent, there would be recurring construction impacts as the structures would need to be repaired or rebuilt after a high flow event. These would include direct mortality due to crushing and habitat loss, and indirect mortality due to increased sedimentation downstream. There would continue to be minor to moderate impacts to fish populations.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative C is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, construction impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., diversion, conveyance ditches, and reservoir, and access roads) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. These potential impacts would be minor to species at the population level.
Wildlife habitat would be permanently lost or temporarily impacted (see Table 5-3). Approximately 90.7 acres would be impacted long term within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area with approximately 111.1 acres impacted in the short term. Because some of the area contains disturbed areas, which are typically lower quality wildlife habitat and because these acreages represent less than 3% of the total of the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, loss of habitat for any given wildlife species would be minor, depending on individual species life-history and distribution, and would not be expected to rise the level of population-wide impacts for any species.
The expansion of Thomason Flat Ditch capacity could cause construction impacts as outlined above. Because this conveyance ditch is existing, direct, long-term impacts on wildlife would be minor and be localized. Disturbed vegetation would be expected to recover as this ditch would not be lined.
Under Alternative C, various extensions of the power lines from the existing lines would need to be made (in collaboration with local utility companies). Because the distance needed to extend the power lines would be less than 0.5 mile for any given spur, impacts arising on wildlife from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would be minimal.
Under Alternative C, a rock vane weir would divert water at the Thomason Flat Ditch. As discussed above in the Upper Gila Analysis Area, the rock vane weir would require periodic maintenance to repair or rebuild the structure after a high flow event, in which case construction impacts would reoccur. These would include direct mortality due to crushing and habitat loss, and indirect mortality due to increased sedimentation downstream. There would continue to be minor to moderate impacts to fish populations.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 124 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
5.2.3.2.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
The rock vane weirs proposed in this alternative are likely to require periodic maintenance, including occasionally rebuilding, particularly after high-flow events, as they are not rigid structures. Thus, in addition to the initial construction impacts on wildlife, there would be additional maintenance impacts under Alternative C. However, the frequency of maintenance would be less than the maintenance requirements in Alternative A These impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2). These temporary, adverse impacts would be localized to the area immediately surrounding the weirs and occur for a short duration. Impacts would be minor to moderate to populations of these species.
Aquatic or semi-aquatic wildlife inhabiting the water at or downstream of the weir loose rock structures may be killed or injured by boulders or loose rock materials when the weirs as constructed shift or fail during high-flow events. Because these impacts would be infrequent and confined in a small area near or downstream the weirs, they would be minor to populations of these species.
Under Alternative C, the construction of semi-permanent diversions on the Gila River would alter wildlife habitat by creating areas of deeper pool habitat upstream of the diversions that would favor nonnative species (i.e., nonnative predatory fish, nonnative crayfish, and American bullfrogs). These adverse impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2), though there would potentially be three areas of ponding, similar to Alternative A, instead of one.
Four storage ponds would be created under Alternative C, and impacts on wildlife resulting from increasing habitat, both for natives and nonnative species would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2).
Because no new conveyance ditches would be created, the riparian and wetland habitat would remain the same as found within current conditions.
No impacts would occur from pumping as no production wells would be constructed under Alternative C.
The potential for birds striking additional electrical distribution lines would be present, but unlikely under Alternative C, as few power lines would be constructed. These adverse impacts on birds would negligible to minor at the population level.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative C is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, maintenance and operations impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
The rock vane weir used at Thomason Flat in this alternative is likely to require frequent maintenance, including occasionally rebuilding, particularly after high-flow events, as it is not a rigid structure. Thus, in addition to the initial construction impacts on wildlife, there would be additional maintenance impacts under Alternative C that would happen with more frequency than under other action alternatives.
Maintenance may be required within the San Francisco River channel in the future to repair any damage occurring to the semi-permanent rock vane weir diversion. These impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2). Because these temporary, adverse impacts on
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 125 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
wildlife individuals are localized to the area immediately surrounding the weir and occur for a short duration, impacts would be minor to populations of these species.
Under Alternative C, the construction of a semi-permanent diversion on the San Francisco River would alter wildlife habitat by creating areas of deeper pool habitat that favor nonnative species (i.e., nonnative predatory fish, nonnative crayfish, and American bullfrogs). These adverse impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2).
A reservoir at Weedy Canyon would be created in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area under Alternative C. This storage reservoir would create pool habitat that would favor nonnative species. Impacts on wildlife from the addition of nonnative predator habitat would be as discussed in Impacts Common to All Action Alternative (see Section 5.2.2). Because nonnative species area already widespread in the San Francisco River mainstem in New Mexico, impacts on native species would be considered minor at the population level. The creation of an unlined reservoir at Weedy Canyon could lead to the increase in wetland and riparian habitat around the edges, which may have beneficial impacts on some wildlife species, as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Because other, natural, water sources occur in the area, this reservoir would represent a small increase in potential habitat for wildlife species within the Analysis Area.
Thomason Flat Ditch would have its capacity increased, but no new conveyance ditches would be created. Because no new conveyance ditches would be created under Alternative C, the riparian and wetland habitat there would be minimal adverse impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation.
Operation of the pump station would increase the level of noise within the San Francisco Direct Impacts Area. Human-generated noise can adversely impact wildlife as discussed in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (Section 5.2.2). Potential impacts in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area from well pump noise under Alternative C would be minor for individuals and would be negligible at the population level.
Potential impacts of operation of additional power lines would include potential for birds striking electrical distribution lines. Small and agile bird species would be anticipated to have a very low potential for collisions. The presence of electrical distribution poles would provide perches as well as nesting habitat for some species, and could increase impacts on prey species nearby. While some individuals could be impacted, these impacts would be unlikely to occur and would be minor for bird populations.
The creation of permanent access roads could cause increased wildlife mortality from impacts with vehicles, habitat fragmentation, and noise impacts (Forman and Alexander 1998). Wildlife in the area may be injured or killed, or may alter their behavior to avoid roads, or roads may inhibit movement of individuals, fragmenting the existing habitat. While these road would be relatively short extensions off of existing roads leading to the Weedy Canyon Reservoir and to the source material for the reservoir, the addition of roads could increase human use of the area, and could encourage the use of off-highway vehicles or increase illegal dumping, which could in-turn introduce noxious weeds, degrade habitat, or kill or injure individual wildlife. Impacts on wildlife under Alternative C owing to creation of permanent roads would be minor to populations of these species because many individuals would be expected to flee the area when roads are used and disturbance and impacts would be localized to only areas within or near the new access road.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 126 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
No diversions, conveyances, ponds, or other structures would be constructed within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area under Alternative D. Thus, construction impacts would remain the same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 5.2.1).
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative D is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, construction impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
No diversions, conveyances, ponds, or other structures would be constructed within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area under Alternative D. Thus, construction impacts would remain the same as described for the No Action Alternative (see Section 5.2.1).
5.2.3.3.2 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
No diversions, conveyances, ponds, or other structures would be constructed within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area under Alternative D. Thus, maintenance and operational impacts would remain the same as described for the No Action Alternative (see Section 5.2.1).
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative D is the same as for Alternative B, Thus, operational impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
No diversions, conveyances, ponds, or other structures would be constructed within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area under Alternative D. Thus, maintenance and operational impacts would remain the same as described for the No Action Alternative (see Section 5.2.1).
ALTERNATIVE E
5.2.3.4.1
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., diversions, storage ponds, conveyances, reservoir, and temporary roads) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives (see Table 5-1 for a breakdown of impacts on vegetation types occurring within the Upper Gila Analysis Area). Approximately 284.0 acres would be impacted long term within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with approximately 346.1 acres impacted in the
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 127 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
short term. Impacts on wildlife would be minor to populations of these species as many individuals would be expected to flee the area of disturbance; impacts would be localized to only areas within the project footprint or for a short distance downstream; and, disturbance acreages represent less than 3% of the total of the Upper Gila direct Impacts Area. Indirect, adverse impacts are expected to wildlife from habitat loss and habitat fragmentation resulting from the widening and lining of the existing Upper Gila Ditch and reconstruction of the McMillen Ditch. Because many of these impacts under Alternative E occur within existing conveyance ditches or involve installation of underground culverts, additional permanent impacts on habitat would be minor.
Under Alternative E, impacts arising from the construction of additional power lines would be as described in Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.1).
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative E is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, construction impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., diversions, conveyance ditch improvements, power line expansions, reservoir in Weedy Canyon, and temporary and permanent access roads) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Impacts on wildlife would be minor to populations of these species as many individuals would be expected to flee the area of disturbance and impacts would be localized to only areas within the project footprint or for a short distance downstream (see Table 5-3). Approximately 132.4 acres would be impacted long term within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area with approximately 168.4 acres impacted in the short term.
The expansion of Thomason Flat Ditch capacity could cause construction impacts as outlined above. Because this conveyance ditch is already existing no habitat fragmentation or long-term loss of habitat is anticipated under Alternative E. While riparian habitat may be lost during expansion temporarily, impacts on wildlife would be minimal as vegetation would be expected to recover as this ditch would not be lined. The addition of buried pipe and elevated pipe over Pueblo Creek would cause temporary impacts on habitat and would cause construction impacts as outlined in Section 5.2.2, Impact Common to All Action Alternatives. However, vegetation would be expected to recover, and impacts on wildlife from construction would be expected to be temporary and minor.
Under Alternative E, various extensions of the power lines from the existing lines would need to be made (in collaboration with local utility companies). Because the distance needed to extend the power lines is relatively short (less than 0.5 mile for any given spur), impacts arising on wildlife from habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would be minor.
5.2.3.4.2 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area
Maintenance may be required within the Gila River channel in the future to repair any damage occurring to the Obermeyer gate diversion. Future maintenance may also be required for other project components (e.g., diversion ditches or wells). Future maintenance activities would be as described under Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2). Because these temporary, adverse impacts on wildlife individuals are localized to the area immediately surrounding the weir and occur for a short duration, impacts would be minor to populations of these species.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 128 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
The beneficial wildlife impacts arising from reducing the number of maintenance activities required for the permanent diversion structure under Alternative E would be the same as discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2).
Under Alternative E, construction of a permanent diversion on the Gila River would alter wildlife habitat by creating areas of deeper pool habitat that favor nonnative species (i.e., nonnative predatory fish, nonnative crayfish, and American bullfrogs) upstream of the diversion. These adverse impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2. One storage pond in the Cliff-Gila Valley and two unlined ASR basins within Winn Canyon would be created under Alternative E, and adverse impacts arising from the creation of nonnative predator habitat and beneficial impacts of creating habitat for native species would be similar as those discussed under Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2). Even though acreage of new pool habitat differs, impacts on native species would be still considered minor at the population level.
A minor reduction in wetland and riparian habitat may occur as some ditches would be lined under Alternative E. However, because this is a small area of impact compared to the overall amount of riparian and wetland habitat within the Analysis Area, impacts on wildlife populations would be minor.
Operation of the three ASR wells and the pumps required convey water in and out of the Winn Canyon Reservoir and from the Upper Gila Ditch and recirculate water from the ASR wells into storage would increase the level of noise within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area. Impacts on wildlife would follow those discussed above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives and would be minor at the population level.
The potential for adverse impacts for birds striking additional electrical distribution lines would be minor at the population level.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative E is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, operational impacts would be the same as discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Maintenance may be required within the San Francisco River channel in the future to repair any damage occurring to the fixed crest weir diversion and accompanying components. Wildlife impacts from maintenance activities would be as described in Section 5.2.3.1.2 for Alternative B.
The beneficial wildlife impacts arising from reducing the number of maintenance activities required for the permanent diversion structure under Alternative E are the same as discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2).
Under Alternative E, the construction of a permanent diversion on the San Francisco River would alter wildlife habitat by creating areas of deeper pool habitat that favor nonnative species (i.e., nonnative predatory fish, nonnative crayfish, and American bullfrogs). These adverse impacts would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.3.1.2).
A reservoir at Weedy Canyon would be created in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area under Alternative E. Although the storage capacity of this reservoir would be larger under Alternative E than Alternative C, the impacts arising from this storage reservoir creating pool habitat that would favor nonnative species would remain largely the same as those discussed in Section 5.2.3.2.2. Impacts on native species would be considered minor at the population level. Beneficial impacts on wildlife through
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 129 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
creation of riparian or wetland habitat at ponds would occur as discussed in Alternative C (see Section 5.2.3.2.2).
Thomason Flat Ditch would have its capacity increased, but no new conveyance ditches would be created under Alternative E. Because no new conveyance ditches would be created the riparian and wetland habitat (e.g., primarily a narrow band directly adjacent to the ditch) there would no impacts to riparian and wetland habitat under Alternative E.
Operation of the pump station would increase the level of noise within the San Francisco Direct Impacts Area. Human-generated noise can adversely impact wildlife as discussed in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Potential impacts from well noise under Alternative E may impact individuals but would be negligible at the population level.
Potential impacts operation of additional power lines would be the same as those discussed under Alternative C (see Section 5.2.3.2.2).
The creation of permanent access roads could cause increased wildlife mortality from impacts with vehicles, habitat fragmentation, and future noise impacts from future use (Forman and Alexander 1998). Impacts on wildlife from the creation of permanent roads under Alternative E would be the same as discussed for the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, Alternative C, Section 5.2.3.2.2.
5.2.4 Special Status Species
Impacts on special status species would be similar or identical to impacts described for general wildlife species in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. The impacts on special status wildlife species resulting from all action alternatives would be similar in kind, with generally only minor differences, and would result in the same impacts determinations for all action alternatives, unless otherwise specified below.
CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY AREAS
The COAs that overlap with the Analysis Areas would experience minor, direct, adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of habitat within the COA as a result of all alternatives. Construction of diversions and components may crush plants, reduce the amount of habitat available, and disturbance from noise or human presence may cause birds to change their behavior or temporarily avoid the vicinity while work occurs, as described in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives, above.
All of the COAs that overlap with the analysis area may experience adverse impacts on habitat through loss of flow (and subsequent loss or degradation to wetlands or riparian areas within or adjacent to the river channel) to the Gila and San Francisco Rivers as a result of project operation for all alternatives (flow impacts on vegetation described in Section 5.1.3.2). However, because riparian woodlands and wetlands are not expected to degrade or contract in area substantially as a result of diversion under any action alternative (see Section 5.1.2.2.2), impacts on the COAs would be minor. These areas would continue to provide suitable habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, under all action alternatives.
The Gila-Cliff IBA, which overlaps with the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, would experience minor, direct, adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of bird habitat within the IBA under Alternatives B, C, and E. Under Alternative D, no changes would be made to diversions structures, and no storage ponds or other components would be constructed within Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, and impacts would continue to occur as described for Alternative A.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 130 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Construction of diversions and components may crush plants, reduce the amount of habitat available, and disturbance from noise or human presence may cause birds to change their behavior or temporarily avoid the vicinity while work occurs as described in Impacts Common to All Alternatives, above. Even though this IBA overlaps with the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Analysis area for approximately 2,396 acres of its approximate 2,768 acres, no alternative would impact more than 351.4 acres (permanent and temporary), not all of which occurs within the IBA as the IBA is limited to the riparian corridor. In addition, limited riparian woodland and wetland habitat may be created for birds as a result of the creation of storage pond 4P (which overlaps with the IBA) under Alternatives B and C and new a conveyance ditch under Alternative B. Alternative B would additionally adversely impact riparian and wetland habitat values within the Gila-Cliff IBA. Groundwater drawdown from operation of production wells #3 and #5 would adversely impact two additional approximately 0.5 mile segments of riparian and wetland habitat along the Gila River, as described in Section 5.2.3.1.2. The precise amount of riparian and wetland bird habitat within the Gila-Cliff IBA that may be degraded or lost is not known, as that depends upon current levels of groundwater and precise amount of drawdown from this proposed project. However, these areas would be localized to within 2,100 feet radius of productions wells, with impacts on groundwater decreasing further away from wells. Outside of these localized areas, bird habitat would remain largely unchanged from its current state.
All IBAs that overlap with the analysis area—the Blue and San Francisco River, Ecosystem, Apache- Sitgreaves National Forests IBA, Gila-Cliff IBA, Gila Bird IBA, and Lower Gila Box IBA—would experience adverse impacts on bird habitat suitability through loss of flow (and subsequent loss or degradation to wetlands or riparian areas within or adjacent to the river channel) to the Gila and San Francisco Rivers as a result of project operation for Alternatives B, C, and E (flow impacts on vegetation described in Section 5.1.3). However, because riparian woodlands and wetlands are not expected to degrade or contract in area substantially as a result diversion under any Action Alternative (see Section 5.1.2), impacts on these IBAs would be negligible to minor. These areas would continue to provide suitable bird habitat for breeding, foraging, migrating, or dispersing.
NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS AND BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLES
Potential impacts on migratory bird species would be the same as described above in Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Birds may experience mortality, injury, behavior changes, or loss of habitat. Large birds, including eagles, may have an increased chance of impacting power lines and experience death or injury as a result. Any alternative that increases the power lines in the Impacts Areas would marginally increase the chance of large birds being electrocuted. However, these power line extensions would be relatively short and the increase in electrocution risk would be increased minimally over existing risk. Impacts would be minor to bird populations given the small percentage of suitable habitat for any given species disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6 for percentage and acres of disturbance).
Under all action alternatives, the proposed project may impact habitat and individuals, but there would be no detectable effect at the population level on the viability of these species by project-related activities or contribution toward a downward population trend or listing of these bird species as threatened or endangered. If construction or maintenance activities were to occur during the migratory bird nesting season (generally March to August), they could impact nesting birds. Potential impacts would include destruction of nests by construction or maintenance equipment, and increased noise and vibration leading to nest abandonment or failure. These impacts would be reduced by measures to identify and avoid nests during nesting season.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 131 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES
Potential impacts on Gila National Forest MIS would be the same as described above in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. The acres of potential impacts on modeled habitat for these species is provided in Table 5-10. The project-related disturbance would decrease available habitat for these species. However, given that the proposed project would impact a small portion of the overall habitat on the Gila National Forest in the project vicinity for these species under all action alternatives, the proposed project would not alter existing trends on the Forest for MIS species’ habitat.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES BY TAXON
5.2.4.3.1 AMPHIBIANS
Four special status amphibian species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Chapter 4 for the status and distribution of these species within the Analysis Area), including: Arizona toad, Chiricahua leopard frog, lowland leopard frog, and, Sonoran Desert toad. The Chiricahua leopard frog is listed under the ESA and is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5.
Similar to general wildlife, impacts on special status amphibians would be related to disturbance or loss of habitat. The potential impacts would be minor to populations of these species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area. Thus, all action alternatives may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for the following species: Arizona toad, lowland leopard frog, and Sonoran Desert toad.
Lowland leopard frog would not be expected to experience direct impacts as they are not known to occur in any Direct Impacts Area. Sonoran Desert toad is not known to occur in San Francisco or Upper Gila Analysis Areas. Impacts on special status amphibians would be similar to those described in detail for aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial species inhabiting wetland or riparian habitats (see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3), though the Sonoran desert toad may also be found and could experience impacts in upland areas further away from water during rainy or humid weather conditions. Alternative B would additionally impact Arizona toads (the only special status amphibian with potential to occur in the Upper Gila Analysis Area) through additional loss or degradation of riparian and wetland habitat through operation of production wells in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Areas and associated groundwater drawdown (see Section 5.1.3.2). Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to amphibians.
5.2.4.3.2 BIRDS
Twenty-nine special status bird species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the Analysis Area (see Chapter 4 for the status and distribution of these species within the Analysis Area). Four of these special status bird species are listed under the ESA: Mexican spotted owl, least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo. These species are discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5.
Similar to general wildlife, impacts on special status birds would be related to habitat disturbance or loss. Potential impacts would be minor to populations of these species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area. Thus, all action alternatives may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for any of the special status bird species including: Abert’s towhee, American peregrine falcon, Arizona Bell’s vireo, Arizona Botteri’s sparrow, bald eagle, Bendire’s thrasher, broad-billed hummingbird, chestnut collared longspur, common black hawk, common
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 132 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
ground-dove, Costa’s hummingbird, desert purple martin, ferruginous hawk, Gila woodpecker, gilded flicker, golden eagle, gray vireo, neotropic cormorant, northern beardless tyrannulet, northern goshawk, pinyon jay, Sprague’s pipit, varied bunting, Virginia’s warbler, and western burrowing owl.
Impacts on these special status bird species would be similar to those described in detail for general wildlife species (see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). Impacts that could occur include mortality, behavior changes, or habitat loss through the loss or degradation of riparian and wetland habitat (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6). Direct short-and long-term impacts are less than 4% in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area for all Alternatives B, C, and E. Operation of the production wells under Alternative B in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area would result in additional impacts (see Table 5-7 and discussion in Section 5.1.3.2.1). In the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, short- and long-term direct impacts would be 0.2% and 0.1% for all action alternatives. In the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, the short- and long- term direct impacts would be less than 2% for Alternatives B, C, and E.
In contrast to Alternative A, special status bird species that use upland areas could experience adverse impacts under all action alternatives from construction, maintenance, or operation of upland project components including storage ponds, power lines, and new conveyances. Direct impacts to special status bird species would be negligible to minor for all action alternatives. Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to birds.
5.2.4.3.3 FISH
Twelve special status fish species occur or potentially occur in the Analysis Area, including desert sucker, Gila chub, Gila trout, loach minnow, longfin dace, Sonora sucker, speckled dace, and spikedace with another, Gila topminnow, having the unlikely potential to occur. The loach minnow, spikedace, Gila topminnow, Gila chub, are listed under the ESA and are discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5. All action alternatives may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for any of the special status fish species above because impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for any of these species because project activities would impact a small amount of suitable habitat compared to the amount of habitat available to these species within the Analysis Area. In the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas there would be minor to moderate adverse impacts to special status fish due to direct short- and long-term construction impacts. Direct impacts in the Virden Valley Analysis Area would be negligible.
Alternative B includes constructing riffle run-down aprons and Alternative C includes constructing rock weirs may actually improve the habitat for species such as spikedace and loach minnow. Alternative E would allow the river to flow in a more natural flow regime until irrigation season when one or more of the Obermeyer gates in the Cliff-Gila project location are closed. All alternatives would improve upstream passage over Alternative A since the active channel would no longer be blocked by the push-up diversions. See discussion in Section 5.2.5.6 for detailed discussion on fish passage for all alternatives.
The hydrological analysis (see Appendix G) shows a seasonal improvement of flows during spring and summer in the Upper Gila, and a negligible difference in flows throughout the year on the San Francisco River (see Appendix G). Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal hydrological impacts to fish.
5.2.4.3.4 INVERTEBRATES
A total of six special status invertebrate species have the potential to occur in the Analysis Area (see Chapter 4 for the status and distribution of these species within the Analysis Area) including: a caddisfly (Lepidostoma apache), a caddisfly (L. knulli), dashed ringtail, Gila mayfly, monarch butterfly, and a notodontid moth.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 133 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Based on life-history and distribution, all action alternatives may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for the following invertebrate species: a caddisfly (Lepidostoma apache), a caddisfly (L. knulli), and monarch butterfly. A dashed ringtail, Gila butterfly, and notodontid moth would experience no impact under Alternative D, but Alternatives B, C, and E may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability.
Both caddisfly species are Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Sensitive species with the potential to occur within riverine and riparian areas within the San Francisco River Indirect Impacts Area downstream of the existing diversion. Neither of these species would be expected to experience direct impacts as a result of the proposed project. Impacts on these species under all action alternatives include hydrological changes (and resulting changes in riparian/wetland vegetation downstream) arising from diversion of the San Francisco River. Both species may experience a very small loss of aquatic or riparian habitat under all action alternatives (see Section 5.2.2). However, impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for these species because project activities under all action alternatives would impact a small amount of suitable habitat compared to the amount of habitat available to these species within USFS lands. Thus, these impacts would be minor to populations and negligible for individuals.
Dashed ringtail and Gila mayfly are Gila National Forest Sensitive species that occur within aquatic and riparian areas. The notodontid moth is a Gila National Forest Sensitive species that occurs within upland areas. Dashed ringtail has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas; Gila mayfly has the potential to occur within the Upper Gila Analysis Area; and, the notodontid moth species has the potential to occur in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Gila mayfly is extremely rare and has not been observed since 1967; however, one of its historical occurrence locations was mapped as occurring within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area. Impacts on these special status invertebrates would be similar to those discussed in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. and would be related to direct impacts to riparian and wetland habitat (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6). Because the notodontid moth occurs in upland areas, only construction, maintenance, operations that occur in upland areas would be expected to adversely impact this species. Impacts on these species under Alternative D would be the same as for Alternative A, as none of them are known to occur in the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area, the only location where project activities would occur under Alternative D. Changes to riparian areas would not be expected to occur upstream of Virden Valley under Alternative D. Alternative B would impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian invertebrate species through additional loss or degradation of riparian and wetland habitat through operation of production wells in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Areas and associated groundwater drawdown (See Section 5.1.3.2.1). Impacts on dashed ringtail, Gila mayfly, and the notodontid moth species would be minor to populations of these species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present in USFS lands within the Analysis Area.
The monarch butterfly is a BLM Sensitive Species for Arizona and New Mexico that is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area and has potential to occur in the Upper Gila, San Francisco River, and Virden Valley Analysis Areas. Impacts on monarch butterflies would be similar to those discussed in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. Potential adverse impacts could occur including mortality or behavior changes, or habitat loss. Under all action alternatives impacts on monarch butterflies would be minor to populations of this species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present in BLM lands within the Analysis Area.
Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to invertebrates.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 134 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
5.2.4.3.5 MAMMALS
Fifteen special status mammal species are known to occur or are possible to occur within the Analysis Area (see Chapter 4 for the status and distribution of these species within the Analysis Area). One species, the Mexican wolf, is listed under the ESA and is discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5.7.
Similar to general wildlife, impacts on special status mammals would be related to habitat degradation or disturbance from construction or operations. Potential impacts would be minor to populations of these species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area. Thus, all action alternatives may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for any of the special status mammal species, including Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Arizona gray squirrel, Arizona myotis, banner-tailed kangaroo rat, California leaf-nosed bat, cave myotis, greater western mastiff bat, Gunnison’s prairie dog (Prairie population), hooded skunk, lesser long-nosed bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, Springerville silky pocket mouse, and western red bat.
Impacts on these special status mammal species would be similar to those described in detail for general wildlife species (see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). Impacts could occur including mortality or behavior changes, or habitat loss. Alternative D would have the least amount of impact on special status mammals, as project activities would be restricted to the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area. Alternative B would impact riparian mammal species through additional loss or degradation of riparian and wetland habitat through operation of production wells in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Areas and associated groundwater drawdown (See Section 5.1.3.2.1). In contrast to Alternative A, special status mammal species that use upland areas could experience adverse impacts under all action alternatives from construction, maintenance, or operation of upland project components including storage ponds, power lines, or new conveyances.
Bat species would be unlikely to experience direct impacts under any Action Alternative, unless suitable roosts (caves, adits, abandoned buildings, or bridges) occur at or near construction sites. In addition, construction and maintenance work for all action alternatives would likely be conducted during daytime hours, when these nocturnal species are not active, and an increase in nighttime lighting is not planned. Insect populations (prey species for insectivorous bats) may experience minor fluctuations with construction, maintenance, or diversion activities, but impacts on individual bats resulting from these fluctuations would not likely be detectable given bat mobility and the large number of insects each bat consumes nightly. Bat species may lose habitat from construction. Bat species that particularly rely on water or riparian areas including Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Arizona myotis, cave myotis, and western red bat may experience adverse impacts on their habitat. However, because impacts on riparian areas are expected to be minor (see Section 5.1.3.2.1), these impacts on bat species would be minor.
Lesser long-nosed bat would be expected to experience negligible impacts under all action alternatives. This species relies on saguaros and agaves for forage, which generally occur in uplands, away from the riparian corridor. No suitable forage plants were observed during surveys (SWCA 2019a). Few or no forage plants would be removed as a result any of the action alternatives in Virden Valley and no known roosts are present in the Analysis Area.
The Arizona gray squirrel is a riparian obligate species found in the San Francisco River Drainage and Analysis Area and the hooded skunk is often associated with riparian areas within the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Under Alternative D, impacts on these species would be the same as under Alternative A because project activities would not occur in the Upper Gila or San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas and no additional impacts would occur there. Under Alternatives B, C, and E, potential impacts on the Arizona gray squirrel and hooded skunk would be minor to populations of these
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 135 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area.
Banner-tailed kangaroo rat and Gunnison’s prairie dog (prairie population) are primarily associated with upland areas and may experience impacts from construction of storage ponds or other upland components. Impacts on these species would be minor to populations of these species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area.
Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to mammals.
5.2.4.3.6 REPTILES
Five special status reptile species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the Analysis Area (see Chapter 4 for the status and distribution of these species within the Analysis Area) including: northern Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, reticulate Gila monster, green rat snake, and Sonora mud turtle. Impacts on reticulate Gila monster, green ratsnake, and Sonora mud turtle would be similar to those described in detail for general wildlife species (see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). These species are discussed below. The northern Mexican gartersnake and narrow-headed gartersnake are listed under the ESA and are discussed in detail in Section 5.2.5.8.
All action alternatives may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a downward trend toward Federal listing or a loss of population viability for any of the special status reptile species above because impacts are not anticipated to reach the population level for any of these species because project activities would impact a small amount of suitable habitat compared to the amount of habitat available to these species within the Analysis Area.
The reticulate Gila monster is primarily associated with uplands. In contrast to Alternative A, it may experience impacts arising from storage pond construction or construction of other upland components in the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area under all action alternatives. For all action alternatives, impacts on the reticulate Gila monster would be minor on populations of this species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area.
The green ratsnake occurs in riparian areas within the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. Under Alternative D, impacts on these species would be the same as under Alternative A because project activities would not occur in the Upper Gila or San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas and no impacts would occur there. Under Alternatives B, C, and E, potential impacts on the green ratsnake would be minor on populations of this species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area.
Sonora mud turtle occurs within creeks, streams and waterholes. While Alternatives B, C, and E would directly impact riparian and wetland habitat, Alternative B would additionally impact riparian reptile species through additional loss or degradation of riparian and wetland habitat through operation of production wells in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Areas and associated groundwater drawdown (see Section 5.1.3.2.1). For all action alternatives, impacts on the Sonora mud turtle would be minor on populations of this species given the small percentage of suitable habitat disturbed in relation to the overall amount of habitat present within the Analysis Area.
Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to reptiles.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 136 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-10. Acres of Potential Impacts on Management Indicator Species
Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Current Vegetation Impacts Area Acres and Management Indicator Type Impacts Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Trend on Gila Species Associated (acres and Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term National with MIS percent Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Forest change) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Upper Gila Analysis
Area Mule deer Desert Shrub 1,418,029.6 99.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Odocoileus hemionus) Pinyon Juniper / Recent <0.01% Shrub Oakland observations show a slight decline due to poor recruitment related to drought conditions. Montezuma quail Plains Grass / 591,196.9 99.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Cyrtonyx montezumae) Mountain Grass No trend data <0.01% available. Juniper titmouse Pinyon Juniper / 1,418,029.6 99.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Baeolophus ridgwayi) Shrub Oakland No trend data <0.01% available. Common black hawk Low/Mid 61,297.9 32.9 2.3 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Buteogallus Riparian Population <0.01% anthracinus) appears to be stable. Beaver Low/Mid 61,297.9 32.9 2.3 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Castor canadensis) Riparian No trend data <0.01% High Riparian available. Native trout High Riparian 61,297.9 32.9 2.3 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i.e., Rio Grande Rio Grande <0.01% [Oncorhynchus clarki cutthroat trout virginalis] and Gila trout distribution is [Oncorhynchus gilae]) unchanged. Gila trout population has increased distribution. Long-tailed vole Wet Meadows / 61,297.9 32.9 2.3 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Microtus longicaudus) Wetlands No trend data <0.01% available.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 137 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Current Vegetation Impacts Area Acres and Management Indicator Type Impacts Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Trend on Gila Species Associated (acres and Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term National with MIS percent Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Forest change) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) San Francisco Analysis Area Mule deer Desert Shrub 1,418,029.6 1,081.7 62.7 56.6 54.0 45.1 0 0 78.1 69.9 (Odocoileus hemionus) Pinyon Juniper / Recent <0.01% Shrub Oakland observations show a slight decline due to poor recruitment related to drought conditions. Montezuma quail Plains Grass / 591,196.9 1,409.3 96.0 86.6 91.1 77.1 0 0 118.3 105.5 (Cyrtonyx Mountain Grass No trend data <0.01% montezumae) available. Juniper titmouse Pinyon Juniper / 1,418,029.6 1,081.6 62.7 56.6 54.0 45.1 0 0 78.1 70.0 (Baeolophus ridgwayi) Shrub Oakland No trend data <0.01% available. Mexican spotted owl Mixed Conifer 2,283,666.2 48.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.7 (Strix occidentalis Population is <0.01% lucida) stable to increasing. Hairy woodpecker Ponderosa Pine 2,283,666.2 48.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.7 (Picoides villosus) and Mixed No trend data <0.01% Conifer Snag available Component Common black hawk Low/Mid 61,297.9 394.1 5.0 3.9 7.0 5.5 0 0 8.4 5.8 (Buteogallus Riparian Population <0.01% anthracinus) appears to be stable. Beaver Low/Mid 61,297.9 394.1 5.0 3.9 7.0 5.5 0 0 8.4 5.8 (Castor canadensis) Riparian No trend data <0.01% High Riparian available.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 138 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Current Vegetation Impacts Area Acres and Management Indicator Type Impacts Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Trend on Gila Species Associated (acres and Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term National with MIS percent Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Forest change) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Native trout High Riparian 61,297.9 394.1 5.0 3.9 7.0 5.5 0 0 8.4 5.8 (i.e., Rio Grande Rio Grande <0.01% [Oncorhynchus clarki cutthroat trout virginalis] and Gila trout distribution is [Oncorhynchus gilae]) unchanged. Gila trout population has increased distribution. Long-tailed vole Wet Meadows / 61,297.9 394.1 5.0 3.9 7.0 5.5 0 0 8.4 5.8 (Microtus longicaudus) Wetlands No trend data <0.01% available.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 139 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
5.2.5 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
Fourteen species listed under the Endangered Species Act are addressed in this BE. A more detailed analysis of potential impacts on these species will be completed in the biological assessment. These species include the following: Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, narrow-headed gartersnake, least tern, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, gray wolf and Mexican gray wolf, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, loach minnow, razorback sucker, and spikedace. Of these 14 species, nine have designated or proposed critical habitat within the Analysis Areas. This critical habitat and potential acres of short- and long-term impacts are given below in Table 5-11. Critical habitats for all species and all alternatives for the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area are mapped in Appendix A, Figures A.55–A.61; Figures A.62–A.63 for the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area; and Figures A.64–A.71 for the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area.
Because the entire Direct Impacts Area was not able to be surveyed or mapped to determine the extent of habitat for Federally listed species, NWI data were used as a proxy for suitable habitat for terrestrial Federally listed species that use riparian or wetland habitat and that occur within the Direct Impacts Area (i.e., Southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, northern Mexican gartersnake, and narrow- headed gartersnake). However, areas mapped by NWI data have not been ground-truthed, and may not contain suitable habitat, or the vegetation may be different than that mapped by NWI. Table 5-12 defines each NWI category and indicates which species might be expected to use that habitat category. Table 5-13 summarizes the potential direct and indirect impacts on species.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 140 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-11. Critical Habitat Impacts by Action Alternative
Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Total Indirect Impacts Analysis Area and Acreage in Impacts Area Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Area Critical Habitat Analysis Impacts Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Impacts Area (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Upper Gila Analysis Area Proposed Critical 5,443.4 3,285.9 2,157.5 72.5 48.9 35.3 29.7 0 0 51.6 37.1 Habitat (PCH) for the (3.4%) (2.3%) (1.6%) (1.4) (2.4%) (1.7%) yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) PCH for the northern 4,784.7 2,923.5 1,861.2 30.5 19.0 12.7 10.0 0 0 8.2 4.1 Mexican gartersnake (1.6%) (1.0%) (0.7%) (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (Thamnophis eques megalops) Designated Critical 3,740.2 2,803.5 936.7 19.1 10.3 5.7 3.2 0 0 5.6 3.1 Habitat (DCH) for the (2.0%) (1.1%) (0.6%) (0.3%) (0.6%) (0.3%) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) DCH for Mexican 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) DCH for Gila chub 16.4 16.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Gila intermedia) PCH for narrow- 4,784.7 2,923.5 1,861.2 30.5 19.0 12.7 10.0 0 0 8.2 4.1 headed gartersnake (1.6%) (1.0%) (0.7%) (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) DCH for loach 459,959.6 413,549.2 46,410.4 140.0 70.8 103.6 52.0 0 0 0 0 minnow (Tiaroga (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.1%) cobitis) (values in feet)* DCH for spikedace 453,439.2 413,549.2 39,890.0 140.0 70.8 103.6 52.0 0 0 0 0 (Meda fulgida) (values (0.4%) (0.2%) (0.3%) (0.1%) in feet)*
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 141 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Total Indirect Impacts Analysis Area and Acreage in Impacts Area Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Area Critical Habitat Analysis Impacts Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Impacts Area (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Virden Valley Analysis Area PCH for the yellow- 1,673.4 475.3 1,198.1 19.8 18.0 19.8 18.0 19.8 18.0 19.8 18.0 billed cuckoo (1.7%) (1.5%) (1.7%) (1.5%) (1.7%) (1.5%) (1.7%) (1.5%) PCH for the northern 4,202.7 2,819.9 1,382.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexican gartersnake DCH for the 1,663.0 671.3 991.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 southwestern willow flycatcher DCH for razorback 727.9 727.3 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sucker PCH for narrow- 4,202.7 2,819.9 1,382.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 headed gartersnake DCH for loach minnow 47,212.1 0 47,212.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (values in feet)* DCH for spikedace 47,212.1 0 47,212.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (values in feet)* San Francisco River Analysis Area PCH for the yellow- 2,451.1 1,371.9 1,079.2 22.5 15.8 24.1 18.6 0 0 48.4 28.8 billed cuckoo (2.1%) (1.5%) (2.2%) (1.7%) (4.5%) (2.7%) PCH for the northern 22.0 22.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexican gartersnake DCH for the 2,364.8 1,584.7 780.1 14.1 9.2 15.2 10.8 0 0 35.4 19.6 southwestern willow (1.8%) (1.2%) (1.9%) (1.4%) (4.5%) (2.5%) flycatcher DCH for Mexican 398.9 398.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spotted owl DCH for razorback 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sucker DCH for Gila chub 3.0 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCH for narrow- 5,123.1 3,722.3 1,400.8 19.1 11.1 19.8 12.6 0 0 45.8 24.8 headed gartersnake (1.4%) (0.8%) (1.4%) (0.9%) (3.3%) (1.8%) DCH for loach minnow 450,613.0 446,216.4 4,396.6 1,088.4 750.1 605.1 145.6 0 0 695.1 401.7 (values in feet)* (24.8%) (17.1%) (13.8%) 3.3%) (15.8%) (9.1%)
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 142 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Direct Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Total Indirect Impacts Analysis Area and Acreage in Impacts Area Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Area Critical Habitat Analysis Impacts Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Impacts Area (acres) Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) DCH for spikedace 447,991.3 443,594.7 4,396.6 1,088.4 750.1 605.1 145.6 0 0 695.1 401.7 (values in feet)* (24.8%) (17.1%) (13.8%) 3.3%) (15.8%) (9.1%) PCH for the yellow- 14,315.9 Same as Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 billed cuckoo PCH for the northern 1.0 Same as Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexican gartersnake DCH for the 10,024.7 Same as Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 southwestern willow flycatcher DCH for razorback 2,080.6 Same as Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sucker PCH for narrow- 162.6 Same as Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 headed gartersnake
Source: USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2019d) Note: Percent is the percentage of Direct Impacts Area acreage. * DCH for loach minnow and spikedace values are all reported in feet of impacts, not acres.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 143 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-12. National Wetland Inventory Categories Used as a Proxy for Species Habitat
NWI Category NWI Category Definition* Species for which NWI Category is Potential Habitat
Forested/Shrub Riparian Riparian area with woody vegetation Yellow-billed cuckoo; southwestern willow flycatcher less than 6 meters tall narrow-headed gartersnake; northern Mexican gartersnake Freshwater Emergent Herbaceous marsh, fen, swale, or Narrow-headed gartersnake; northern Mexican gartersnake Wetland wet meadow Freshwater Forested/Shrub Woody wetlands; forested swamp, Yellow-billed cuckoo; southwestern willow flycatcher Wetland shrub bog narrow-headed gartersnake; northern Mexican gartersnake Herbaceous Riparian Riparian area containing herbaceous Narrow-headed gartersnake; northern Mexican gartersnake species Freshwater Pond Pond Narrow-headed gartersnake; northern Mexican gartersnake Riverine River or stream channel Narrow-headed gartersnake; northern Mexican gartersnake
* Sources for category definitions: USFWS (2019b)
Table 5-13. Habitat Acres Impacted by Action Alternative for ESA-listed Species
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Analysis Area and Short- Short- Short- Short- Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Species Term Term Term Term Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Upper Gila Analysis Area Yellow-billed cuckoo 32.4 19.9 12.3 9.2 0 0 20.6 13.4 Southwestern willow 32.4 19.9 12.3 9.2 0 0 20.6 13.4 flycatcher Northern Mexican 50.4 31.6 17.6 13.2 0 0 67.9 56.8 gartersnake Narrow-headed 50.4 31.6 17.6 13.2 0 0 67.9 56.8 gartersnake Virden Valley Analysis Area Yellow-billed cuckoo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southwestern willow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 flycatcher Northern Mexican 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 2.9 1.9 gartersnake Narrow-headed 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 2.9 1.9 gartersnake San Francisco River Analysis Area Yellow-billed cuckoo 12.9 8.4 8.8 6.2 0 0 21.4 12.5 Southwestern willow 12.9 8.4 8.8 6.2 0 0 21.4 12.5 flycatcher Northern Mexican 16.9 11.6 13.1 9.8 0 0 32.2 19.0 gartersnake Narrow-headed 16.9 11.6 13.1 9.8 0 0 32.2 19.0 gartersnake Total All Direct Analysis Areas* Yellow-billed cuckoo 45.4 28.2 21.1 15.5 0 0 42.0 25.9
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 144 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Direct, Analysis Area and Short- Short- Short- Short- Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Long-Term Species Term Term Term Term Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Southwestern willow 45.4 28.2 21.1 15.5 0 0 42.0 25.9 flycatcher Northern Mexican 70.3 45.3 33.7 25.0 3.0 2.1 103.0 77.6 gartersnake Narrow-headed 70.3 45.3 33.7 25.0 3.0 2.1 103.0 77.6 gartersnake
* Calculated from NWI table data; thus, totals may not add up due to rounding.
Under Alternative A, the Chiricahua leopard frog would experience no direct impacts as it is not known to occur within any of the Direct Impacts Areas. Indirect impacts may occur to the habitat of this species downstream of diversions. Ongoing water diversion could reduce the availability of aquatic and riparian habitat available downstream of the diversions.
Chiricahua leopard frogs are not known to occur in any of the Direct Impacts Areas. This species may occur within the Arizona portion of the San Francisco River Indirect Analysis Area and within the Lower Gila Analysis Area. Thus, all potential impacts arising from the proposed project would be indirect impacts on habitat from the proposed diversions. Changes in surface flow and groundwater (i.e., changes in the magnitude of monthly water conditions, timing and duration of peak flows, low flow conditions, hydrograph changes, and extreme events such as flood pulses and extremely low flow conditions) within the San Francisco and Lower Gila Analysis Areas could lead to reduced flows within habitat for the species.
The precise impacts and impact locations are not known. However, the San Francisco River is expected to have flow most months, and potential areas of drying would be upstream of areas where the species is possible to occur. There would be minor changes to hydrology within the Lower Gila Analysis Area. However, there would be no impacts to Chiricahua leopard frogs from diversions under Alternatives B, C, and E due to the lack of presence in any Direct Impact Area. Flow alterations are less than the natural variability of flows for all years modeled. Thus, potential indirect impacts from diversions would be expected to be negligible. Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to the Chiricahua leopard frog.
There would be no diversion in the San Francisco River Analysis Area under Alternative D. Impacts on the Chiricahua leopard frog would continue to occur as described under the No Action Alternative above.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 145 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO
Any excavation or maintenance to existing push-up diversions that occurs between late May and late September has the potential to have short-term, direct adverse impacts on cuckoos in nearby riparian habitats through noise disturbance from heavy machinery. Noise could result in changes in habitat use or foraging behavior, with cuckoos avoiding the immediate vicinity during machinery operation. Effects would continue occur within a limited area compared with the total available habitat, and the overall effects from noise would be minor.
Push-up diversion activities within the Analysis Area would continue as currently operated, and existing indirect, long-term impacts on cuckoos would continue to occur. Push-up diversions divert the water in the stream and reduce flow downstream of the diversion, which can reduce the extent and health of riparian vegetation, thus reducing the amount of nesting, foraging, and dispersal habitat. The push-up diversions divert water into mostly unlined ditches. Seepage from the ditches supports riparian vegetation, which provides nesting, foraging, and dispersal habitat for cuckoos in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas.
Direct impacts on cuckoos would result from construction and operation impacts. Direct impacts on cuckoos would be minimized if construction activities take place outside of the period (late May to late September) when cuckoos are present on their breeding grounds. However, if the species is present, vegetation removal and noise associated with construction/maintenance equipment and pumps could impact the species by removing habitat, disrupting breeding, feeding, foraging, or sheltering behavior.
Seepage from ponds or reservoirs constructed under the action alternatives may support narrow stringers of riparian woodland vegetation, which could be used by cuckoos as foraging or dispersal habitat. This would constitute a beneficial, negligible to minor impact.
Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to yellow-billed cuckoos.
Potential effects on cuckoos would occur from the loss or alteration of habitat and proposed critical habitat, either from direct removal or alteration during construction activities or as the result of altered flow in the Gila and San Francisco Rivers. Alternative B would result in an anticipated reduction in winter base flows in the Gila River and San Francisco River. This would not cause direct impacts on this species as this species is not present in the Analysis Area during winter months. However, these reduced flows could lead to an increased depth to groundwater (see Section 5.1.2). These changes in surface water and groundwater could reduce the amount of riparian woodland habitat present for this species in the Analysis Area by reducing the vigor of existing woodland trees or reducing the spatial extent of these trees along the river, in addition to creating conditions that favor nonnative species such as tamarisk that are more adapted to dry conditions. Any cuckoos nesting in riparian vegetation with a tamarisk component would be susceptible to impacts from tamarisk beetles when they arrive in the Analysis Area. Potential impacts on riparian vegetation from changes to surface flow and timing are expected to be minor under Alternative B in relation to Alternative A (see discussion in Section 5.2.3.2).
Under Alternative B, little change (<25%) in streamflow in the Gila River would occur during the cuckoo breeding season even under dry conditions, and there would therefore be minor changes in the presence of
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 146 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
surface water or in the humidity in cuckoo territories. In the San Francisco River, Alternative B is anticipated to result in increases in streamflow during the cuckoo breeding season. Although the magnitude of the changes (≤2 cfs) are small, average flow under Alternative A in the drier climate scenarios is also small, and the change represents a substantial percentage of the current average flow. These increases in streamflow during the cuckoo breeding season could have a minor beneficial impact by increasing vegetation density.
Riparian woodland habitat for this species within the Analysis Area was not ground-truthed; therefore, the NWI categories of Forested/Shrub Riparian and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland were used as a proxy for suitable habitat for this species. Direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within these habitat categories across all Analysis Areas (see Table 5-13) would occur on 45.4 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 28.2 acres. These impacts on riparian woodland vegetation could result in indirect impacts on cuckoos through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of woodland habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area is less than 4% of the existing woodland habitat within that analysis area, and long-term impacts would occur on less than 3% of the existing woodland habitat.
The amount of proposed critical habitat that would be disturbed during construction across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas (see Table 5-11) is 114.8 acres. Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 82.7 acres of proposed critical habitat. These short- and long-term impacts would occur on less than 4% and less than 3%, respectively, of the proposed critical habitat within any one Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 3% and less than 2%, respectively, of the proposed critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas. Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual cuckoos, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on cuckoos and their proposed critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate.
Seepage from unlined irrigation ditches supports stringers of riparian vegetation. Portions of these ditches in the Upper Gila Analysis Area would be lined under this alternative; however, sections of the ditches that currently support riparian vegetation would not be lined, and the indirect effects of ditch lining on yellow-billed cuckoos would be negligible.
The pumps at production wells occur at least a 0.25 mile from the riparian corridor, so while the intermittent noise from these pumps is unlikely to impact breeding cuckoos, it may have a minor impact on dispersing or migrating individuals through behavioral avoidance of the area near the pumps.
The overall impacts to the yellow-billed cuckoo under Alternative B would be minor to moderate.
The indirect impacts on cuckoos from changes to streamflow or groundwater would be similar under Alternative C to those described under Alternative B.
Direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within riparian woodland habitats across all Analysis Areas (see Table 5-13) would occur on 21.1 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 15.5 acres. These impacts on riparian woodland vegetation could result in indirect impacts on cuckoos through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of woodland habitat that would be disturbed or incur long-term impacts within each Direct Impact Analysis Area is less than 2% of the existing woodland habitat within that analysis area.
The amount of proposed critical habitat that would be disturbed during construction across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas (see Table 5-11) is 79.2 acres. Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 66.3 acres of proposed critical habitat. These short- and long-term impacts would occur on less than 3%
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 147 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
and less than 2%, respectively, of the proposed critical habitat within any one Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 2% and less than 1%, respectively, of the proposed critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas. Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual cuckoos, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on cuckoos and their proposed critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate.
Intermittent noise from the operation of the pump at the mouth of Weedy Canyon in the San Francisco River Analysis Area could affect cuckoos in nearby riparian habitats by changing habitat use patterns. Cuckoos could avoid the area while the pump is running or could become habituated to the noise. These long-term, indirect impacts on cuckoos would decrease with increasing distance from the pump and would occur within a limited area compared to the total available habitat, resulting in minor impacts.
The overall impacts to the yellow-billed cuckoo under Alternative C would be minor to moderate.
No changes to groundwater or streamflow would occur in the Cliff-Gila and San Francisco project locations under Alternative D. Changes in groundwater and stream flows in the Virden Valley project location would be the same as described in Alternative B. There would be negligible indirect impacts on yellow-billed cuckoos from changes in surface water or groundwater. No areas of the NWI categories of Forested/Shrub Riparian or Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland would be directly disturbed under this alternative.
Direct, short-term impacts related to pond construction would occur on 19.8 acres of proposed critical habitat in the Virden Valley Analysis Area (see Table 5-11). Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 18.0 acres of proposed critical habitat in the Virden Valley Direct Impact Analysis Area. These impacts would occur on less than 2% of the proposed critical habitat within the Virden Valley Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 0.5% of the proposed critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas. Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual cuckoos, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on cuckoos and their proposed critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor.
The indirect impacts on cuckoos from changes to streamflow or groundwater would be similar under Alternative E to those described under Alternative B.
Direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within riparian woodland habitats across all Analysis Areas (see Table 5-13) would occur on 42.0 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 25.9 acres. These impacts on riparian woodland vegetation could result in indirect impacts on cuckoos through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of woodland habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area is less than 5% of the existing woodland habitat within that analysis area, and long-term impacts would occur on less than 3% of the existing woodland habitat.
The amount of proposed critical habitat that would be disturbed during construction across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas (see Table 5-11) is 119.4 acres. Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 83.6 acres of proposed critical habitat. These short- and long-term impacts would occur on less than 5% and less than 3%, respectively, of the proposed critical habitat within any one Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 3% and less than 2%, respectively, of the proposed critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas. Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual cuckoos, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on cuckoos and their proposed critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 148 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Intermittent noise from the operation of the pump at the mouth of Weedy Canyon in the San Francisco location could affect cuckoos in nearby riparian habitats by changing habitat use patterns. Cuckoos could avoid the area while the pump is running or could become habituated to the noise. These long-term, indirect impacts on cuckoos would decrease with increasing distance from the pump and would occur within a limited area compared with the total available habitat and would constitute a minor impact.
The ASR pumps in the Upper Gila Analysis area would occur at least 0.25 mile from the riparian corridor, so while the noise from these pumps would be unlikely to impact breeding individuals, it may have a minor impact on dispersing or migrating individuals through behavioral avoidance of the areas near the pumps. The Obermeyer gate at the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area under Alternative E may require occasional use of back-up power from a generator. This noise may adversely impact cuckoos in the area by disrupting activities or causing behavioral avoidance of the area around the pumps. However, this noise would be localized and temporary, and noise impacts would decrease with increasing distance to the Obermeyer gate generator.
The overall impacts to the yellow-billed cuckoo under Alternative E would be minor to moderate.
Any excavation or maintenance to existing push-up diversions that occurs between late April and late August has the potential to have short-term, direct impacts on flycatchers in nearby riparian habitats through noise disturbance from heavy machinery. Noise could result in changes in habitat use or foraging behavior, with flycatchers avoiding the immediate vicinity during machinery operation. Effects would occur within a limited area compared with the total available habitat and thus would be minor.
Push-up diversion activities within the Analysis Area would continue as currently operated, and existing indirect, long-term impacts on flycatchers would continue to occur. Push-up diversions divert the water in the stream and reduce flow downstream of the diversion, which can reduce the extent and health of riparian vegetation, thus reducing the amount of nesting, foraging, and dispersal habitat. A reduction in streamflow could also decrease the availability of emergent aquatic insect prey. The push-up diversions divert water into unlined ditches. Seepage from the ditches supports riparian vegetation, which provides nesting, foraging, and dispersal habitat for flycatchers in the Upper Gila, Virden Valley, and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas.
5.2.5.3.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
No direct impacts on flycatchers would occur if construction activities would take place outside of the period (late April to late August) when flycatchers are present on their breeding grounds. However, if the species is present then vegetation removal and noise associated with construction/maintenance equipment and pumps could impact the species by removing habitat, disrupting breeding, feeding, foraging or sheltering behavior.
Seepage from ponds or reservoirs constructed under the action alternatives may support narrow stringers of riparian woodland vegetation, which could be used by flycatchers as foraging or dispersal habitat.
Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to southwestern willow flycatchers.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 149 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Indirect effects on flycatchers would occur from the loss or alteration of habitat and designated critical habitat, either from direct removal or alteration during construction activities or as the result of altered flow in the Gila and San Francisco Rivers. Alternative B would result in an anticipated reduction in winter base flows in the Gila River and San Francisco River. This would not cause direct impacts on this species as this species is not present in the Analysis Area during winter months. However, these reduced flows could lead to an increased depth to groundwater (see discussion Sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.5). These changes in surface water and groundwater could reduce the amount of riparian woodland habitat present for this species in the Analysis Area by reducing the vigor of existing woodland trees or reducing the spatial extent of these trees along the river, in addition to creating conditions that favor nonnative species such as tamarisk that are more adapted to dry conditions. Any flycatchers nesting in riparian vegetation with a tamarisk component would be susceptible to impacts from tamarisk beetles when they arrive in the Analysis Area. Potential impacts on riparian vegetation from changes to surface flow and timing are expected to be minor under Alternative B in relation to Alternative A (see discussion in Section 5.2.2.2).
Under Alternative B, little change in streamflow in the Gila River (see Appendix G) would occur during the flycatcher breeding season even under dry conditions, and there would therefore be minor changes in the presence of surface water near flycatcher territories or in the availability of emergent aquatic insect prey during the breeding season. In the San Francisco River, Alternative B is anticipated to result in increases in streamflow during the flycatcher breeding season. Although the magnitude of the changes is small (see Appendix G), the flow under Alternative A in the drier climate scenarios is also small, and the change represents a substantial percentage of the current average flow. These increases in streamflow during the flycatcher breeding season could have a minor beneficial impact by increasing vegetation density and the abundance of emergent aquatic insect prey.
Riparian woodland habitat for this species within the Analysis Area was not ground-truthed; therefore, the NWI categories of Forested/Shrub Riparian and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland were used as a proxy for suitable habitat for this species (see Table 5-12). Direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within these habitat categories across all Analysis Areas (see Table 5-13) would occur on 45.4 acres, and direct, long- term impacts would occur on 19.9 acres. These impacts on riparian woodland vegetation could result in indirect impacts on flycatchers through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of woodland habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area is less than 4% of the existing woodland habitat within that analysis area, and long-term impacts would occur on less than 2% of the existing woodland habitat.
The amount of designated critical habitat that would be disturbed during construction across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas (see Table 5-11) is 33.2 acres. Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 19.5 acres of critical habitat. These short- and long-term impacts would occur on less than 4% and less than 3%, respectively, of the critical habitat within any one Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 3% and less than 2%, respectively, of the critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas.
Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual flycatchers, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on flycatchers and their critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate.
The pumps at production wells occur at least a 0.25 mile from the riparian corridor, so while the noise from these pumps is unlikely to impact breeding flycatchers, it may have a minor impact on dispersing or migrating individuals through behavioral avoidance of the area near the pumps.
The overall impacts to flycatchers under Alternative B would be minor to moderate.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 150 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
The indirect impacts on flycatchers from changes to streamflow or groundwater would be similar under Alternative C to those described under Alternative B.
Direct, short-term impacts on riparian woodland habitat across all Analysis Areas (see Table 5-13) would occur on 21.1 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 15.5 acres. These impacts on riparian woodland vegetation could result in indirect impacts on flycatchers through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of woodland habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area is less than 2% of the existing riparian woodland habitat within that analysis area, and long-term impacts would also occur on less than 2% of the existing riparian woodland habitat.
The amount of designated critical habitat that would be disturbed during construction across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas (see Table 5-11) is 20.9 acres. Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 14.0 acres of critical habitat. These impacts would occur on less than 2% of the critical habitat within any one Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 1% of the critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas.
Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual flycatchers, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on flycatchers and their critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate.
Noise from the operation of the pump at the mouth of Weedy Canyon in the San Francisco location could affect flycatchers in nearby riparian habitats by changing habitat use patterns. Flycatchers could avoid the area while the pump is running or could become habituated to the noise. These long-term, indirect impacts on flycatchers would decrease with increasing distance from the pump and would occur within a limited area compared with the total available habitat, resulting in minor to moderate impacts. The overall sdverse impacts to flycatchers under Alternative C would be minor to moderate.
There would be minimal changes to groundwater or streamflow under Alternative D. There would be no diversions, storage, conveyance channels or build out of associated infrastructure in the Cliff-Gila and San Francisco project locations. Changes in the Virden Valley would be the same as discussed under Alternative B. Modeled streamflow alterations are within the natural range of variability under existing conditions. Changes to groundwater or riparian vegetation would be negligible to minor. Therefore, there would be negligible direct or indirect impacts on southwestern willow flycatcher resulting from changes in surface water or groundwater. No areas of the NWI categories of Forested/Shrub Riparian or Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland would be disturbed under this alternative, nor would any acres of designated critical habitat be directly affected. There would be negligible to minor impacts to flycatchers under Alternative D.
The indirect impacts on flycatchers from changes to streamflow or groundwater would be similar under Alternative E to those described under Alternative B.
Direct, short-term impacts on riparian woodland habitat across all Analysis Areas (see Table 5-13) would occur on 42.0 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 25.9 acres. These impacts on riparian woodland vegetation could result in indirect impacts on flycatchers through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of riparian woodland habitat that would be
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 151 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area is less than 5% of the existing riparian woodland habitat within that analysis area, and long-term impacts would also occur on less than 3% of the existing riparian woodland habitat.
The amount of critical habitat that would be disturbed during construction across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas (see Table 5-11) is 41.0 acres. Direct, long-term impacts would occur on 22.7 acres of critical habitat. These impacts would occur on less than 5% of the critical habitat within any one Direct Impact Analysis Area and on less than 3% of the critical habitat across all Direct Impact Analysis Areas.
Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual flycatchers, population-level impacts are unlikely, and any impacts on flycatchers and their critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate.
Noise from the operation of the pump at the mouth of Weedy Canyon in the San Francisco location could affect flycatchers in nearby riparian habitats by changing habitat use patterns. Flycatchers could avoid the area while the pump is running or could become habituated to the noise. Impacts on flycatchers would decrease with increasing distance from the pumps, and these effects would occur within a limited area compared with the total available habitat, resulting in minor impacts.
The ASR pumps in the Upper Gila Analysis Area would occur at least 0.25 mile from the riparian corridor, so while the noise from these pumps is unlikely to impact breeding individuals, it may have a minor impact on dispersing or migrating individuals through behavioral avoidance of the area near the pumps. The Obermeyer gate at the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area under Alternative E may require occasional use of back-up power from a generator. This noise may adversely impact flycatchers in the area by disrupting activities or causing behavioral avoidance. However, this noise would be localized and temporary, and noise impacts would decrease with increasing distance to the Obermeyer gate generator.
The overall impacts to flycatchers under Alternative E would be minor to moderate.
This species is known to occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area (eBird 2019); however, this Analysis Area only contains migrating habitat for this species. No direct impacts related to mortality, injury, or noise would be expected on this species during the construction, operation, or maintenance phase of the project under any alternative because no Direct Impacts Areas occur in the Lower Gila Analysis Area.
Under Alternative A, ongoing water diversion could reduce the availability of aquatic and shoreline habitat available downstream of the diversions. However, impacts are not anticipated to reach the level of impacting an individual or the species because project activities would impact a small amount of suitable habitat compared with the amount of migratory habitat available to these species within Arizona.
Indirect impacts under all action alternatives may include water flow reductions during dry to moderate dry conditions, which may reduce the quality, quantity, or extent of the riparian woodland surrounding the Lower Gila Analysis Area. However, minor changes in or minor losses of riparian woodland vegetation or shoreline habitat over the entirety of the Analysis Area are unlikely to affect this species as a whole or individuals because 1) this species is wide-ranging and uses a variety of habitat types, 2) it has a diverse
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 152 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
prey base (i.e., small fish and invertebrates), and 3) this Analysis Area is only used for migrating habitat, which would continue to be suitable migrating habitat under any Action Alternative.
A portion of the San Francisco River Indirect Analysis Area downstream of the diversions overlaps with Unit UGM-7 designated critical habitat. However, no suitable habitat for this species occurs within any of the direct impacts analysis areas, and there are no observations for this species within the direct impacts analysis areas (eBird 2019). As such, the potential ongoing impacts from the Alternative A are unlikely to impact this species.
5.2.5.5.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION
All of the Direct Impacts Areas occur distant to known occurrence records (eBird 2019), and this bird typically occurs in elevations above the Direct Impacts Areas. Thus, no direct impacts including mortality, injury, or those arising from noise or human presences (i.e., behavior changes, reduced predation success, reduced reproductive success, or reduced inter- or intraspecific communication) would occur as a result of construction of diversions, storage ponds, ditches, wells, or power lines. No critical habitat occurs within any of the Direct Impacts Areas.
5.2.5.5.3 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES B, C, E
Some individual Mexican spotted owls migrate down-slope of their breeding habitat (USFWS 2012f) during winter, and individuals may migrate to or through locations within the Direct and/or Indirect Impacts Areas. However, this would likely be an infrequent occurrence. Although the predicted changes to flow during the winter months under these alternatives may impact foraging habitat or prey availability, these impacts would be expected to be negligible given the infrequent use of the Analysis Area by spotted owls.
The predicted loss of flow during the winter months under Alternatives B, C, and E would be expected to have minor impacts on riparian vegetation in the Indirect Impact Analysis Area (see Section 5.1.3.2). As such, potential impacts related to operation of the proposed project would be unlikely to reach a level where they could have a measurable impact on designated critical habitat and PCEs within the riparian corridor.
5.2.5.5.4 D
No changes in stream flow or groundwater conditions would occur in the San Francisco River Analysis Area. Thus, would be no indirect impacts on Mexican spotted owls.
The following construction impacts on fish address only the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Analysis Areas. The Virden Valley Analysis Area contains no construction within the river. Effects of flow regime change are for all areas. The following fish species are included in the analysis as the impacts would be similar, in the case where they might be different, they are described within the text: Gila chub, spikedace, and loach minnow. Table 5-11 contains the total acres of proposed or designated critical habitat for loach minnow, spikedace, and Gila chub within each portion of the Analysis Area. Table 5-11 also shows the acreage of permanent and temporary direct impacts for the Gila chub within each portion
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 153 Chapter 5. Effects of Action of the Analysis Area and the feet of permanent and temporary direct impacts for loach minnow and spikedace. Gila topminnow are restricted to the tributaries of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and would not be impacted by any alternative. Similarly, the Gila trout is found upstream of the project area and would not be impacted by any alternative.
5.2.5.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION
The current operation of push-up diversions directly affects fish through mortality and habitat alteration. The operation of heavy equipment within and next to the riverbed multiple times annually can temporarily and permanently destroy or alter habitat, can result in fish mortality due to being crushed by instream equipment and buried within extremely rapidly moving sediment by machinery, and suffocated due to increased fine sediment entrainment resulting in gill clogging. Additionally, long-term increases in sediment entrainment may increase fish stress and increase the potential for disease prevalence. The push- up diversions are typically built in riffle habitat as it is the easiest place to construct them, but this is the preferred habitat of loach minnow and therefore direct targets the species. Once in place, the push-up diversion may divert all the natural flow, drying the river downstream of the push-up diversion. This was documented in the 2018 fish surveys over long stretches on the Upper Gila at Gila Farms. This leads to direct mortality via: downstream river drying, increase of predation by nonnatives in drying pools, fish entrainment into ditches and agricultural fields (i.e., stranding) from which they may not return to the river, and the increase of habitat alteration upstream by backing water up into pool habitat which favors nonnative species and potentially altering preferred habitat of spikedace (runs and sandy shoals) and loach minnow (shallow riffles). Additionally, this blocks fish passage reducing connectivity to upstream populations.
The construction of the permanent concrete diversion structure would have temporary construction impacts including mortality and displacement but would alleviate the need for heavy machinery disrupting the river channel each irrigation season to rebuild a push-up diversion. The operation of heavy equipment within and next to the riverbed can result in fish mortality due to fish being crushed by instream equipment, buried within extremely rapidly moving sediment by machinery, or suffocated due to temporary increased fine sediment entrainment resulting in gill clogging. The noise and vibration of construction activities may temporarily displace fish, if they have time and habitat with which to escape. In addition, permanent loss of habitat would occur in the footprint of the diversion. Pooling of water behind the diversion would create habitat suitable for nonnative fish and crayfish and potentially altering preferred habitat of spikedace (runs and sandy shoals) and loach minnow (shallow riffles).
The construction and operation of the diversion structures would alter surface water flows of the Gila River permanently, which could reduce the amount of riffle habitat available to loach minnow and run habitat for spikedace in the winter, but it may allow for water to flow during the irrigation season. This could increase the amount of available habitat during spawning and larval development of all the fish species. Overall reduction in flows and flow variability could increase competition and predation with nonnative fish.
The construction of ponds and reservoirs for water storage could lead to the stocking of nonnative piscivorous fish and create favorable habitat for bullfrogs which could be transported to the river itself and increase the population of nonnative species in the river.
Fish passage considered in the design of the proposed fixed crest weirs would provide minor beneficial impacts to fish populations through enhancing the ability of fish passage upstream of the diversion. To assess the ability of fish to pass through the fish passage features, swim performance thresholds were
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 154 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
adapted from Ward et al. (2003) and Molles and Nislow (n.d.) and swim trials of spikedace and loach minnow at the Aquatic Research and Conservation Center in Cornville, Arizona (Stahr 2019). Table 5-14 summarizes swim performance thresholds that would allow for fish passage and Table 5-15 summarizes the results of HEC-RAS modeling of flow velocities through the proposed fixed crest weir diversion at the Cliff-Gila project location (HDR 2019a). Loach minnow would be able to pass through the diversion structure at flows at or less than 750 cfs (1.25-year event) and would be able to maintain position at flows less than 2,250 cfs (2-year event). However, spikedace would only pass through the diversion structure during low-flow conditions less than 10 cfs and would be able to maintain position at flows less than 143 cfs. Incorporation of the fish passage structures would provide a minor to moderate beneficial impact for the loach minnow and a minor benefit to the spikedace, compared to Alternative A.
Modeled flow velocities in the San Francisco project location are presented Table 5-16. Loach minnow would be able to pass through the diversion structure during low flow conditions, approximately 88 cfs and would be able to maintain position at the 1.05-year event, approximately 108 cfs. Spikedace would pass through the diversion at very low flows, approximately 10 cfs. Spikedace may be able to maintain position at the 1.01-year flow event, approximately 79 cfs. There would be minor beneficial impacts to both species due to the consideration of fish passage in the design of the proposed fixed crest weir.
There would be moderate adverse direct impacts to spikedace and loach minnow populations for these species in the Direct Impacts Areas for all project locations due to construction impacts on critical habitat (see Table 5-11) and habitat (see Table 5-13). There would be potential predation from nonnative species that would adversely affect individuals. Fish passage measures would provide a beneficial effect on populations for these species. There would be no or negligible effects on other listed species.
Table 5-14. Modeled Swim Performance Thresholds for Loach Minnow and Spikedace
Swim Performance Threshold Loach Minnow (cm/s) Spikedace (cm/s) Fish passage velocity threshold <85 <65 Velocity in which fish may maintain position 85–99 65–75 Exceedance velocity (fish would not maintain position) >100 >75
Note: cm/s = centimeters per second
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 155 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-15. Upper Gila Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative B
Alternative B – Upper Gila Analysis Area Downstream of Diversion (~30 feet) Through Fixed Crest Weir Diversion Upstream of Diversion (~25 feet) Channel Channel Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Flow Velocity (cm/s) Notes Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft2)
Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace Minnow Minnow Minnow Low flow 10 39.1 0.3 7.80 7.80 Within the low- 9.57 1.0 31.85 31.85 42.13 0.2 7.23 7.23 flow notch, about 0.4 feet above bottom 1.01-year 113 123.7 0.9 27.84 27.84 Within the low- 52.26 2.2 65.91 65.91 211.04 0.5 16.32 16.32 flow notch, about 1.7 feet above bottom Low flow 143 136 1.1 32.05 32.05 At top of low-flow 61.45 2.3 70.93 70.93 243.41 0.6 17.91 17.91 notch 1.05-year 269 185.82 1.4 44.12 44.12 Within second 105.78 2.5 77.51 77.51 362.67 0.7 22.61 22.61 weir opening 1.11-year 427 239.64 1.8 54.31 54.31 161.75 2.6 80.46 80.46 476.5 0.9 27.31 27.31 1.25-year 752 333.48 2.3 68.73 68.73 260.63 2.9 87.94 87.94 657.59 1.1 34.86 34.86 2-year 2,233.60 670.65 3.3 101.51 101.51 Overbank 721.36 3.1 94.38 94.38 1,103.74 2.0 61.68 61.68 channel flow 5-year 6,701.60 1447 4.6 141.16 141.16 1,632.34 4.1 125.14 125.14 1,909.84 3.5 106.95 106.95 10-year 11,950.40 2,172.89 5.5 167.63 167.63 Above top of 2,565.15 4.7 142.00 142.00 2,675.11 4.5 136.16 136.16 diversion structure 20-year 19,308.90 3,111.63 6.2 189.14 189.14 3,736.21 5.2 157.52 157.52 3,656.06 5.3 160.98 160.98 50-year 33,211.20 4,878.71 6.8 207.49 207.49 5,554.85 6.0 182.23 182.23 5,214.26 6.4 194.14 194.14 100-year 47,741.30 6,093.10 7.8 238.82 238.82 7,168.88 6.7 202.98 202.98 6,595.94 7.2 220.61 220.61 200-year 66,611.90 7,414.49 9.0 273.83 273.83 9,020.11 7.4 225.09 225.09 8,161.42 8.2 248.77 248.77 500-year 99,858.40 9,406.41 10.6 323.58 323.58 11,900.44 8.4 255.76 255.76 10,585.52 9.4 287.53 287.53
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 156 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-16. San Francisco River Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative B
Alternative B – San Francisco River Analysis Area Downstream of Diversion (~30 feet) Through Fixed Crest Weir Diversion Upstream of Diversion (~25 feet) Channel Channel Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Flow Velocity (cm/s) Notes Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft2)
Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace Minnow Minnow Minnow Low flow 10.00 24.68 0.41 12.35 12.35 About 0.5 feet 5.25 1.90 58.06 58.06 81.07 0.12 3.76 3.76 deep within the low-flow notch 1.01-year 25.00 47.31 0.53 16.11 16.11 At top of low-flow 9.68 2.58 78.72 78.72 159.03 0.16 4.79 4.79 notch Low flow 204.00 181.89 1.12 34.19 34.19 70.29 2.90 88.46 88.46 371.24 0.55 16.75 16.75 1.05-year 424.00 280.20 1.51 46.12 46.12 119.56 3.55 108.09 108.09 539.11 0.79 23.97 23.97 1.11-year 627.00 354.75 1.77 53.87 53.87 158.17 3.96 120.83 120.83 665.25 0.94 28.73 28.73 1.25-year 1,008.00 474.47 2.12 64.75 64.75 224.05 4.50 137.13 137.13 873.82 1.15 35.16 35.16 2-year 2,500.40 834.09 3.00 91.37 91.37 512.29 4.88 148.77 148.77 1,442.05 1.73 52.85 52.85 5-year 6,218.00 1,466.65 4.24 129.22 129.22 Above second 1,134.41 5.48 167.07 167.07 2,261.04 2.75 83.82 83.82 opening 10-year 10,020.10 2,090.74 4.79 146.08 146.08 1,722.34 5.82 177.32 177.32 2,793.74 3.59 109.32 109.32 20-year 14,866.90 2,828.47 5.26 160.21 160.21 Above top of 2,356.35 6.31 192.31 192.31 3,357.49 4.43 134.96 134.96 diversion structure 50-year 23,190.40 3,899.44 5.95 181.27 181.27 3,531.76 6.57 200.14 200.14 4,451.91 5.21 158.77 158.77 100-year 31,201.30 4,797.50 6.50 198.23 198.23 4,629.40 6.74 205.43 205.43 5,494.97 5.68 173.07 173.07 200-year 40,945.40 5,779.78 7.08 215.93 215.93 5,844.34 7.01 213.54 213.54 6,650.62 6.16 187.65 187.65 500-year 56,933.50 7,201.81 7.91 240.96 240.96 7,616.58 7.47 227.84 227.84 8,332.41 6.83 208.26 208.26
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 157 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
The construction of three rock vane weir diversions would have temporary construction impacts including mortality and displacement. The operation of heavy equipment within and next to the riverbed can result in fish mortality due to fish being crushed by instream equipment, buried within extremely rapidly moving sediment by machinery, or suffocated due to temporary increased fine sediment entrainment resulting in gill clogging. The noise and vibration of construction activities may temporarily displace fish, if they have time and habitat with which to escape. In addition, permanent loss of habitat would occur in the footprint of the diversions. These impacts would be repeated each time the weirs would need repair or replacement.
The construction of ponds and reservoirs could lead to the stocking of nonnative piscivorous fish, which could be transported to the river itself and increase the population of predators.
In the Cliff-Gila project location, the multiple structures proposed under Alternative C may potentially discourage fish from moving upstream due to the need to pass through three structures. However, there would be enough distance between the diversion to allow for resting habitat. Downstream movement may be impacted due to the increased opportunity for entrainment into the three ditches. Modeled flow velocities are presented in Table 5-17. Loach minnow may be able to pass through the Gila Farms diversion at flows up to 2,234 cfs (2-year flood event), the Fort West Diversion at flows up to 752 cfs (1.25-year event), and at the Upper Gila Diversion at flows up to 752 cfs (1.25-year event). Spikedace would be able to maintain position or pass through the Gila Farms diversion at flows up to 752 cfs (1.25-year flood event), the Fort West Diversion at flows up to 269 cfs (1.05-year event), and at the Upper Gila Diversion at flows up to 269 cfs (1.05-year event). There would be minor beneficial impacts to both species.
Modeled flow velocities for the proposed Thomason Flat rock vane weir in the San Francisco project location are presented in Table 5-18. Loach minnow would be able to pass through the diversion structure up to 627 cfs (1.11-year event) and would be able to maintain position up to 1,008 cfs (1.05-year event). Spikedace would pass through the diversion up to 204 cfs (1.01-year event) and may be able to maintain position at 424 cfs (1.05-year flow event). There would be a negligible to minor beneficial impact for both species as upstream fish passage may be improved at the Thomason Flat rock vane diversion.
However, maintenance activities would result in minor to moderate adverse impacts to fish species due to impacts to aquatic habitat. The Thomason Flat rock vane weir would require infrequent maintenance to repair or rebuild the structure after a high flow event. These recurring events would include direct mortality due to crushing and habitat loss, and indirect mortality due to increased sedimentation downstream.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 158 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-17. Upper Gila Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative C
Alternative C – Upper Gila Analysis: Gila Farms Downstream of Diversion Through Rock Vane Weir Diversion Upstream of Diversion Weir Channel Channel Flow Velocity Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Velocity (cm/s) Flow Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft2) Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace minnow minnow minnow Low flow 10.00 6.11 1.64 49.89 49.89 21.05 0.48 14.48 14.48 19.63 0.51 15.53 15.53 1.01-year 113.00 79.55 1.42 43.30 43.30 90.39 1.25 38.10 38.10 76.75 1.47 44.88 44.88 Low flow 143.00 100.03 1.43 43.57 43.57 107.09 1.34 40.70 40.70 91.20 1.57 47.79 47.79 1.05-year 269.00 168.15 1.60 48.76 48.76 166.10 1.62 49.36 49.36 140.01 1.92 58.56 58.56 1.11-year 427.00 245.84 1.74 52.94 52.94 234.36 1.82 55.53 55.53 198.66 2.15 65.51 65.51 1.25-year 752.00 335.14 2.24 68.39 68.39 349.54 2.15 65.57 65.57 296.09 2.54 77.41 77.41 2-year 2,233.60 635.45 3.51 107.14 107.14 758.59 2.94 89.75 89.75 640.82 3.49 106.24 106.24 5-year 6,701.60 1,282.82 5.22 159.23 159.23 1,666.13 4.02 122.60 122.60 1,407.26 4.76 145.15 145.15 10-year 11,950.40 2,046.11 5.84 178.02 178.02 2,636.49 4.53 138.16 138.16 2,065.28 5.79 176.37 176.37 20-year 19,308.90 3,315.86 5.82 177.49 177.49 4,147.43 4.66 141.90 141.90 2,666.17 7.24 220.74 220.74 50-year 33,211.20 6,099.68 5.44 165.96 165.96 7,621.32 4.36 132.82 132.82 4,832.46 6.87 209.47 209.47 100-year 47,741.30 8,476.54 5.63 171.67 171.67 10,943.87 4.36 132.97 132.97 6,916.77 6.90 210.38 210.38 200-year 66,611.90 11,313.91 5.89 179.45 179.45 15,399.42 4.33 131.84 131.84 8,571.33 7.77 236.87 236.87 500-year 99,858.40 16,369.11 6.10 185.94 185.94 22,181.13 4.50 137.22 137.22 13,626.97 7.33 223.36 223.36
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 159 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Alternative C – Upper Gila Analysis: Fort West Downstream of Diversion (~30 feet) Through Rock Vane Weir Diversion Upstream of Diversion (~25 feet) Channel Channel Flow Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Velocity (cm/s) Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft2)
Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace minnow minnow minnow Low flow 10.00 18.33 0.55 16.63 16.63 12.58 0.79 24.23 24.23 10.80 0.93 28.22 28.22 1.01-year 113.00 79.22 1.43 43.48 43.48 64.01 1.77 53.81 53.81 54.44 2.08 63.27 63.27 Low flow 143.00 91.64 1.56 47.56 47.56 75.66 1.89 57.61 57.61 64.71 2.21 67.36 67.36 1.05-year 269.00 134.78 2.00 60.83 60.83 116.65 2.31 70.29 70.29 99.65 2.70 82.28 82.28 1.11-year 427.00 177.72 2.40 73.23 73.23 163.12 2.62 79.79 79.79 134.72 3.17 96.61 96.61 1.25-year 752.00 253.38 2.97 90.46 90.46 257.41 2.92 89.04 89.04 206.26 3.65 111.13 111.13 2-year 2,233.60 783.01 2.85 86.95 86.95 655.91 3.41 103.79 103.79 520.50 4.29 130.80 130.80 5-year 6,701.60 1,567.09 4.28 130.35 130.35 1,601.75 4.18 127.53 127.53 1,303.06 5.14 156.76 156.76 10-year 11,950.40 2,463.27 4.85 147.87 147.87 2,688.97 4.44 135.46 135.46 2,162.34 5.53 168.45 168.45 20-year 19,308.90 3,542.19 5.45 166.15 166.15 4,018.39 4.81 146.46 146.46 3,288.26 5.87 178.98 178.98 50-year 33,211.20 5,063.32 6.56 199.92 199.92 6,317.58 5.26 160.23 160.23 4,903.64 6.77 206.43 206.43 100-year 47,741.30 6,922.83 6.90 210.20 210.20 8,660.98 5.51 168.01 168.01 6,740.78 7.08 215.87 215.87 200-year 66,611.90 9,059.07 7.35 224.12 224.12 11,252.11 5.92 180.44 180.44 8,933.51 7.46 227.27 227.27 500-year 99,858.40 12,401.98 8.05 245.42 245.42 15,237.23 6.55 199.75 199.75 12,362.23 8.08 246.21 246.21
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 160 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Alternative C – Upper Gila Analysis Area: Upper Gila Downstream of Diversion (~30 feet) Through Rock Vane Weir Diversion Downstream of Diversion (~25 feet) Channel Channel Channel Flow Velocity Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Flow Area Event Q (cfs) Flow Area Area (ft2) (ft/s) (cm/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (cm/s) (ft/s) (cm/s) (ft2) (ft2) Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace minnow minnow minnow Low flow 10.00 34.00 0.29 8.96 8.96 9.54 1.05 31.95 31.95 23.18 0.43 13.15 13.15 1.01-year 113.00 133.07 0.85 25.88 25.88 58.07 1.95 59.31 59.31 101.98 1.11 33.77 33.77 Low flow 143.00 151.27 0.95 28.81 28.81 71.69 1.99 60.80 60.80 114.76 1.25 37.98 37.98 1.05-year 269.00 211.30 1.27 38.80 38.80 115.11 2.34 71.23 71.23 154.28 1.74 53.14 53.14 1.11-year 427.00 273.37 1.56 47.61 47.61 159.04 2.68 81.83 81.83 193.05 2.21 67.42 67.42 1.25-year 752.00 376.29 2.00 60.91 60.91 245.99 3.06 93.18 93.18 271.51 2.77 84.42 84.42 2-year 2,233.60 632.01 3.53 107.72 107.72 530.21 4.21 128.40 128.40 524.29 4.26 129.85 129.85 5-year 6,701.60 1,057.23 6.34 193.21 193.21 1,111.45 6.03 183.78 183.78 980.52 6.83 208.32 208.32 10-year 11,950.40 2,098.47 5.69 173.58 173.58 2,530.74 4.72 143.93 143.93 2,082.05 5.74 174.95 174.95 20-year 19,308.90 3,050.98 6.33 192.90 192.90 3,885.50 4.97 151.47 151.47 3,166.16 6.10 185.88 185.88 50-year 33,211.20 4,373.95 7.59 231.43 231.43 5,759.99 5.77 175.74 175.74 4,775.84 6.95 211.96 211.96 100-year 47,741.30 5,420.92 8.81 268.43 268.43 7,412.21 6.44 196.32 196.32 6,159.38 7.75 236.25 236.25 200-year 66,611.90 6,443.70 10.34 315.09 315.09 9,349.94 7.12 217.15 217.15 7,803.54 8.54 260.18 260.18 500-year 99,858.40 7,922.22 12.60 384.20 384.20 12,430.68 8.03 244.85 244.85 10,422.66 9.58 292.03 292.03
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 161 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-18. San Francisco River Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative C
Alternative C – San Francisco River Analysis Area Downstream of Diversion Through Rock Vane Weir Diversion Upstream of Diversion Channel Channel Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft2) (ft2)
Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace minnow minnow minnow Low flow 10.00 14.64 0.68 20.82 20.82 15.03 0.67 20.28 20.28 13.29 0.75 22.93 22.93 Low flow 25.00 13.14 1.90 57.99 57.99 26.93 0.93 28.30 28.30 23.40 1.07 32.56 32.56 1.01-year 204.00 105.74 1.93 58.80 58.80 109.81 1.86 56.62 56.62 93.38 2.18 66.59 66.59 1.05-year 424.00 168.64 2.51 76.63 76.63 183.23 2.31 70.53 70.53 155.37 2.73 83.18 83.18 1.11-year 627.00 217.63 2.88 87.81 87.81 240.85 2.60 79.35 79.35 203.02 3.09 94.13 94.13 1.25-year 1,008.00 293.56 3.43 104.66 104.66 338.53 2.98 90.76 90.76 282.01 3.57 108.95 108.95 2-year 2,500.40 471.61 5.30 161.60 161.60 674.60 3.71 112.97 112.97 509.38 4.91 149.62 149.62 5-year 6,218.00 850.86 7.31 222.74 222.74 1,362.90 4.56 139.06 139.06 837.10 7.43 226.41 226.41 10-year 10,020.10 1,235.33 8.11 247.23 247.23 2,001.97 5.01 152.56 152.56 1,245.51 8.04 245.21 245.21 20-year 14,866.90 1,676.02 8.87 270.37 270.37 2,758.34 5.39 164.28 164.28 1,703.57 8.73 266.00 266.00 50-year 23,190.40 2,339.04 9.91 302.19 302.19 3,979.02 5.83 177.64 177.64 2,443.26 9.49 289.30 289.30 100-year 31,201.30 2,997.18 10.41 317.30 317.30 5,105.20 6.11 186.28 186.28 3,113.32 10.02 305.47 305.47 200-year 40,945.40 3,769.76 10.86 331.06 331.06 6,431.07 6.37 194.06 194.06 3,895.18 10.51 320.40 320.40 500-year 56,933.50 5,083.14 11.20 341.39 341.39 8,503.80 6.70 204.07 204.07 5,224.15 10.90 332.18 332.18
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 162 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
The construction of ponds and reservoirs could lead to the stocking on nonnative piscivorous fish, which could be transported to the river itself and increase the population of predators.
There would be adverse minor impacts to fish species due to the potential to increase the population of predators in the Virden Valley project location associated with creating additional pond habitat. There would be no impact in the Cliff-Gila and San Francisco River project locations because there would be no infrastructure constructed in these locations.
The noise and vibration of construction activities may temporarily displace fish, if they have time and habitat with which to escape. In addition, permanent loss of habitat would occur in the footprint of the diversions.
The construction of ponds and reservoirs could lead to the stocking on nonnative piscivorous fish, which could be transported to the river itself and increase the population of predators.
In the Cliff-Gila project location, the construction of the Obermeyer gate and box culvert would alter surface water flows of the Gila when the gate is closed, which could reduce the amount of riffle habitat available to loach minnow, run habitat for spikedace, and could block migration and genetic flow both upstream and downstream of the project locations. The Obermeyer structure could be operated to allow for water to flow during the irrigation season which does not occur under the current push-up diversions. The Obermeyer structure proposed in Alternative E would allow for fish passage upstream and downstream during all non-irrigation seasons as the gates would be open. When closed, the structure would allow for passage of loach minnow up to 752 cfs and spikedace up to 143 cfs (Table 5-19).
The design does not include fish screens, therefore entrainment into agricultural ditches is likely. Entrained fish may not be able to return to the river and may be killed due to habitat drying after the irrigation season, entrainment into pumps, or predation by nonnatives in the canals and ditches.
In the San Francisco River project location, construction of the fixed crest weir would the same impacts as described under Alternative B. Fish passage structures incorporated into the design of the fixed crest weir on the San Francisco would provide minor beneficial impacts to fish populations through enhancing the ability of fish passage upstream of the diversion. The structure would allow for passage of loach minnow up to 424 cfs for loach minnow and up to 204 cfs for spikedace (Table 5-20).
There would be moderate direct impacts on listed fish species due to short- and long-term impacts to critical habitat (see Table 5-11).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 163 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-19. Upper Gila Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative E
Alternative E – Upper Gila Analysis Area
Downstream of Diversion (~30 feet) Through Obermeyer Diversion Upstream of Diversion (~25 feet) Channel Channel Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft2) (ft2)
Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace minnow minnow minnow Low flow 10.00 28.55 0.40 12.19 12.19 9.57 1.00 30.48 30.48 42.13 0.20 6.10 6.10 1.01-year 113.00 87.57 1.30 39.62 39.62 52.26 2.20 67.06 67.06 211.04 0.50 15.24 15.24 Low flow 143.00 99.23 1.40 42.67 42.67 61.45 2.30 70.10 70.10 243.41 0.60 18.29 18.29 1.05-year 269.00 148.65 1.80 54.86 54.86 105.78 2.50 76.20 76.20 362.67 0.70 21.34 21.34 1.11-year 427.00 202.53 2.10 64.01 64.01 161.75 2.60 79.25 79.25 476.50 0.90 27.43 27.43 1.25-year 752.00 298.30 2.50 76.20 76.20 260.63 2.90 88.39 88.39 657.59 1.10 33.53 33.53 2-year 2,233.60 624.45 3.60 109.73 109.73 721.36 3.10 94.49 94.49 1,103.74 2.00 60.96 60.96 5-year 6,701.60 1,281.44 5.20 158.50 158.50 1,632.34 4.10 124.97 124.97 1,909.84 3.50 106.68 106.68 10-year 11,950.40 1,969.89 6.10 185.93 185.93 2,565.15 4.70 143.26 143.26 2,675.10 4.50 137.16 137.16 20-year 19,308.90 2,803.64 6.90 210.31 210.31 3,736.21 5.20 158.50 158.50 3,656.06 5.30 161.54 161.54 50-year 33,211.20 4,432.33 7.50 228.60 228.60 5,555.40 6.00 182.88 182.88 5,214.82 6.40 195.07 195.07 100-year 47,741.30 5,585.80 8.50 259.08 259.08 7,168.88 6.70 204.22 204.22 6,595.94 7.20 219.46 219.46 200-year 66,611.90 6,822.00 9.80 298.70 298.70 9,020.11 7.40 225.55 225.55 8,161.43 8.20 249.94 249.94 500-year 99,858.40 8,762.30 11.40 347.47 347.47 11,900.44 8.40 256.03 256.03 10,585.52 9.40 286.51 286.51
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 164 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-20. San Francisco River Analysis Area Fish Passage Summary for Alternative E
Alternative E – San Francisco River Analysis Area Downstream of Diversion (~30 feet) Through Fixed Crest Weir Diversion Upstream of Diversion (~25 feet) Channel Channel Velocity Weir Flow Velocity Velocity Event Q (cfs) Flow Velocity (cm/s) Notes Velocity (cm/s) Flow Area Velocity (cm/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft/s) (ft/s) Area (ft2) (ft2)
Loach Loach Loach Spikedace Spikedace Spikedace Minnow Minnow Minnow Low flow 10.00 24.35 0.40 12.19 12.19 About 0.5 feet 5.25 1.90 57.91 57.91 81.07 0.10 3.05 3.05 deep within the low-flow notch Low flow 25.00 46.81 0.50 15.24 15.24 At top of low-flow 9.68 2.60 79.25 79.25 159.03 0.20 6.10 6.10 notch 1.01-year 204.00 180.43 1.10 33.53 33.53 70.29 2.90 88.39 88.39 371.24 0.50 15.24 15.24 1.05-year 424.00 278.25 1.50 45.72 45.72 119.56 3.50 106.68 106.68 539.11 0.80 24.38 24.38 1.11-year 627.00 352.41 1.80 54.86 54.86 158.17 4.00 121.92 121.92 665.24 0.90 27.43 27.43 1.25-year 1,008.00 471.75 2.10 64.01 64.01 224.05 4.50 137.16 137.16 873.82 1.20 36.58 36.58 2-year 2,500.40 830.17 3.00 91.44 91.44 512.99 4.90 149.35 149.35 1,443.10 1.70 51.82 51.82 5-year 6,218.00 1,460.27 4.30 131.06 131.06 Above second 1,134.20 5.50 167.64 167.64 2,260.83 2.80 85.34 85.34 opening 10-year 10,020.10 2,078.87 4.80 146.30 146.30 1,722.13 5.80 176.78 176.78 2,793.52 3.60 109.73 109.73 20-year 14,866.90 2,810.11 5.30 161.54 161.54 Above top of 2,352.70 6.30 192.02 192.02 3,353.41 4.40 134.11 134.11 diversion structure 50-year 23,190.40 3,871.62 6.00 182.88 182.88 3,518.65 6.60 201.17 201.17 4,436.86 5.20 158.50 158.50 100-year 31,201.30 4,761.32 6.60 201.17 201.17 4,614.79 6.80 207.26 207.26 5,478.21 5.70 173.74 173.74 200-year 40,945.40 5,734.33 7.10 216.41 216.41 5,832.95 7.00 213.36 213.36 6,637.72 6.20 188.98 188.98 500-year 56,933.50 7,141.88 8.00 243.84 243.84 7,602.40 7.50 228.60 228.60 8,316.51 6.80 207.26 207.26
Note: Light shading = Below fish passage velocity threshold Dark shading = Velocity in which fish may maintain position
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 165 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Although this species does not currently occur within the Analysis Area, packs currently occur approximately 24 miles north of the Upper Gila Analysis Area and 11 miles east of the San Francisco River Analysis Area (USFWS 2019c). Because Mexican wolves have large home ranges and increasing numbers of individuals born or released into the wild, this species may occur within the Analysis Areas within the 50-year life of the project analyzed in this document.
5.2.5.7.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION
Under Alternative A, any wolves that move into the Analysis Area in future years would be subject to a minor possibility of noise impacts arising from the use of machinery to create or maintain push-up diversions in the Gila and San Francisco Rivers. Impacts arising from noise or human presence (i.e., behavior changes, reduced predation success, reduced reproductive success, or reduced inter- or intraspecific communication) would occur, but are expected to be extremely minor and localized to push-up diversion site and would be absent with the cessation of equipment use. These minor impacts are unlikely to measurably change the availability of large ungulate prey or water resources.
5.2.5.7.2 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL
Both the Virden and the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Areas occur distant to known pack locations, outside of current “occupied range” (USFWS 2019c), and within Chihuahuan desertscrub or Semidesert grassland (The Nature Conservancy 2006), two vegetation types in which this species are reported to avoid (USFWS 2019c). The nearest known pack is currently distant to the Francisco River Analysis Area (USFWS 2019c). Thus, no direct impacts related to mortality, injury, or noise would be expected on this species during the construction phase of the project under any alternative.
Potential impacts arising from loss of habitat would be negligible to individuals or populations because the species would have a small likelihood of being present within the analysis areas; impacts would occur over a small proportion of total available species’ habitat in New Mexico or Arizona; and many direct losses of habitat would occur adjacent to or in direct proximity to human structures, agriculture, roads, or other disturbances that would be unlikely to be used by this species. Currently, and in the near future, maintenance activities would have no impact on this species because they are not are known to occur in the area. Direct impacts from construction noise or human presence during maintenance activities could occur for this species, if it occurs in the San Francisco or Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area in the future. However, impacts would be considered negligible as they are localized and temporary and would represent a very small portion of any individual pack’s home range.
Impacts could occur as a result of operation of the diversions under all action alternatives as described under Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. While the surface water and riparian corridor may experience minor changes downstream of the proposed diversion, this would be unlikely to affect individuals or this species as a whole because it is wide-ranging and uses a variety of habitat types, and it has a diverse prey base (i.e., ungulates or small mammals). In addition, many of the downstream Indirect Analysis Areas are located in unsuitable habitat for this species or is distant to known populations of this species (i.e., Lower Gila Analysis Area). The creation of constructed storage ponds may increase the numbers of prey available for Mexican wolves in area surrounding the ponds; however, this would be one of multiple water sources for the species in the area potential impacts.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 166 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
5.2.5.7.3 IMPACTS SPECIFIC TO ACTION
Alternative B
Impacts arising from future maintenance and operation of the proposed project would follow those described in Section 5.2.3.1. Impacts from proposed project activities would likely be negligible because of the large home range of this species, the total available habitat in the surrounding vicinity of the project, and the varied prey base of this species. Because the production wells occur in or near agriculture fields, Mexican wolves would be unlikely use the area, and there would likely be no impact from the noise or habitat loss associated with the operation of production wells under Alternative B.
Alternative C
Impacts arising from future maintenance and operation of the proposed project would follow those described in Section 5.2.3.2. Impacts from proposed project activities would likely be negligible because of the large home range of this species, the total available habitat in the surrounding vicinity of the project, and the varied prey base of this species.
Under Alternative C impacts relating to maintenance of diversion structures would occur with more frequency than would be expected for a fixed crest weir. Impacts arising from noise or human presences could occur, particularly within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area, which is closer to the current known range of this species. However, impacts would be expected to be negligible since they are localized, temporary, and would represent a small portion of any individual pack’s home range. Maintenance impacts are unlikely to measurably change the availability of large ungulate prey.
The creation of constructed storage ponds at the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and a reservoir at the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area may increase the numbers of prey available for Mexican wolves, which would be a beneficial impact. However, this impact would be negligible because the reservoir represents a small portion of any given pack’s range. Similarly, habitat fragmentation and increase of human presence impacts from creation of permanent roads in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area would be negligible since they occur over a relatively small area compared to the total amount of wolf habitat in New Mexico.
Alternative D
In the Cliff-Gila and San Francisco River project locations, impacts under Alternative D would be the same as Impacts occurring under the No Action Alternative as under this alternative no diversion structures would be built in the San Francisco or Upper Gila Direct Impacts Areas. Impacts in the Virden Valley project location would be the same as described in Alternative B and would include temporary impacts related to noise during construction and periodic, long-term noise impacts related to maintenance of the ponds.
Alternative E
Impacts arising from future maintenance and operation of the proposed project would follow those described in Section 5.2.3.4. Impacts from proposed project activities would likely be negligible because of the large home range of this species, the total available habitat in the surrounding vicinity of the project, and the varied prey base of this species.
The creation of constructed storage ponds and a reservoir at the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area and a reservoir at the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area may increase the numbers of prey available for Mexican wolves, which would be a beneficial impact. However, this impact would be negligible because
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 167 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
the reservoir represents a small portion of any given pack’s range. Similarly, habitat fragmentation and increase of human presence impacts from creation of permanent roads in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area would be negligible since they occur over a relatively small area compared to the total amount of wolf habitat in New Mexico.
NORTHERN MEXICAN GARTERSNAKE AND NARROW- HEADED GARTERSNAKE
Impacts on these the northern Mexican gartersnake and narrow-headed gartersnake are discussed jointly because these two species have similar life histories and largely overlapping ranges within the Analysis Area. When differences in potential impacts would occur, they are noted in the text.
5.2.5.8.1 ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION
Under Alternative A, northern Mexican gartersnake and narrow-headed gartersnake would continue to be adversely impacted through ongoing maintenance and water diversion activities. Individuals of both gartersnake species could be affected through mortality or injury during push-up diversion maintenance activities that occur within the river or riparian areas. Equipment could crush individuals or destroy adjacent riparian habitat. Noise or other human disturbance from equipment may cause individuals to flee the area or alter their behavior. Such altered behavior could cause lowered survival through increased predation, increased energy expenditures, or decreased foraging activities. However, these impacts are localized to the area immediately adjacent to the pushup diversions and occur for a short time period. Ongoing water diversions could reduce or eliminate flows in reaches downstream, which would, in turn, decrease quality and quantity of riverine and riparian habitat used by both of these species, or reduce the amount of prey available (i.e., native fish for the narrow-headed gartersnake or native anurans and fish for the northern Mexican gartersnake). Any ongoing areas of pooling as a result of push-up diversions creates deep pool habitat that favors nonnative species (e.g., American bullfrog). Nonnative species prey directly upon gartersnakes, particularly subadults and juveniles, and can also reduce or eliminate their prey species from an area.
5.2.5.8.2 COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Impacts on these species would be similar to the impacts described for general wildlife species in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. The impacts on special status wildlife species resulting from all action alternatives would be similar in kind, with generally only minor differences, and would result in the same impacts determinations for all action alternatives, unless otherwise specified below.
Proposed critical habitat for both species occurs within the Analysis Area and would be impacted under all action alternatives except Alternative D, see Table 5-11 for acreages of disturbance within proposed critical habitat. Table 5-21 summarizes proposed critical habitat impacted acres by alternative for narrow-headed gartersnakes, and Table 5-22 summarizes proposed critical habitat impacted acres by alternative for northern Mexican gartersnakes.
Although vegetation disturbance may affect individual gartersnakes, population-level impacts would be unlikely, and any impacts on gartersnakes and their proposed critical habitat from vegetation disturbance would be minor to moderate because a small portion of the total proposed critical habitat for either species would be impacted under Alternatives B, C, and E and none would be impacted under Alternative D.
Table 5-9 summarizes seasonal indirect impacts to gartersnakes.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 168 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Table 5-21. Narrow-headed Gartersnake Proposed Critical Habitat Impacts by Action Alternative
Short-Term Impacts Long-Term Impacts
Percent of Total Percent of Total Direct, Short- Percent of Total Direct, Long- Percent of Total Direct Impacts Direct Impacts Term Impacts Analysis Areas: Term Impacts Analysis Areas: Areas: Areas: (acres) Short-term (acres) Long-term Short-term Long-term Alternative B 49.6 1.1% 0.3% 30.1 0.6% 0.2% Alternative C 32.5 0.7% 0.2% 22.6 0.5% 0.2% Alternative D 0.0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% Alternative E 54.0 1.2% 0.4% 28.9 0.6% 0.2%
Table 5-22. Northern Mexican Gartersnake Proposed Critical Habitat Impacts by Alternative
Short-Term Impacts Long-Term Impacts
Percent of Total Percent of Total Direct, Short- Percent of Total Direct, Long- Percent of Total Direct Impacts Direct Impacts Term Impacts Analysis Areas: Term Impacts Analysis Areas: Areas: Areas: (acres) Short-term (acres) Long-term Short-term Long-term Alternative B 30.5 0.7% 0.2% 19.0 0.4% 0.1% Alternative C 12.7 0.3% 0.1% 10.0 0.2% 0.1% Alternative D 0.0 0% 0% 0.0 0% 0% Alternative E 8.2 0.2% 0.1% 4.1 0.1% <0.1%
Construction
Potential impacts on gartersnakes within the construction footprint for diversions, storage ponds, conveyance ditches, or other components would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. Potential direct, adverse impacts from construction-related activities include mortality and injury as a result of collisions with equipment during construction or grading, or a temporary decrease in water quality downstream of diversion construction in the Gila River. These impacts would be minor to moderate on populations of these species as many individuals would be expected to flee the area of disturbance and impacts would be localized to only areas within the project footprint or for a short distance downstream.
Temporary impacts on wildlife from construction-related noise, vibration, or human presence potentially causing behavioral changes in individuals would be as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives. The severity of impacts would decrease with increasing distance from the construction activities; thus, these impacts would be moderate to species within the Direct Impact Analysis Area and would cease with the completion of construction and maintenance activities.
Maintenance and Operation
Future maintenance may be required within the river channel for permanent diversions, other project components, or local access roads. Impacts resulting from maintenance activities would be similar to those from construction; however, these impacts would occur for a shorter period of time and would be limited to the area surrounding maintenance activities. Gartersnakes would benefit from the reduction in number of times per year maintenance activities would occur within the riparian and riverine areas in the Upper Gila and San Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas (only under Alternatives B, C, and E).
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 169 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Potential impacts associated with changes to surface water hydrology and groundwater hydrology are described in Section 5.2.2 and would occur primarily as loss or modification of habitat for gartersnakes or their native prey (i.e., primarily native fish for narrow-headed gartersnakes and native anurans and fish for northern Mexican gartersnakes). Loss of habitat or a reduction in the availability of native prey could cause adverse impacts on gartersnakes, which could result in reduced survival, reduced reproductive success, exposure to increased predation as they hunt, or loss of habitat for hunting, basking, reproducing, or dispersing. Because these adverse impacts would be limited to portions of the analysis area where river drying or loss or degradation of habitat occurred, impacts would be minor to populations of these species because a low percentage of total available habitat within the analysis area would be impacted.
Permanent diversions or the creation of storage ponds would create habitat that favors nonnative species, including American bullfrogs or nonnative predatory fish as described in Section 5.2.2. Gartersnakes may be predated upon by the nonnative species, or their preferred native prey species may be reduced or eliminated from the area, which can cause individual effects or change demographics or population dynamics locally (USFWS 2014c). Because American bullfrogs, nonnative predatory fish, and nonnative crayfish are widespread and abundant in portions of the Gila River and San Francisco River mainstems, impacts on native species would be considered minor at the population level.
Operation of the action alternatives could allow for some persistence and establishment of riparian habitat in the Direct Impacts Area. Stringers of riparian woodlands and narrow shelves adjacent to ditches currently exist along portions of the irrigation ditches in the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area (SWCA 2019a). The lining within both the new and reconstructed ditches would reduce the amount of water seepage; however, narrow bands of riparian woodland and wetland vegetation could form or reform adjacent to the ditches where sedimentation within the conveyance ditches aggregates, or when water leaks through (e.g., from cracks in the lining). This could maintain and in areas of new construction increase the amount of habitat for gartersnakes. The narrow distribution of these habitat types along the ditches would not be sufficient for all life-history needs of gartersnakes; however, they may use these areas for hunting or dispersal. Because riparian and wetland habitats already occur within the Direct Impacts Areas and these areas of habitat would be narrow, these increases would represent the potential for a negligible to minor beneficial impact on some species.
All action alternatives would increase the level of noise and vibration within the Direct Impacts Areas. Although specifics among alternatives vary, noise or vibration impacts would result from construction, maintenance, well pumps (ASR or production wells, depending on location and alternative), pumps to move water from storage ponds into ditches, and for some locations and alternatives, operation of an Obermeyer gate diversion. These noise or vibration impacts are discussed for specific locations and alternatives in Section 5.2.3. Operational noise would only occur intermittently, when pumps or Obermeyer gates are engaged. Potential noise or vibration impacts would decrease with increasing distance from the source and would not be expected to cause minor impacts on this species or its prey.
Where these species occur within the Indirect Analysis Areas downstream of proposed diversions, changes in surface flow and groundwater (i.e., changes in the magnitude of monthly water conditions, timing and duration of peak flows, low flow conditions, hydrograph changes, and extreme events such as flood pulses and extremely low flow conditions) within the San Francisco and Lower Gila Analysis Areas could lead to reduced flows within habitat for the species.
The precise impacts and impact locations are not known. However, both the Gila River and the San Francisco River would be expected to have flow most months. There would be minor changes to hydrology within the Lower Gila Analysis Area. Potential impacts from diversions would be minor under Alternatives B, C, and E. No diversions or storage facilities would be built at Upper Gila or San
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 170 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Francisco River Direct Impacts Areas under Alternative D, so the downstream impacts would be less than the other action alternatives. There is more variability in the system from natural sources than upstream diversions would be expected to create. Thus, potential impacts from diversions would be expected to be minor because diversion activities would be within the natural range of variability for the river system.
Although no gartersnakes were observed during October 2018 surveys of the Upper Gila or San Francisco River Analysis Areas, suitable gartersnake habitat occurs within portions of these Analysis Areas (SWCA 2019d). NWI-wetlands and riparian areas were used as a proxy for suitable habitat (see Table 5-12) since all portions of the all Direct Impacts Areas was not able to be ground-truthed during surveys. Table 5-13 summarizes the number acres of habitat impacted.
Under Alternative B, direct, short-term disturbance impacts on vegetation within these habitat categories across all Analysis Areas would occur on 70.3 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 45.3 acres. These impacts on riparian woodlands, wetlands, and aquatic habitat could result in indirect impacts on gartersnakes through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of suitable habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area would be approximately 1.8% (1.1% long-term) of the existing habitat within the Direct Impacts Areas at analysis area, and less than 0.01% of existing habitat within the Analysis Area. Loss of habitat Under Alternative B would represent a permanent, indirect, adverse impact on gartersnakes, resulting in the loss of breeding, foraging, or dispersal habitat at the time of construction and, to a much lesser extent, during maintenance activities. Thus, impacts would be minor to moderate on populations of these species because the amount of suitable habitat being lost is a small percentage of the total available habitat for gartersnakes within the Analysis Area.
Upper Gila Analysis Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., construction, maintenance, and operations of storage ponds, pump facilities, and power line extensions) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, and in Section 5.2.5.8.2, above.
Where project components intersect with riparian habitat along the river corridor (e.g., Storage Pond 4P), hibernacula could be impacted causing mortality to individuals or loss of suitable hibernacula. Additional impacts arising from construction and operation of new conveyance ditches or widening and lining of existing ditches or power line expansion at the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area or would have impacts on gartersnakes as described in Section 5.2.3.1.
Overall, potential impacts arising from construction, maintenance, and operation of these structures, would be minor to moderate at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.
Under Alternative B, habitat loss impacts of NWI-wetlands and riparian areas (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area would be approximately 50.4 acres (2.8% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 31.6 acres (1.7% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas, which are typically lower quality wildlife habitat and because these acreages would represent less than 0.2% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor to moderate, and would not be expected to rise to the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 171 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Additional habitat loss to these species would result from the groundwater drawdown and subsequent loss or degradation of suitable wetland or riparian habitat from the operation of production wells 3 and 5 (as described in Section 5.2.3.2). These moderate impacts on vegetation within the Gila River would be minor on gartersnakes owing to habitat loss because these areas represent a small portion of the total riparian and wetland habitat available for these species within the Analysis Area.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on general and special status wildlife species within the construction footprint (i.e., construction, maintenance, and operations of storage ponds, pump facilities, and power line extensions) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives and in Section 5.2.5.8.2, above. Because the storage ponds are away from the riparian corridor surrounding the Gila River, hibernacula for these species would be unlikely to be impacted by construction under Alternative B. Thus, short-term construction and long-term operational impacts would likely be minimal and consist of mortalities or dispersal of individuals. Potential impacts within the area to be disturbed would be minor at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available gartersnake habitat in the Analysis Area.
Under Alternative B, habitat loss impacts of NWI-wetlands and riparian (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area are approximately 3.0 acres (0.2% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 2.1 acres (1.5% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas, which are typically lower quality wildlife habitat, and because these acreages represent less than 0.01% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor, and would not be expected to rise to the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
For both the northern Mexican gartersnake and the narrow-headed gartersnake, no proposed critical habitat would be disturbed within the Virden Valley Analysis Area (see Table 5-11).
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Impacts on gartersnakes within the construction footprint (i.e., construction, maintenance, and operation of diversions, conveyance ditch improvements, power line expansions, and temporary access roads) would occur as described in Section 5.2.2 and in Section 5.2.5.8.2 above. Because no storage ponds would be constructed under Alternative B at the San Francisco River Analysis Area, hibernacula for these species are unlikely to be impacted by construction. Potential impacts would be disturbed to minor at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available gartersnake habitat in the Analysis Area.
Under Alternative B, potential loss of habitat in NWI-wetlands and riparian areas (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the San Francisco Direct Impacts Area would occur on approximately 16.9 acres (2.4% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 11.6 acres (1.6% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas and because these acreages would represent less than 0.1% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor, and would not be expected to rise to the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
Under Alternative C, direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within NWI wetland and riparian habitat types across all Analysis Areas would occur on 33.7 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 25.0 acres. These potential impacts on riparian woodlands, wetlands, and aquatic habitat could result in
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 172 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
indirect impacts on gartersnakes through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of suitable habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area would be approximately 0.9% (0.6% long-term) of the existing habitat within the Direct Impacts Areas and less than 0.2% of existing habitat within the Analysis Area. Potential loss of habitat Under Alternative C would represent a permanent, indirect, adverse impact on gartersnakes, resulting in the loss of breeding, foraging, or dispersal habitat at the time of construction and, to a much lesser extent, during maintenance activities. Thus, would be minor to moderate on populations of these species because the amount of suitable habitat being lost is a small percentage of the total available habitat for gartersnakes within the Analysis Area.
Upper Gila Analysis Area
Impacts on gartersnakes within the construction footprint would occur similarly as described in Section 5.2.5.8.3, above. Under Alternative C, no production wells would be operated within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area, thus there would be no additional loss of habitat from groundwater drawdown. In addition, under Alternative C, the conveyances at Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area would not be modified, nor would any new conveyances be constructed. Thus, the riparian stringers occurring adjacent to these existing conveyances would be unchanged. The creation of permanent access roads would create minor fragmentation of habitat and could increase the potential for gartersnakes to be killed on roads. However, potential impacts from construction, maintenance, and operation activities under Alternative C would be minor to moderate at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.
Under Alternative C, loss of NWI-wetlands and riparian area habitats (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area would be approximately 17.6 acres (1.0% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 13.2 acres (0.7% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas and because these acreages represent less than 0.1% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor to moderate, and would not be expected to rise to the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
Virden Valley Direct Impacts Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative C is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, construction impacts on gartersnakes would be the same as discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.5.8.3).
San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area
Potential impacts on gartersnakes within the construction footprint would occur as for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.5.8.3), but would be more severe because under Alternative C, conveyance ditches would be expanded and an unlined storage reservoir would be constructed in Weedy Canyon. However, not all of the construction for the reservoir would occur within riparian areas likely to be occupied by these species. There is potential for hibernacula to be impacted in the few areas where construction overlaps suitable riparian areas. Potential impacts from construction, maintenance, and operation activities under Alternative C would be minor to moderate at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.
Because Alternative C would have pumps to move water to the reservoir, gartersnakes in this area may be impacted by noise or vibration similar to those discussed in Section 5.2.2, Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Noise impacts would be intermittent and would decrease with decreasing distance to the
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 173 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
pump. Thus, potential impacts in the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area from well noise under Alternative C would be minor for individual gartersnakes and would be negligible at the population level.
Under Alternative C, loss of NWI-wetlands and riparian areas (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the San Francisco Direct Impacts Area would be approximately 13.1 acres (1.8% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 9.8 acres (1.4% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas and because these acreages represent less than 0.1% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor to moderate, and would not be expected to rise the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
Under Alternative D, direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within the wetland and riparian habitat categories across all Analysis Areas would occur on 3.0 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 2.1 acres. These potential impacts could result in indirect impacts on gartersnakes through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of habitat that would be disturbed would be approximately 0.1% (0.1% long-term) of the existing habitat within the Direct Impacts Areas and less than 0.01% of existing habitat within the Analysis Area. Loss of habitat under Alternative D would represent a permanent, indirect, adverse impact on gartersnakes, resulting in the loss of breeding, foraging, or dispersal habitat at the time of construction and, to a much lesser extent, during maintenance activities. Thus, potential impacts would be minor to populations of these species because the amount of suitable habitat being lost is a small percentage of the total available habitat for gartersnakes within the Analysis Area.
Upper Gila Analysis Area
No diversions, conveyances, ponds, or other structures would be constructed within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area under Alternative D. Thus, impacts for the proposed project to gartersnakes would remain the same as described in for the No Action Alternative above.
Virden Valley Analysis Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative D would be the same as for Alternative B. Thus, construction, maintenance, and operational impacts on gartersnakes would be the same as those discussed for Alternative B.
San Francisco River Analysis Area
No diversions, conveyances, ponds, or other structures would be constructed within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area under Alternative D. Thus, potential impacts for the proposed project to gartersnakes would remain the same as described in for the No Action Alternative above.
Under Alternative E, direct, short-term impacts on vegetation within the wetland and riparian habitat categories across all Analysis Areas would occur on 103.0 acres, and direct, long-term impacts would occur on 77.6 acres. These potential impacts on riparian woodlands, wetlands, and aquatic habitat could result in indirect impacts on gartersnakes through a reduction in breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitats. However, the amount of suitable habitat that would be disturbed within each Direct Impact Analysis Area would be approximately 2.6% (2.0% long-term) of the existing habitat within the Direct
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 174 Chapter 5. Effects of Action
Impacts Areas and less than 0.4% of existing habitat within the Analysis Area. Loss of habitat under Alternative E would represent a permanent, indirect, adverse impact on gartersnakes, resulting in the loss or degradation of breeding, foraging, or dispersal habitat at the time of construction and, to a much lesser extent, during maintenance activities. Thus, impacts would be minor to moderate on populations of these species because the amount of impacted suitable habitat would be a small percentage of the total available habitat for gartersnakes within the Analysis Area.
Upper Gila Analysis Area
Potential impacts on gartersnakes within the construction footprint would occur similarly as described in Section 5.2.5.8.3 above. Under Alternative E, an Obermeyer gate would be constructed and operated to replace the existing Upper Gila Diversion, which would introduce a source of intermittent noise/vibration impact in the analysis area. Conveyances would still be added and modified, similarly to Alternative B. Additional impacts to habitat would result from unlined ASR basins and storage ponds constructed in Winn Canyon. However, not all the construction for these ASR ponds would occur within riparian areas likely to be occupied by these species. There would be potential for hibernacula to be impacted in the few areas where construction overlaps suitable riparian areas. Potential impacts from construction, maintenance, and operation activities under Alternative E would be minor to moderate at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.
Under Alternative E, loss of NWI-wetlands and riparian areas (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the Upper Gila Direct Impacts Area would be approximately 67.9 acres (3.8% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 56.8 acres (3.1% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas and because these acreages represent less than 0.3% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor to moderate, and would not be expected to rise the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
Virden Valley Analysis Area
For the Virden Valley, the proposed action for Alternative E is the same as for Alternative B. Thus, construction impacts on gartersnakes would be the same as discussed for Alternative B (see Section 5.2.5.8.3).
San Francisco River Analysis Area
Potential impacts on gartersnakes within the San Francisco River Direct Impacts Area would be similar to those described for Alternative C (see Section 5.2.5.8.4), Construction of the proposed unlined reservoir in Weedy Canyon would not occur within riparian areas likely to be occupied by these species. Potential impacts from construction, maintenance, and operation activities under Alternative E would be minor to moderate at the species’ population level because of the small area impacted compared to the overall available wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.
Under Alternative E, loss of NWI-wetlands and riparian areas (see Table 5-4 to Table 5-6) within the San Francisco Direct Impacts Area would be approximately 32.2 acres (4.5% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the short term and 19.0 acres (2.7% of total Direct Impacts Area) in the long term. Because some of the area contains existing disturbed areas and because these acreages represent less than 0.2% of the total suitable NWI habitat within the entire Analysis Area, habitat loss for gartersnakes would be minor, and would not be expected to rise the level of population-wide impacts for either gartersnake species.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 175
CHAPTER 6 LITERATURE CITED
Audubon. 2019a. Important Bird Areas. Gila-Cliff Area. Internet website: https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/gila-cliff-area.
_____. 2019b. Important Bird Areas. Gila Bird Area. Internet website: https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/gila-bird-area.
_____. 2019c. Important Bird Areas. Lower Gila box. Internet website: https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/lower-gila-box.
_____. 2019d. Important Bird Areas. Blue and San Francisco Rivers Ecosystem, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Internet website: https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/blue-and-san- francisco-rivers-ecosystem-apache-sitgreaves-national-forests.
_____. 2019e. Guide to North American Birds. Internet website: https://www.audubon.org/bird-guide.
AZGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department). 1998. Senticolis triaspis intermedia. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/NonGameManagement/reptiles/.
_____. 1999. Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/NonGameManagement/reptiles/.
_____. 2000. Abutilon parishii. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
_____. 2001a. Canis lupus baileyi. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2001b. Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2001c. Idionycteris phyllotis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/
_____. 2002a. Catostomus insignis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2002b. Myotis velifer. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2002c. Perognathus flavus goodpasteri. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 176 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2002d. Aquila chrysaetos. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/nongamebirds/.
_____. 2002e. Catostomus clarki. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2002f. Oncorhynchus gilae. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2002g. Rhinichthys osculus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2003a. Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2003b. Euderma maculatum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2004. Heuchera glomerulata. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
_____. 2005. Perityle ambrosiifolia. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
_____. 2006. Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
_____. 2010a. Anthus spragueii. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/nongamebirds/.
_____. 2010b. Tiaroga cobitis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2011a. Myotis occultus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2011b. Lasiurus blossevillii. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2012a. Thamnophis rufipunctatus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/NonGameManagement/reptiles/.
_____. 2012b. Thamnophis eques megalops. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/NonGameManagement/reptiles/.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 177 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2013a. Anaxyrus microscaphus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/amphibians/.
_____. 2013b. Buteo regalis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/nongamebirds/.
_____. 2013c. Meda fulgida. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2013d. Heloderma suspectum suspectum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/NonGameManagement/reptiles/.
_____. 2013e. Accipiter gentilis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/nongamebirds/.
_____. 2014a. Sciurus arizonensis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2014b. Macrotus californicus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2014c. Eumops perotis californicus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/mammals/.
_____. 2015a. Peniocereus greggii var. greggii. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
_____. 2015b. Puccinellia parishii. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
_____. 2015c. Lithobates chiricahuensis. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nongamemanagement/amphibians/.
_____. 2015d. Gila robusta. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/nativefish/.
_____. 2019a. Empidonax traillii extimus range map. Unpublished material compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/.
_____. 2019b. Coccyzus americanus range map. Unpublished material compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 178 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2019c. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD). Heritage Data Management System. Species abstracts, distribution maps, photographs and illustrations. Internet website: https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
AZHGIS (Arizona Heritage Geographic Information System). 2019. Arizona Game and Fish Department online environmental review tool. Internet website: http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis.
Baltosser, W.H., and P.E. Scott. 1996. Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.251.
Barlow, J.C., S.N. Leckie, and C.T. Baril. 1999. Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.447.
BISON-M (Biota Information System of New Mexico). 2019. BISON-M home page. Internet website: http://www.bison-m.org.
Blasius. H. 2019a. Fish monitoring data within the Gila Box Riparian NCA. Unpublished data.
_____. 2019b. Lowland leopard frog occurrence records within Gila River on BLM lands. Personal communication, Bureau of Land Management, Safford Field Office, biologist, telephone communication with Eleanor Gladding, SWCA Environmental Consultants. August.
Bleho, B., K. Ellison, D.P. Hill, and L.K. Gould. 2015. Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by P.G. Rodewald. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.288.
BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2017. Updated Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species List for Arizona. Internet website: https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/11852.
_____. 2018. Revision to the New Mexico Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Sensitive Animal and Plant Lists: Animals. Internet website: https://www.blm.gov/download/file/fid/28494.
_____. 2019a. Las Cruces District Office Spatial Data and Metadata. Internet website: https://www.nm.blm.gov/shapeFiles/lcdo/las_cruces_spatial.html.
_____. 2019b. Personal communication. BLM Safford Field Office to Sean Heath, Reclamation. BLM comment matrix responses to PDEIS v. 2 dated June 14, 2019, submitted via email to Sean Heath.
Bowman, R. 2002. Common Ground-Dove (Columbina passerina), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.645.
Brennan, T.C. 2008. Reptiles and Amphibians of Arizona. Internet website: http://www.reptilesofaz.org/.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.506.
Cartron, J-L.E. (ed.). 2010. Raptors of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 179 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Cary, J.S., and L.S. DeLay. 2016. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in New Mexico and a Proposed Framework for its Conservation. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Natural Resources Institute. Internet website: https://dk-media.s3.amazonaws.com/AA/AI/nri-nm- org/downloads/305724/STATUS_OF_DANAUS_PLEXIPPUS_IN_New_Mexico_20160501_fi nal_final.pdf.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2014. Updated Principles, Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies, Executive Office of the President, Washington DC. Internet website: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/PandG.
Davis, S.K., M.B. Robbins, and B.C. Dale. 2014. Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.439.
Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60–76.
eBird. 2019. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://ebird.org/home.
Edwards, H.H., and G.D. Schnell. 2000. Gila Woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.532.
England, A.S., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1993. Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.71.
ESRI. 2013. World Imagery Basemap. DigitalGlobe imagery; 0.3m resolution in continental United States. Internet website: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=50c23e4987a44de4ab163e1baeab4a46.
Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. Internet website: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1802/ML18026B252.pdf.
Ferguson, B., and M. Ruhl. 2019. Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Native Fish Conservation Efforts 2018. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Annual Report for Cooperative Agreement No. 15AC00046. Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office. Phoenix: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Fisheries Management Division
Findley, J. S. 1987. The Natural History of New Mexican Mammals. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Folk, R.A., and P.J. Alexander. 2015. Two new species, Heuchera soltisii and H. inconstans, with further taxonomic notes for the Western Group of Heuchera Section Heuchara (Saxifragaceae). Systematic Botany 40(2):489–500.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 180 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Global Invasive Species Database. 2019. Lithobates catesbeianus (=Rana catesbeiana) (amphibian). Internet website: http://issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=80&fr=1&sts=sss&lang=EN.
Gori, D., M.S. Cooper, E.S. Soles, M. Stone, R. Morrison, T.F. Turner, D.L. Propst, G. Garfin, M. Switanek, H. Chang, S. Bassett, J. Haney, D. Lyons, M. Horner, C.N. Dahm, J.K. Frey, K. Kindscher, H.A. Walker, and M.T. Bogan. 2014. Gila River Flow Needs Assessment. The Nature Conservancy.
Griffin, D. 2016. Identifying Key Hatibat Features for Managing Breeding Southwestern Willow Flycacthers; Annual Summary Report of Surveys Conducted for Southwestern Willow Flycatchers, with Reports on Yellow-Billed Cuckoos, in Arizona and New Mexico, 2016. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Gruhala, J. 2018. Email communication, James Gruhala, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with Bill Stewart and Carol Evans, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, February 20, 2018.
Hathaway, D.L., G. Barth, and K. Kirsch. 2016. Evaluating Flow Diversion Alteration and Groundwater Model Analysis. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1311: 1326.
HDR. 2014. Gila River Fish Habitat Study – Final Report. Report submitted to New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
_____. 2019a. New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Surface Water Resources Technical Memorandum.
_____. 2019b. New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Fluvial Geomorphology Water Resources Technical Memorandum.
_____. 2019c. New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Groundwater Resources Technical Memorandum.
_____. 2019d. New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Water Quality Technical Memorandum.
HerpNET. 2014. Data portal. Internet website: http://www.herpnet.org/portal.html.
Hickerson, B.T. 2019. Email communication, Brian Hickerson, Gila River Basin Native Fish Conservation Program, with Bill Stewart, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, June 14, 2019.
Hickerson, B.T., and A.T. Robinson. 2019. Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program: Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Native Fish Conservation Efforts during 2018. Arizona Game and Fish Department Annual Report for Cooperative Agreement No. R16AC00077. Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Aquatic Wildlife Branch.
Horner, M., and C.N. Dahm. 2014. Chapter 2 – Ecohydrology and Recent Climatology of the Gila River. In Gila River Flow Needs Assessment, edited by D. Gori et al. The Nature Conservancy.
Howery, L.D. (ed.). 2016. Non-Native Invasive Plants of Arizona. Conservation Districts and RC & D Areas of Arizona, and the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.
iNaturalist. 2019. Observations. Internet website: https://www.inaturalist.org/.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 181 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Intera. 2014. Reach Flow Estimation to Support Riparian Vegetation Assessment in the Upper Gila River, Grant County, New Mexico. April 8, 2014.
ISC (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission). 2017. Southwest New Mexico Regional Water Plan. Santa Fe: State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer. Internet website: https://www.ose.state.nm.us/Planning/documents/Reg4_SouthwestNewMexicoRegionalWaterPl an2017_March2017.pdf.
_____. 2000. Status of Irrigation Diversion and Diversion Measurements in the Gila River, San Francisco River and San Simon Creek Basins in New Mexico. Internal memorandum by John Whipple, Staff Engineer for the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, October 2000.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2017a. Toxostoma bendirei (amended version of 2016 assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22711108A110276662. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-1.RLTS.T22711108A110276662.en.
_____. 2017b. Erpetogomphus heterodon. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T59727A80694574. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017- 3.RLTS.T59727A80694574.en.
Jennings, R.D. 1987. The Status of Rana berlandieri, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog, and Rana yavapaiensis, the Lowland Leopard Frog, in New Mexico. Final Report. Santa Fe: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
Jennings, R.D., and B.L. Christman. 2016. Population status of narrow-headed gartersnakes (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) in the Gila National Forest, Catron County New Mexico 2016. Unpublished report submitted to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.
Kindscher, K. 2014. Chapter 8 – Riparian Vegetation of the Upper Gila River and Southwestern Streams. In Gila River Flow Needs Assessment, edited by D. Gori et al. The Nature Conservancy.
Kochert, M.N., K. Steenhof, C.L. McIntyre, and E.H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.684.
Kus, B., S.L. Hopp, R.R. Johnson, and B.T. Brown. 2010. Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.35.
Marshall, B.L. 2017. 2017 Annual Fisheries Survey of the Upper Gila River and Mangas Creek, Grant County, New Mexico. Survey report for Freeport-McMoRan Corporation, Pacific Western Land Company. Flagstaff, Arizona: BIOME Ecological & Wildlife Research.
Mathews, R., and B.D. Richter. 2007. Application of the indicators of hydrologic alteration software in environmental flow setting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association November 2007.
MEI (Mussetter Engineering). 2006. Geomorphology of the Upper Gila River within the State of New Mexico. Prepared for New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Internet website: http://www.ansac.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/09242014/130%20- Geomorphology%20of%20the%20Upper%20Gila%20River%20Within%20the%20State%20of %20New%20Mexico.pdf.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 182 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Molles, M.C., and K. Nislow. n.d. The Relation of Morphology to Swimming Performance by the Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cogitis), and the Speckled Dace (Rhinichtyhys osculus). Unpublished report to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
Morris, G.M., C. Kline, and S.M. Morris. 2015. Status of Danaus plexippus population in Arizona. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 69(2): 91–107. Internet website: https://swmonarchs.org/images/2015-69-2-091.pdf.
National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 2014. Western Yellow- billed Cuckoo – Species Fact Sheet. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/YellowBilledCuckoo/WYB C-factsheet-southwestlearning.pdf.
The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. User’s Manual, Ver. 7.1.
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org/.
New Mexico Avian Conservation Partners. 2017. Bell’s vireo. Internet website: http://avianconservationpartners-nm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Bells-Vireo.pdf.
New Mexico Department of Agriculture. 2016. New Mexico Noxious Weed List Update, Memorandum from Director/Secretary Jeff Witte. October 19, 2016. Internet website: http://www.nmda.nmsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Weed-List-memo-and-weed-list- 2016.pdf.
New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department. 2019. The New Mexico Endangered Plant Program. Internet website: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/SFD/ForestMgt/Endangered.html.
New Mexico Environment Department. 2018. 2018 – 2020 State of New Mexico Clean Water Act Section 202(d)/Section 305 (b) Integrated Report, Appendix A 303(d)305(b) List. Internet website: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Appendix-A-Integrated-List.pdf.
New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 1999. New Mexico Rare Plants. Internet website: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu. Latest update: 12 February 2019.
NMDGF (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish). 2016. State Wildlife Action Plan for New Mexico. Santa Fe: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
_____. 2018a. 2018 Biennial Review of Threatened and Endangered Species of New Mexico. Internet website: http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/conservation/threatened-endangered- species/biennial-reviews/2018-Biennial-Review.pdf.
_____. 2018b. Private and Land Wildlife Habitat Conservation Program and Conservation and Recovery of New Mexico Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Species – Interim Performance Report October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018.
_____. 2018c. Gila Fall Monitoring Data. Microsoft Excel file.
NoiseQuest. 2011. How does noise affect domestic animals and wildlife? Internet website: https://www.noisequest.psu.edu/noiseeffects-animals.html. Accessed May 2019.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 183 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Olson, C.R., and T.E. Martin. 1999. Virginia's Warbler (Oreothlypis virginiae), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.477.
Painter, C.W., J.N. Stuart, J.T. Giermakowski, and L.L. Pierce. 2017. Checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico, USA, with notes on taxonomy, status, and distribution. Western Wildlife 4:29–60.
Paroz, Y., J. Monzingo, and D. Probst. 2010. Ichthylofaunal Inventory of the East, Middle, and West Forks Gila River. Gila River Basin Native Fishes Conservation Program Report No. 1. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and Gila National Forest.
Pater, L.L., T.T. Grub, and D.K. Delaney. 2009. Recommendations for Improved Assessment of Noise Impacts on Wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5): 788–795. Internet website: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2009_pater_l001.pdf.
Pierce, L. 2019. Email communication, Leland Pierce, to Matt McMillan, Biologist, SWCA Environmental Consultants, regarding the lowland leopard frog, March 8, 2019.
Platz, J.E., and J.S. Frost. 1984. Rana yavapaiensis, a new species of leopard frog (Rana pipiens complex). Copeia 1984: 940–948. Internet website: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1445338.
Powers, D.R., and S.M. Wethington. 1999. Broad-billed Hummingbird (Cynanthus latirostris), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.430.
Propst, D.L., J.A. Stefferud, and P.R. Turner. 1992. Conservation and Status of Gila Trout, Oncorhynchus gilae. The Southwestern Naturalist 37(2): 117–125.
Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2007. Rock Ramp Design Guidelines , U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, Denver. Internet website: https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/RockRampDesignGuidelines_09- 2007_508.
Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) and ISC (New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. 2019. New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Phoenix Arizona.
Rinne, J.N. 1994. Declining southwestern aquatic habitats: Are they sustainable? In Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management, edited by W.W. Covington and L.F. Debano, pp. 256–265. General Technical Report RM-247. Flagstaff, Arizona: USDA Forest Service.
Ritter, G. 2019. Chiricahua leopard frog occurrence records within Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish, Project Evaluation Program Supervisor. Email communication to Eleanor Gladding, SWCA Environmental Consultants. September.
RiversEdge West. 2018. 2007-2018 Distribution of Tamarisk Beetle Map. Internet website: https://riversedgewest.org/sites/default/files/resource-center- documents/2018_Yearly_Distribution_Map_0.pdf.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 184 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Rood, S.B., D.J. Ball, K.M. Gill, S. Kaluthota, M.G. Letts, and D.W. Pierce. 2013. Hydrologic linkages between a climate oscillation, river flows, growth, and wood discrimination of Carbon 13 of male and female cottonwood trees. Plant, Cell, & Environment 36: 984–993.
Rood, S.B., L.A. Goater, J.M. Mahoney, C.M. Pearce, and D.G. Smith. 2007. Floods, fire, and ice: disturbance ecology of riparian cottonwoods. Canadian Journal of Botany 85: 1019–1032.
Rosen, P.C., and C.R. Schwalbe. 1995. Bullfrogs: Introduced Predators in Southwestern Wetlands. In Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals and Ecosystems. Internet website: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/96648.
Ryan, M.J., I.M. Latella, J.T. Giermakowski, and H.L. Snell. 2015. 2015 Final Report: Status of the Arizona Toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus) in New Mexico. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.25844/PRK4-NR28.
Sadlowski, M.C. 2011. The effects of noise on wildlife. Internet website: http://www.windaction.org/posts/38246-the-effects-of-noise-on-wildlife#.XZ6pAUZKiUm.
Schnell, J.H. 1994. Common Black Hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.122.
SEINet. 2019. Symbiota: Arizona – New Mexico chapter. Internet website: http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/collections/list.php.
Shook, R. 2017. The Gila River Bird Habitat Management Unit – An Analysis of Avian Populations Mid- May 1996 Through August 2016. Internet website: http://bison- m.org/documents/49144_Shook_2016_GilaRiverBirdHabitatManagementUnit.pdf.
_____. 2018a. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) survey results: U Bar Ranch, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service; Cliff-Gila Valley, New Mexico – 2018. Unpublished report to Freeport-McMoRan Tyrone Inc., The Nature Conservancy, and the Gila National Forest, 128 pp.
_____. 2018b. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 2018 survey results: U Bar Ranch, TNC- USFS, Middle Gila Valley, NM. Unpublished Report to The Nature Conservancy and the Gila National Forest, Silver City. 88 pp.
Sivinski, R.C., and P. Tonne. 2011. Survey and Assessment of Arid Land Spring Cienegas in the Southwest Region. ESA Section 6 Report: New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. Internet website: https://floraneomexicana.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/sw_cienega_survey.pdf.
Snow, N.P., and G. Witmer. 2010. American Bullfrogs as Invasive Species; A Review of the Introduction, Subsequent Problems, Management Options, a Future Directions. In Proceedings of the 24th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis, pp. 86–89. Internet website: https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/49725/PDF.
Sogge, M.K., D. Ahlers, and S.J. Sferra. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 185 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
Soles, E.S., and M.S. Cooper. 2014. Chapter 7 – Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions in the Cliff- Gila Valley, NM. In Gila River Flow Needs Assessment, edited by D. Gori et al. The Nature Conservancy.
Southerland, M. 1993. Habitat Evaluation: Guidance for the Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Documents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Internet site: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/habitat-evaluation-pg.pdf.
Southwest Monarch Study, Inc. 2019. Southwest Monarch Study. Internet website: https://www.swmonarchs.org/.
Sredl, M.J., J.M. Howland, J.E. Wallace, and L.S. Saylor. 1997. Status and distribution of Arizona's native ranid frogs. In Ranid Frog Conservation and Management, edited by M.J. Sredl, pp. 45– 101. Technical Report 121. Arizona Game and Fish Department.
SSPA (S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc.). 2013. Indicators of Hydrological Alteration as a Tool in Ecohydrologic Assessment and Application to the Gila River Near-River Groundwater Zone. Technical Memorandum prepared for New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.
_____. 2014. Analysis of Flow and Water Use Alternatives on Hydrologic Conditions in the Riparian Corridor of the Gila-Cliff Basin. Prepared for New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission.
Stahlecker, D.W. 2009. Status of Breeding Bald Eagles in New Mexico: 2009. Prepared for New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. Contract number 09-156-0000-0031. Internet website: http://bison-m.org/documents/145_SwW10ApN-Stahlecker_BaldEagles.pdf.
Stahr, K, 2019. Arizona Game and Fish Department unpublished data.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Stone, M., and J. Samson. 2014. Gila Wetlands Study: Final Report. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Stromberg, J.C., and B. Tellman. 2012. Ecology and Conservation of the San Pedro River. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
SWCA (SWCA Environmental Consultants). 2014. Arizona Water Settlements Act Proposed Water Impoundment Canyon Survey Report. Prepared for New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.
_____. 2018. Methods of Analysis Study Plan. Prepared for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.
_____. 2019a. General Biological Survey Report for the New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project / SWCA Project No. 37532. Technical memorandum submitted to Sean Heath, Manager, Environmental Division of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, May 13, 2019. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 186 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2019b. Aquatic Delineation Report for the New Mexico Unit EIS Project, Catron, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties, New Mexico. Technical memorandum submitted to Sean Heath, Manager, Environmental Division of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, June 6, 2019. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.
_____. 2019c. Fisheries Survey Report for the New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project / SWCA Project No. 37532. Technical memorandum submitted to Sean Heath, Manager, Environmental Division of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, May 13, 2019. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.
_____. 2019d. Herpetological Survey Report for the New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project / SWCA Project No. 37532. Technical memorandum submitted to Sean Heath, Manager, Environmental Division of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, May 13, 2019. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.
SWReGAP (Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project). 2005. Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods. Authors: Lowry, J. H, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, et al. Logan: RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University.
Tonn, S. 2019. Additional information regarding special-status wildlife species occurrence records within Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Heritage Data Management System Program Coordinator, email communication to Eleanor Gladding, SWCA Environmental Consultants. June.
Turner, T.F., and D.L. Propst. 2014. Effects of Altered Flow Regimes and Habitat Fragmentation on Gila River Fishes. In Gila River Flow Needs Assessment, edited by D. Gori et al. The Nature Conservancy.
Tweit, R.C., and D.M. Finch. 1994. Abert's Towhee (Melozone aberti), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.111.
USFS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 1980. A Digital Systematic Classification for Ecosystems with an Illustrated Summary of the Natural Vegetation of North America. Authors: Brown, D.E., C.H. Lowe, and C.P. Pase. General Technical Report RM-73.
_____. 2013a. R3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List: Plants. Internet website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3806395.pdf.
_____. 2013b. R3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List: Animals. Internet website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3806393.pdf.
_____. 2018. USFS GIS data for Gila National Forest, including land administration, recreation points, and wild and scenic rivers. Internet website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/landmanagement/gis/?cid=stelprdb5203027.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995a. Fishery survey of the Gila River within the Gila Wilderness Area, Gila National Forest, New Mexico, June and August 1994. New Mexico Ecological Services State Office.
_____. 1995b. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/RecoveryPlans/MexicanSpottedOwl.pdf.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 187 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; withdrawal of proposed rule to list the plant Puccinellia parishii (Parish’s alkali grass) as endangered. Federal Register 63:51329–51332.
_____. 2002. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain- Prairie Region (6). Internet website: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/RazorbackSucker_2002_Plan.pdf.
_____. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. Authors: Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffield, and T.S. Zimmerman. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/migbirds/species/birds/wbo/Western%20Burrowing%20Owlrev73003a.pdf.
_____. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Federal Register 69:53182–53298. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/MSO/FR_MSO_CH_8_31_ 04.pdf.
_____. 2005. Nest Substrate Use by Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Authors: K.M. Brodhead and D.M. Finch. Albuquerque, New Mexico: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program.
_____. 2006a. Chiricahua leopard frog recovery map. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/images/SpeciesImages/CLF_Recovery/Figure%206% 20Dec%205%2006.jpg.
_____. 2006b. Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) General Species Information. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Gila%20Trout%20RB.pdf.
_____. 2006c. Arizona Statewide Conservation Agreement for Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta), Headwater Chub (Gila Nigra), Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus Latipinnis), Little Colorado River Sucker (Catostomus Spp.), Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus Discobolus), and Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus Discobolus Yarrowi). Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/HeadwaterChub/SCA%20A greement%2020061220%20final.pdf.
_____. 2008a. Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis) General Species Information. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Gila%20Topminnow%20RB.pd f.
_____. 2008b. Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) General Species Information. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Mexican%20Gray%20Wolf%2 0RB.pdf.
_____. 2008c. Lesser long-nosed bat habitat map. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Redbook%20Maps/lesser_long _nosed_bat.pdf.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 188 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 Species in the Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat. Federal Register 74:66866–66905. Internet website: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-12-16/pdf/E9-29699.pdf.
_____. 2011. The Effects of Noise on Wildlife. Author: Sadlowski, M.C. Internet website: http://www.windaction.org/posts/38246-the-effects-of-noise-on-wildlife#.XED49FxKgdU.
_____. 2012a. Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) General Species Information. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Chiricahua%20Leopard%20Fro g%20RB.pdf.
_____. 2012b. Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) General Species Information. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Loach_Minnow_RB.pdf.
_____. 2012c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status and designations of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow, final rule. Federal Register 77:10810–10932. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/SD_LM/2012_FR_SD- LM_fCHandUplisting.pdf.
_____. 2012d. Spikedace (Meda fulgida) General Species Information. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Spikedace_RB.pdf.
_____. 2012e. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the Gila mayfly as Endangered. Internet website: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-07- 26/pdf/2012-18200.pdf#page=1.
_____. 2012f. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl, First Revision (Strix occidentalis lucida). Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Team. Original approval date: October 16, 1995. Final approval date: November 2012. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/MSO/2012MSO_Recovery _Plan_First_Revision_Final.pdf.
_____. 2012g. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register 77:16324-16424. Internet website: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-03-20/pdf/2012-5953.pdf.
_____. 2013a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher, final rule. Federal Register 78:343–534.
_____. 2013b. Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/MSO/MexicanSpottedOwl_ 5-yrReview_Aug2013.pdf.
_____. 2013c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake; Proposed Rule. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/N- H_Gartersnake/2GSnakes_pCH_(78%20FR%2041550)_7-10-13.pdf.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 189 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-Headed Gartersnake; Final Rule. Federal Register 79:38678– 38746. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/N- H_Gartersnake/2GS_fL_rule_79FR38677_(07-08-14).pdf.
_____. 2014b. Gila Chub (Gila intermedia) Draft Recovery Plan. Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/GilaChub/GilaChub_DraftR ecoveryPlan_Final_October2014.pdf.
_____. 2014c. Appendix A. Current population status of northern Mexican and narrow-headed gartersnakes in the United States. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/N- H_Gartersnake/2GS_Appendix_A_v5(Final).pdf.
_____. 2015a. Species Status Assessment Report for the Headwater Chub and the Lower Colorado River Distinct Population Segment of Roundtail Chub. Version 1.0, September 2015. Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/HeadwaterChub/RTC%20H WC%20SSA%20Report%209-28-15%20to%20regs.pdf.
_____. 2015b. Mexican Wolf Recovery Program: Progress Report # 18. Reporting Period: January 1 – December 31, 2015.
_____. 2016a. Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Authors: Halterman, M., M.J. Johnson, J.A. Holmes, and S.A. Laymon. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/YellowBilledCuckoo/YBC U%20Survey%20Protocol_%20DRAFT_2016.pdf.
_____. 2016b. Species Status Assessment for the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/LLNB/Lesser%20Long- Nosed%20Bat.Final%20SSA.12_16_16.pdf.
_____. 2017a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Chub and Roundtail Chub Distinct Population Segment. Federal Register 82(66):16981–16988. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/HeadwaterChub/FR%20Ap ril%207%202017%20Withdrawal.pdf.
_____. 2017b. Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan – First Revision. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region (Region 2). November.
_____. 2018. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat. From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register 83(75): 17093– 17110. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/HeadwaterChub/FR%20Ap ril%207%202017%20Withdrawal.pdf.
_____. 2019a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Internet website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 190 Chapter 6. Literature Cited
_____. 2019b. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed May 2019.
_____. 2019c. Mexican Wolf Recovery. Internet website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/.
_____. 2019d. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Internet website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.
USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey). 2018. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Internet website: http://nhd.usgs.gov/.
VertNet. 2018. Data obtained from the National Science Foundation funded VertNet.org Collections Search Portal. November 28, 2018. Internet website: http://www.vertnet.org/index.html.
Ward, D.L., A.A. Schultz, and P.G. Matson. Differences in swimming ability and behavior in response to high water velocities among native and nonnative fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68.1 (2003):87–92.
Webb, E.A., and C.E. Bock. 2012. Botteri's Sparrow (Peucaea botterii), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.216.
White, C.M., N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America, edited by A.F. Poole and F.B. Gill. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Internet website: https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.660.
Whitney, J.E., K.B. Gido, T.J. Pilger, D.L. Propst, and T.F. Turner. 2015. Metapopulation analysis indicates native and non-native fishes respond differently to effects of wildfire on desert streams. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 25(3).
Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Purple Martin (Progne subis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Forest Service. Internet website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182038.pdf.
Williams, K., R. Miles, D. Stokes, and L. Stokes. 2002. Stokes Beginner’s Guide to Bats. Little, Brown and Company.
December 2019 New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona Project 191