Aquatic and Riparian Habitats: Rio Grande
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aquatic and Riparian Habitats Conservation Priority Areas 1 - 12 Conservation Assessment for the Big Bend-Río Bravo Region 19 Monumento del Río Bravo (left)/ Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River (right) Photo:20 Jeffery BennettCommission for Environmental Cooperation Priority Conservation Area 1 Rio Grande – Río Bravo River Corridor Authors: Jeffery Bennett, Mark Briggs, and Samuel Sandoval Solís Rio Grande River Corridor. Photo: Matthew Humke The Rio Grande corridor between Redford, Texas, and Mexican stoneroller. Amistad Reservoir is one of the most remote stream Photo: Kevin Conway segments in North America and one of the least studied. The northern branch of the Rio Grande upstream of the confluence with the Río Conchos drains the southern flooded. On the environmental side, focus is on maintain- Rocky Mountains in Colorado and New Mexico and ing an ecology that supports a full complement of native much of the western half of New Mexico. Water diver- species (see Conservation Targets list) that are dependent sions for irrigation and municipal use consume most of on a suite of habitat features, including high water quality its flow. The southern branch, the Río Conchos, drains and habitat diversity. The current state of knowledge sug- the Sierra Madre Occidental in Chihuahua, Mexico, and gests that this is best achieved by maintaining a wander- provides up to 75 percent of the flow downstream of Pre- ing, laterally unstable river channel that is wide and shal- sidio, Texas, and Ojinaga, Chihuahua. Dams and diver- low and includes multi-threaded segments, and where sions throughout the basin, in addition to the long-term water, sediment and nutrients are actively exchanged regional drought, have put extreme pressure on the Rio between floodplain and channel habitats. Grande’s aquatic ecology. Fortunately, the Rio Grande receives considerable groundwater inputs downstream of Mariscal Canyon, positively affecting the ecology and Conservation targets water quality in this reach; ecologic conditions above Mariscal Canyon are declining, possibly due to poor Conservation targets identified in this area include water quality and the lack of local groundwater inputs vertebrate species such as blue sucker (Cycleptus elon- (Basin and Bay Expert Science Team 2012). gatus), Rio Grande darter (Etheostoma grahami), Rio The Upper Rio Grande Basin and Bay Expert Science Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus), speck- Teams (BBEST), comprised of federal and state agencies, led chub (Macrhybopsis aestivalis), Mexican redhorse universities and regional nongovernmental organiza- (Moxostoma austrinum), Tamaulipas shiner (Notropis tions, defines a sound ecological environment as one that braytoni), Rio Grande shiner (Notropis jemezanus), sustains the full complement of the current suite of native longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), and Big Bend species in perpetuity, supports the reintroduction of slider (Trachemys gaigeae). Targets also include mus- extirpated species, sustains key habitat features required sels such as Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii), Salina by these species, retains key features of the natural flow mucket (Potamilus metnecktayi), and Tampico pearly- regime required by these species to complete their life mussel (Cyrtonaias tampicoensis). In addition, an cycles, and sustains key ecosystem processes and services. important river feature identified as conservation target The team classified the Lower Canyons as a Sound Eco- is the multi-threaded nature of the river channel. logical Environment (SEE) based largely on improved water quality, quantity, and environmental conditions provided by the springs. These conditions have allowed Threats certain species, such as mussels (NPS survey), and algal ! communities to persist (Porter and Longley 2011). The threats to the aquatic natural resources of the river Conservation goals along this reach include enhanc- corridor include channel narrowing and sediment accu- ing socio-economic conditions of riverside towns and mulation (Dean and Schmidt 2011; Dean et al. 2011), improving habitat for native wildlife. On the socio-eco- deteriorating aquatic habitat, invasive and exotic species nomic side, the focus is on potable water quality and (Everitt 1998), increasing mercury concentrations in fish reducing the frequency at which riverside towns are (Heard et al. 2012), continued water-quality deterioration Conservation Assessment for the Big Bend-Río Bravo Region 21 (Sandoval-Solis et al. 2010; Bennett et al. 2012), ground- corridor raises concerns regarding the persistence of water extraction (Donnelly 2007), and climate change base flow as we look to a future that may be significantly (Ingol-Blanco 2011). Large-scale regional water man- warmer, and which appears to have a favorable affect on agement and the invasion of non-native riparian spe- sediment evacuation and water quality. cies have changed stream flow, sediment dynamics, and near-channel vegetation cover (Everitt 1998; Schmidt et Partnerships and al. 2003; Dean and Schmidt 2011). As a result, a once socioeconomic factors wide and shallow channel is now filled with sediment and has become narrow and deep. Non-native riparian Land ownership and natural resource management plants provide a feedback mechanism for channel sedi- along the corridor are complex owing to the river’s ment retention, negatively affecting the aquatic habitat binational nature and the variety of agency and private and riverside communities by covering up and eliminat- land ownership. On the US side of the river, national ing backwaters and side channels, diminishing channel and state parks and private owners manage the land. conveyance capacity, and increasing flooding frequency Similarly, on the Mexican side, the land is managed by (Hubbs et al. 2008; Dean and Schmidt 2011). three federal protected areas, a national monument, pri- Threats to the river corridor’s riparian natural vate owners, and ejidos. resources include exotic and invasive riparian plants Ongoing conservation efforts in this binational area and animals. Non-native giant river cane (Arundo include: 1) control of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and giant donax) and saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) occupy much river cane (Arundo donax); 2) hydrologic investiga- of the riparian zone, displacing native willows (Salix tions; 3) monitoring near-channel vegetation and chan- spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), and other ripar- nel morphologic conditions; 4) analyses of sediment ian plants. Non-native feral livestock are negatively dynamics of the present flow regime; and 5) reintroduc- impacting natural resources. Feral pigs (Sus scrofa), tion of the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus burros (Equus africanus asinus), horses (Equus ferus amarus) in the United States. caballus), and cows (Bos spp.) are all found in the river corridor. Trails leading from riverside vegas, or fertile Research and flood plains, onto fragile desert soils, manure, and dis- monitoring needs turbance to springs all commonly occur throughout the river corridor. Q Continue to develop a scientific understanding of The Rio Grande corridor is deemed to have a ‘high’ the relationship between flow regime, sediment risk status due to the deterioration of hydroecologic dynamics, and water quality. conditions and associated declines in native aquatic and Q Identify and map key springs to understand their riparian species along upper segment of this reach. The source. integrity of the reach as a whole is ‘medium’, however, Q Develop a scientific understanding of the role because natural processes along the lower reach still riparian vegetation management can play in support a high diversity of native aquatic species. In the sediment dynamics. context of scoring this reach, the river remains largely Q Develop ecological monitoring protocols that can intact within the lower reach. determine trends in ecological change associated It is important to note that the Rio Grande corridor with channel narrowing. can be divided into two distinct segments characterized Q Investigate the fate and transport of herbicides used by differences in base flow, sediment movement, and in riparian vegetation management. water quality: (i) Redford to Mariscal Canyon (charac- Q Develop a binational monitoring program for the terized by reduced base flow and water quality issues); saltcedar biological control agent, saltcedar leaf and (ii) Mariscal Canyon to lower segment (with can- beetle (Diorhabda sublineata). yons), where base flow is augmented considerably by Q Assess flow-dependent habitat-use relationships spring input (see Lower Canyons Springs section). If for key aquatic species and map their extent and considered separately, risk and integrity evaluations for distribution. the upper and lower segments would probably produce Q Study the distribution of mussel and fish habitat distinctly different results. For example, as compared and populations. to the lower segment, the lack of significant groundwa- Q Quantify the benefits that ecosystem services ter input along the upper segment of the Rio Grande provide to riverside communities. 22 Commission for Environmental Cooperation Q Develop an index of biotic integrity for the area. Recommendations Q Maintain native aquatic fauna; increase the distribution of native mussel species and beavers Q Establish a binational team to investigate trends (Castor canadensis). and trajectories of ecological health within the Rio Q Establish a sustainable population of Rio Grande Grande, and to develop an Adaptive Management