Environmental Assessment for The Rio Mora 5-Year Action Plan

Restoration and Management of Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge

July 2019

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge Route 1, Box 399 Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701 505-425-8510 Table of Contents

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES...... 4 2.1 Alternative A – Current Management Activities – No Action Alternative ...... 4 Inventory, Monitoring and Research...... 5 Restoration Efforts ...... 5 Wildlife-dependent Recreation ...... 6 2.2 Alternative B – Implementation of the 5-Year Action Plan – [Proposed Action Alternative] ...... 6 Inventory, Monitoring and Research...... 7 Restoration Efforts ...... 7 Wildlife-dependent recreation ...... 11 2.3 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration ...... 13

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...... 13

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 14 Wildlife Species ...... 15 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species ...... 16 Vegetation ...... 18 Geology and Soils ...... 20 Water Quality, Quantity and Hydrology ...... 22 Climate Change/Air Quality ...... 23 Educational/Recreational Opportunities ...... 26 Visual Resources...... 28 Cultural Resources ...... 29 Local and Regional Economies ...... 31 Environmental Justice ...... 32 Indian Trust Resources...... 32 Monitoring...... 33 Summary of Analysis: ...... 34

5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION ...... 35

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan i

Table of Figures Figure 1. A topographical map of the Rio Mora NWR and Conservation Area ...... 2 Figure 2. Roads on Rio Mora NWR...... 8 Figure 3. Location of proposed nature trail on Rio Mora NWR...... 12

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan ii

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.

1.0 PROPOSED ACTION

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to implement a 5-year Action Plan for the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge (Rio Mora NWR or refuge) in Mora County, New Mexico. The Action Plan would include projects needed to continue ongoing management, restoration and research activities on the refuge over the next five years.

A proposed action is often iterative and may evolve during the NEPA process as the agency refines its proposal and gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The proposed action will be finalized at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA.

Background

National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

The refuge was established on September 27, 2012, when the 4,224-acre former Wind River Ranch was donated by E. V. Thaw Charitable Trust to the Service. The Rio Mora NWR is the 560th unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The refuge was established to protect, conserve, and enhance native species and natural processes. It was also instituted for wildlife-dependent uses when these uses are compatible and appropriate. The refuge goals are to continue the wildlife conservation and education mission of the former ranch. The refuge is the cornerstone of the Rio Mora Conservation Area (CA), a landscape level conservation effort that will utilize partnerships and cooperative management to achieve shared conservation goals. The NWRS is uniquely capable of providing stewardship for the ecologically significant riparian and grassland ecosystems within the refuge.

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to:

“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans”

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 1

. ~ ~ Rio Mora Conservation Area and NWR Mora, San Miguel. Cdfax countoes. New MellCO

D Rio Mora NWR c:J Mora RNer w•tershed Q Counties

IIACt\aONn-t:O'.tSIOWrlllO\Q:JI\NfiNl we smus Q.IIII01 ro ""° 10 20 ...... WC..rt..,.20-1 ,u.._._ ...... ,1120'211l 0 $ 10 20 - - - Figure 1. A topographical map of the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area

Prior to the establishment of the Rio Mora NWR, the 4,224 acres were owned by Eugene and Clare Thaw and managed by the Wind River Ranch Foundation (Foundation), a 501c3 non-profit organization. There is additional information about the history of Rio Mora NWR in the Land Protection Plan for the Proposed Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area and Environmental Assessment, which is incorporated by reference (USFWS 2012) and referred to as the LPP/EA.

The Foundation built partnerships with agencies, tribes, universities, local schools, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Denver Zoological Foundation (Denver Zoo). These partnerships are important today as the Service works to develop a management plan for Rio Mora NWR. Upon establishment of the refuge, Denver Zoo and the Service entered into a partnership outlined by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to continue operations begun by the Foundation on the refuge until 2015 and later amended in 2017. The MOU took effect in 2018. Refuge management activities are now being developed for the next five years, thus the creation of a 5-year action plan.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 2

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to identify and implement desired practices to be used during the next five years for habitat management, restoration, research, and public use activities that meet the purpose for which the refuge was established and to analyze the impacts of such management.

The primary goals of the refuge are to protect native species and natural processes, and facilitate research, outreach, interpretation, and environmental education. As well as to further conservation efforts and advance partnerships that work toward shared conservation goals within the Mora River watershed.

Actions outlined within this proposal are intended to: 1) protect and restore part of one of the great grassland landscapes of North America; 2) protect and restore riparian areas in the Mora River watershed; 3) reduce threats to native species from habitat fragmentation and degradation, altered ecological processes, invasive species, and impacts from global climate change; and 4) enhance existing partnerships to restore wildlife populations and productivity to degraded ecosystems.

In addition to the wildlife conservation benefits, the proposed action would offer a number of benefits for the public by: providing recreational and wildlife dependent opportunities; maintaining quality of life for the nearby communities; adding economic benefits to the local area; and demonstrating restoration techniques.

The purposes for establishment of the Rio Mora NWR and Conservation Area are:

“…for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude…for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...... ” 16 U.S.C. 742f (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

“…suitable for use…for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929);

“to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species” or (B) plants…” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973);

"…for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16 U.S.C. § 460k- 460k-4 (Refuge Recreation Act of 1962).

"... for conservation, management, and ... restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans..."

“Recognition that wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 3

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation… are legitimate and appropriate… and are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

The purpose of the EA is to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of the current and proposed management practices in meeting the purposes of the Rio Mora NWR and to analyze the impacts concerning the actions proposed within the 5-year Action Plan. Additionally, the purpose of the EA is to remain consistent with current law, regulation, and policy (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). As described above, the management of the refuge is aimed at preserving native species and ecological function, ecological restoration, conservation research that benefits management of flora and fauna of the refuge and across the broader landscape. Refuge management also focuses on environmental education, interpretation and outreach, promoting careers of future conservation biologists, and stimulating partnerships to achieve the above mentioned tasks.

There is a need to 1) inventory, monitor and research the flora and fauna on the refuge; 2) rehabilitate roads; 3) reduce erosion within arroyos, head-cuts and canyon wetlands; 4) restore riparian and wetland habitats; 6) remove non-native species; 7) reintroduce fire onto the landscape; 8) manage piñon/juniper grassland encroachment; 9) consider grazing; and 10) create public use opportunities. These actions fall into three broad categories of inventory and monitoring, restoration, and wildlife-dependent recreation, more information can be found in the attached 5-year Action Plan. There is a need to evaluate the impacts of the proposed actions in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of the refuge and current laws, regulations, and policies, and determine if the proposed actions incorporate the best management practices for meeting refuge wildlife management and public use objectives.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives are different approaches designed to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. NEPA requires federal agencies consider a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Based on the issues, concerns, and opportunities heard during the scoping process, the following alternatives were identified. Two management scenarios that could meet the purpose and need of the proposed action were identified and analyzed in detail in the EA; Alternative B is the proposed action. This alternative represents feasible approaches to accomplishing the refuge goals for habitat restoration, public use and research.

2.1 Alternative A – Current Management Activities – No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue. Currently, management activities on the refuge fall into three broad categories: 1) inventory, monitoring and research; 2) restoration efforts; and 3) education, interpretation, and outreach with local communities.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 4

Inventory, Monitoring and Research Currently, opportunistic and systematic surveys and control plots provide a baseline against which the refuge can measure the success of restoration for habitats and species that are threatened or highly interactive in driving ecosystem processes. The refuge continues to build on the Foundation’s work to partner with agencies, tribes, universities, local schools and NGOs, including the Denver Zoo to assist with these scientific efforts. All research proposals are evaluated according to criteria outlined in the Northern New Mexico NWR Complex Research Handbook (January 2014) and vetted by an established research committee. The four major criteria are: 1) compatibility with the Service’s establishing purposes for the refuge; 2) refuge research questions; 3) priority research outcomes; and 4) conservation impact and sound, applied science. Research is largely focused on identifying threats and management activities to restore ecosystem processes within the landscape. The research interests for the refuge can be found in the Current Management section of the 5-Year Action Plan in Appendix B

There are four graduate research projects with one to two participants per project. Since this research is for graduate school, it usually requires two field seasons. In addition, some of the desired research topics are assessments of land management techniques not yet implemented. New proposals are considered on a case-by-case basis, and if approved require a Special Use Permit (SUP).

Restoration Efforts Current/ongoing restoration efforts can be broadly grouped into three categories: 1) erosion control; 2) riparian and wetland habitats; and 3) grassland health. Detailed descriptions of the restoration efforts can be found in the 5-Year Action Plan in Appendix B.

Erosion Control To date, efforts to reduce erosion in arroyos, head-cuts and old stock tanks have been limited to construction of one-rock structures. The rock used for these structures are gathered from previously disturbed sites (primarily roadside tailings) within refuge boundaries. The Foundation built approximately 170 one-rock restoration structures in arroyos to slow water flow and reverse the effects of erosion before it became a refuge. Under this alternative, the refuge will continue to use rock rundowns in head-cuts to lessen the slope, and Zuni bowls that turns a waterfall into a series of cascades (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006) creating pools wildlife can use.

Riparian and Wetland Habitats Current riparian restoration actions have been limited to restocking (pole planting) of willows and cottonwoods. Willow poles are harvested on site during February and March. The cut poles, which are planted in groups of three to five stems, are planted along the open bank. Cottonwoods are pole-planted in late fall or early spring.

There is still a need to restore meander to portions of the river within the refuge. In addition, four ponds were created prior to refuge establishment. Current management does not include management of these ponds or the addition of other wetlands.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 5

Grassland Health Grasslands make up about 2,000 acres of the refuge. Current efforts to increase grassland health are ongoing. Some examples are construction of one-rock restoration structures for erosion control, non-native plant control and bison grazing. Grazing is currently administered through a SUP to the Pueblo of Pojoaque and in cooperation with Denver Zoo for a temporary period and will be evaluated during the development of a grazing plan in 2021. Current actions for non- native plants are limited to surveying and monitoring as well as minimal treatment by mechanical means such as the use of hand tools, pulling, mowing, or disking.

Wildlife-dependent Recreation

Under current management, we would continue to build upon our partnerships, engage in environmental education and interpretation, conservation education activities, and research. Public access to the refuge, however, would continue to be limited to special events and environmental education and interpretation programs. Public use management would be limited to organized staffed (either Denver Zoo or refuge personal) special events.

The refuge presently serves over 750 participants per year with onsite environmental and/or conservation education programs to include programs provided by Denver Zoo, universities, environmental organizations or refuge staff. If a program consists of multiply days, camping in the area of the refuge’s environmental building may be granted under a SUP. When an educational program is more of a conservation or environmental workshop and the students gather field data a SUP is needed. Approximately 10–15 SUPs are issued per year for these educational visits. Attendees are usually students from K–12 as well as pre and post graduates from colleges and universities, primarily from New Mexico and Colorado. In addition to the environmental education programs/workshops, the refuge hosts approximately up to five special events on the refuge per year. Emphasis for these events are to provide the public an opportunity to photograph and observe wildlife, hike in nature, and bird watch; these events are available to the public, restricted to a designated site/route, organized and staffed by refuge or Denver Zoo personnel. The public’s opportunity to participate in these special events is limited by an event’s logistics and focus/objective, an individual’s personal interest, weather, etc. Participation by the public in the special events does not exceed 240 annually and the attendees are primarily local residents.

2.2 Alternative B – Implementation of the 5-Year Action Plan – [Proposed Action Alternative]

Actions outlined within this proposal are intended to 1) protect and restore part of one of the great grassland landscapes of North America; 2) protect and restore riparian areas in the Mora River watershed; 3) reduce threats to native species from habitat fragmentation and degradation, altered ecological processes, invasive species, and impacts from global climate change; and 4) build on existing partnerships to restore wildlife populations and productivity to degraded ecosystems.

The purpose of the proposed action is to continue habitat management, restoration, research, and provide public use activities that meet the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 6

Inventory, Monitoring and Research

Ongoing inventory, research and monitoring would be implemented as described in Alternative A. Any new proposals would be evaluated in accordance with the research handbook priorities.

The proposed action includes the priority inventory, monitoring and research of mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, aquatic terrestrial invertebrates, and vegetation. Particularly, we would need further research on piñon/juniper encroachment control, woodland health, and the effects of fire and grazing on the landscape. The precise methodology of inventory and monitoring would be identified in an Inventory and Monitoring Plan, which we expect would be completed in the winter of 2022.

Restoration Efforts

As with Alternative A, refuge restoration can be broadly categorized into three types: 1) erosion control; 2) riparian and wetland habitats; and 3) grassland health. Detailed descriptions of the potential restoration efforts can be found in the 5-Year Action Plan in Appendix B.

Erosion Control

Ongoing erosion control efforts would continue. In addition, refuge roads, wagon ruts, arroyos, berms and stock ponds would be rehabilitated in accordance to the methodologies stated in the 5- Year Action Plan. The proposed action would be to continue and expand these erosion control efforts into all five canyons of the refuge. On one refuge road, 17 rolling dips would replace the 17 existing culverts. The refuge has 6.9 miles of traversable roads and 4.9 miles of two track roads (figure 2).

There are approximately four (maybe more) abandoned roads (wagon ruts) running parallel to NM State Highway 161 that are eroding severely; however, they may have historical significance. Refuge staff consulted with the National Park Service and though these roads/ruts segments are not officially part of the designated Santa Fe National Historic Trail alignment, they most likely had a close association with the Santa Fe Trail traffic during the 19th century period of significance. Each old roadway/rut would be flagged or staked for potential water turnout locations giving preference to rocky or well-grassed locations. Since some of these sites would inevitably divert water toward more vulnerable segments of the roadway below, it would be necessary to first locate these segments and then go back and revise the initial site selections to achieve the overall best fit. Once flagged, turnouts and other structures would need to be checked for archeological values. In some situations, it would be necessary to install short berms to deflect water out of the receiving roadway to a less erodible location. Erosion control structures to divert flow to suitable locations could be built as small rolling dips using a skid- steer, or material for the rolling dip could be hauled to the site from an outside borrow source. Rock rundowns or Zuni bowl type treatments may be needed at some sites. The State Preservation Office and the FWS Archeologist would need to be notified and consulted before any alterations are conducted on these four abandoned roads.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 7

The area discussed above also contains an existing cross slope diversion berm/dike, installed by a previous owner, and it is causing significant erosion. The proposed action would be to repair and modify the dike with the aid of two worm ditches. This should slow erosion and heal head- cuts. The proposed action would reverse the ecological degradation and preserve the roads. The east end of the erosion is at UTM S 495229 W 3964202 with the west end at UTM S 494393 W 3964374.

Figure 2. Roads on Rio Mora NWR (marked by the brown lines – credit: Joe Zebrowskie, NMHU).

Erosion from old, abandoned roads, particularly on the west end where the community of Loma Parda had agricultural fields, a method called plug and spread would be used to disperse water out of the road depressions and back along its natural path. A “plug” would be placed in incised road channels in a location and oriented to maximally re-wet the largest amount of grassland. This technique, would also be used on the west end of the refuge to restore productivity to the grasslands that have been historically damaged by a series of old two track roads.

Another way to stop a head-cut is to starve it of water by using a worm ditch. The worm ditch would take the water in a gently sloped bypass away from the head-cut at a 1 percent slope.

The refuge would continue to use one-rock structures. Additional erosion control structures may be made of logs, downed trees, sand bags, straw wattles, and straw bales. Straw bales and wattles are temporary, and as they disintegrate, they add mulch and organic content to soil. They can be used on clay soils, but not on sandy soils where they can wash away.

Plug and spread, rolling dips and worm ditches are newly proposed tactics not within the current management actions, thus Alternative B is an expansion of Alternative A. It is also an expansion on the number and location of sites now identified for erosion control techniques such as the one-rock structures. The proposed actions would allow work to continue on roads to harvest water, increase the productivity of the adjoining grasslands, and increase the soil’s capacity to hold water, support vegetation, and raise the water table. All this work would be accomplished

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 8

with a road grader, backhoe, skid steer and hand tools.

Riparian and Wetland Habitats

The 5 miles of riparian habitat that flows through the refuge are in need of bank stabilization, habitat improvement and floodplain development.

Willow and cottonwood pole plantings for bank stabilization would continue as described in Alternative A. Additional sources of willow and cottonwood poles may be taken from alternative locations along the Mora River to improve genetic diversity. The proposed action is to continue the riparian restoration efforts on the remaining 4-mile (6.7 km) stretch of the Mora River within the refuge.

We would reverse the incising of the river floor and restore the pool, glide, riffles, and run sequence that are important to healthy fish populations and the river’s ecology. This would be accomplished by restoring side-to-side meander into the river, and increasing floodplain development.

Induced meandering structures would include vanes and baffles to deflect water into the incised walls to help create a meander; one-rock dams, cobble rundowns, cross-vanes, and filter dams to maintain the river bed and prevent further incision (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009). Structures would be made of natural materials such as boulders, cobble, posts, tree trunks, and living materials gathered from the area.

Techniques described in Alternative A and above to induce meander would be implemented on the 3 kilometers identified as below as needing alteration. These techniques are outlined in detail in Zeedyk and Clothier 2009, the reference source for all proposed river work on the refuge. The induce meandering described in Alternative A would be extended upstream from the irrigation dam (UTM 13S 494591 W 3966105) to a site located at UTM 13S 494111 W 3966756, approximately 1 km. The river was straightened and moved within this stretch while under private ownership. The tributary was also altered and straightened from the bridge (UTM 13S 495088 W 3966341) along a hayfield to refuge’s east boundary (UTM 13S 496254 W 3965739), approximately 2 km. This stretch of river would require a baffle approximately every 300 feet and a cross vane at every drop of 2 percent in grade.

A one-kilometer section of river was restored prior to refuge establishment with excellent results. A one-kilometer section up-river and a two-kilometer section down-river from the restored section would be targeted for restoration. This effort would be done with an excavator that has a thumb (to place rocks) and a backhoe. It would involve the appropriate permitting process from the Army Corps of Engineers before work would begin.

Alternative B would expand restoration of willow stands along the river; bring back floodplains and meanders as well as create and enhance riparian wetlands. It would increase refuge wetland habitat and continue to heal the river using proven techniques and procedures. This alternative would meet the refuge’s management objectives.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 9

Grassland Health

This alternative would continue actions described in Alternative A, in addition it would allow for non-native species control through alternative means, such as fire and piñon/juniper encroachment control.

Current methods of non-native species control or treatment are limited to mechanical means such as the use of hand tools, pulling, mowing, or disking. In some instances, these treatments are not very effective at addressing the presence of the targeted invasive species. While not all non- natives colonize, and some of them may cause no damage, there are cases where entire communities may become devastated. Invasive species can have a dramatic, negative impact on ecosystems, and early detection rapid response is the key to preventing their establishment. Therefore, the proposed action would include all best management practices for non-native species treatment, including chemicals.

All state and federal rules and regulations for pesticide use would be strictly adhered to and a pesticide use record would always be submitted into the Service’s database should the decision be made to use pesticides. In each case, the low-risk treatment option would be selected to protect sensitive species or sites. For example, if an infestation was adjacent to a perennial water source and a pesticide would likely contaminate that water, then the treatment option would be inappropriate. In many cases, more than one invasive plant species is present on a site. In these instances, treatments would be designed to treat the highest priority invasive. It is recognized that invasive species control, requires multi-year commitments, with follow up monitoring and assessment of the treatment, and to develop new approaches.

Fire is not a current management action. The proposed action would be to use prescribed fire to treat no more than 10 percent of the refuge per year depending on soil composition, precipitation outlooks, vegetation cover, fuel loads and objectives. Burns would be planned in coordination with the Service’s NM Fire District and each fire would have a burn plan as identified in a Fire Management Plan. The proposed action would also establish a history of fire occurrence in the piñon/juniper community, which would be applied to woodland management.

Piñon/juniper encroachment on western grasslands is of concern. Current actions, which include limited cutting of piñon and juniper trees near wetlands, do not address the growing concern over grassland encroachment. The proposed action would expand these efforts and reduce juniper in areas where densities are greater than 30 percent. At present, piñon/juniper cover is 60 percent, when normal cover is about 30 percent (R. Jones, pers. com.; V. Yazzie, pers. com.). Reducing the cover can be done with the use of heavy equipment, chainsaw, or hand tools. Projects to remove woodland species would be assessed on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the method of removal that would be less impactful to the site, grassland and the habitat.

The proposed action would continue the existing grazing and herd size of approximately 60 bison or less for the next two years under a SUP and MOU with our partners. Following the two years, grazing would be contingent upon the development of a Grazing Management Plan. The plan would address the type of grazing and potential grazers needed to encourage ecological integrity of the refuge, promote native prairie, and provide or enhance habitat for grassland birds

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 10 and other resident wildlife.

Alternative B would allow us to continue managing non-native species with the ability to use best management practices and integrated pest management controls. It would allow for the consideration of fire on the landscape as a grassland management tool and expand our control of juniper encroachment on the landscape.

Wildlife-dependent recreation

Wildlife-dependent recreational uses on Rio Mora NWR and CA are currently limited to the county road and state highway, and are staffed, organized events. Approximately five special events are held annually on the refuge with emphasis on providing the participants an opportunity to photograph and observe wildlife, hike in nature, and bird watch. Attendance for these events does not exceed 240 annually and primarily consists of local participants. When restrooms are not at an event’s site location, participants have to be escorted to facilities located within the administrative or bunkhouse areas of the refuge. During refuge special events vehicles are parked along existing roads; attendees are encouraged to carpool to minimize the parking space needed. There are currently no kiosks, vault toilets, public parking, or 504 accessible facilities on the refuge. We propose to open a new area of the refuge to the public after the development of a nature trail that would be open from sunrise to sunset year round. Visitors would be able to observe wildlife, engage in wildlife photography, and hike the designated trail. The trail would also serve as a location for environmental education and interpretation activities in addition to current locations used for such activities.

The proposed trail would be accessed from a trailhead adjacent to the Loma Parda county road (Figure 3). The trail would allow visitors access to the refuge and support wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretations. The trail would be 2 miles long, traverse rolling uplands and gradual inclines through Loma Parda Canyon until it parallels the canyon cliff ledge overlooking the Mora River. The trail would then parallel Loma Parda Canyon until it reunites with itself. Approximately 0.25 miles of the trail would be American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. The trailhead would contain a parking area with a minimum of one ADA accessible parking, a parking area and turn around for a school bus parking, a vault toilet, and an informational kiosk. There would be approximately 10 additional parking spots. Visitors would be required to stay on the trail.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 11

... ·. ., .. ~-. .... ~-.'··

:.. . ..•. ."" ..

------Trail ------Gravel Road - TINO Track Road

0 500 1 ,000 1 ,500 2,000

Figure 3. Location of proposed nature trail on Rio Mora NWR.

This alternative would continue current environmental education activities such as grassland habitat management, prairie and arroyo restoration, and grazing alternatives, as well as allowing for the adoption of new scholastic opportunities as they may arise in the future. Approximately 10–15 SUPs are issued per year for educational visits with over 750 people participating from various schools, universities, organizations, including partners. It is anticipate that the groups and SUPs would increase to approximately 18–20, which would potentially provide an additional 300 participants. These educational opportunities would be guided by and regularly assessed for their alignment to the refuge system’s mission, goals, and State and National standards. They would also be evaluated for their effects on the resource and other ongoing activities through perpetual coordination between refuge staff, Denver Zoo and other refuge partners. Educational activities would be limited to certain areas and sites within the refuge to minimize natural resource disturbance and displacement, and impacts to refuge staff and resources.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 12

2.3 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration

The refuge considered addition recreational opportunities in cooperation with the Friends of Las Vegas National Wildlife Refuge and Tierra y Montes Water and Soil Conservation. It was determined that opportunities other than a trail were not currently feasible because of logistics. The life of the plan, the size of the refuge, other management activities (including research), refuge purposes and objectives, and limited staffing lends to the support of only one trail.

Four alternative locations were considered as potential trail sites: 1) an old road going north from Loma Parda to boundary with Fort Union Ranch, 2) the canyon rim rock above educational building heading east towards the refuge boundary, 3) the old road near the north windmill heading southeast towards canyon rim, and 4) the current area with access from Loma Parda county road (Figure 3). The Loma Parda area was determined to provide the best nature experience for the public, as the other areas were deemed inaccessible or unfit due to erodible soils that would not support foot traffic. Consideration was given to constructing the ADA portion of the trail more north than what is proposed, however, that would place the trail in an area the is currently eroding. It would also modify the refuge’s planned interpretive and visitor experience objectives.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Rio Mora NWR encompasses approximately 4,224 acres of land in south-central Mora County approximately 5.5 miles west of the town of Watrous, New Mexico. The property occurs at elevations of 6,500–6,900 feet at the transition zone between the Great Plains and the Southern Rocky Mountains. The Mora River flows through the center of the property for approximately 5 miles in a 250–300-foot deep canyon. The refuge lies on the high plains east of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. This is the southern end of the Rocky Mountain chain, a discontinuous series of ranges. The entire Rocky Mountain chain extends from central New Mexico to northern Canada. The main habitat types are shortgrass prairie, riparian, ephemeral natural catchments, and perennial seeps/springs/marsh wetlands, piñon/juniper/oak woodlands (Pinus edulis- Juniperus spp.-Quercus spp.), and coniferous forests. The refuge includes five miles of the Mora River, which is a sub-basin in the Canadian Watershed. The main tributaries feeding the Mora River are the Sapello River and Coyote Creek. The Mora River starts in the Rincon Mountains north of Chacon (at about 10,000 ft.) and enters the Canadian River near the tri-county border of Mora, Harding, and San Miguel Counties, a distance of 116 miles.

Upon establishment of the refuge, Denver Zoo and the Service entered into a partnership outlined by an MOU to continue operations begun by the Foundation on the refuge until 2015, and later amended in 2017. The MOU continues the partnership between the Service and Denver Zoo, which provided a framework for cooperation and coordination. Additionally, this MOU facilitates and formalize the cooperation of the Service and Denver Zoo, and additional partners including Highlands University, and Pueblo of Pojoaque to continue and enhance established programs including conservation, bison management, research management and community engagement on the refuge and CA.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 13

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see the refuge’s 5-Year Action Plan.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects. This EA includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource” or are otherwise considered important as related to the proposed action. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action and have been identified as not otherwise important as related to the proposed action have been dismissed from further analyses. The following sections will provide a description of the affected resource and the impacts of each alternative on that resource.

Tables 1 through 4 provide: 1. A brief description of the affected resources in the Proposed Action area; and 2. Impacts of the Proposed Action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects.

Impact Types: ● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. ● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. ● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Appendix A lists applicable statutes, executive orders, and regulations relative to these resources and lists steps that Rio Mora NWR has taken or will take to comply.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). For this analysis, the refuge considered other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have occurred or could occur near the project area. The area considered for the cumulative effects analysis is the Rio Mora Conservation Area, which encompasses the 952,000 Mora River Watershed.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 14

Table 1. Natural resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Wildlife Species The elevation transition between the Great Plains and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the juxtaposition of two ecoregions, and riparian habitats in this arid part of the West all enrich the species diversity of the area. The location of the refuge in the heart of this transition, and recent management and restoration projects, provide for remarkable species diversity. Approximately 194 bird species, 28 amphibian and reptile species, 48 mammal species, and 8 fish species occur on the refuge. A large proportion of the watershed still supports native vegetation and provides resources for abundant wildlife populations. Nevertheless, a number of species have been eliminated from large areas of their former range, including the Mora River watershed.

These species are viewed as competing with livestock for grass (prairie dogs, Cynomys spp. and bison, Bison bison), impeding attempts at irrigation (beavers, Castor canadensis), or preying on livestock (wolves, Canis lupus and grizzly bears, Ursus arctos). These are often considered keystone species that contribute greatly to ecological and evolutionary functions. Even though individuals of those species still persist at low levels across parts of their historic range, they can become so low in abundance relative to natural levels, or not distributed widely enough across their original range, that they no longer exert their ecological function (Soulé et al. 2005). That causes a series of indirect effects that ripple through trophic levels, affecting life- forms that seem distantly removed (Terborgh et al. 1999; Miller et al. 2001; Soulé et al. 2005).

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current management) Species diversity and abundance on the refuge would be maintained. Current management including construction of rock structures, small-scale invasive species treatments, or monitoring efforts would cause the disturbance and displacement of wildlife while conducting those activities. Activities that may cause disturbance are not conducted during the breeding season to minimize impacts to nesting birds. Habitat improvements benefit native wildlife species.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Short-term impacts would be the same as Alternative A, but there would be additional long- term benefits in Alternative B. Approximately 75 percent of the wildlife species in the southwestern U.S. depend on wetland and riparian areas at some level (Bogan et al. 1998). Smith and Ferguson (2005: 119) say it succinctly: “Any recovery that gets going in these plant communities is going to affect a lot of players.” Expanded willow thickets along the river will supply neo-tropical migratory birds habitat for nesting and feeding—for example, species like the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)—and improve the structure and quality of the river and riparian area. These plants also stabilize the banks, while their roots extending under the floor of the river support the riverbed and reduce down cutting.

Willow planting will also stabilize the small American beaver (Castor canadensis) population. Beavers are a highly interactive (keystone) species that have an impact on the flora, fauna, floodplain, and river-flow far beyond their numerical representation (Naiman et al. 1988).

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 15

Duck use would potentially expand over spring and fall migrations with proposed management of wetlands and riparian areas. High-quality stopover points for waterfowl during spring migration are critical because waterfowl have special nutritional requirements for reproduction and need to arrive at the breeding grounds in adequate physical condition for successful nesting.

Research, monitoring, and inventory activities would continue to cause short-term disturbances to native wildlife using the refuge. However, the positive outcomes should outweigh such temporary disturbance. Short-term impacts would include disturbance and displacement of wildlife during construction of rock structures, small-scale invasive species treatments, or monitoring efforts. Efforts can be timed to avoid reproductive disturbance.

Public use activities and construction of a nature trail with an accompanying parking area and vault toilet would increase disturbance and displacement of some wildlife. The impacts to wildlife would be due to increased vehicle traffic on public roads and increased maintenance along the county road as well as visitors’ activities at the parking area/trailhead and hiking activities. These impacts would be minor, localized and limited to the species and/or individuals inhabiting the areas that encompass the trail and sites identified above.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species Currently, no threatened or endangered species are known to occupy the refuge; however, there is potential habitat for the southwestern willow flycatchers and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Because of restoration activities over the last several years, riparian vegetation structure is recovering from impacts of past management. There are scattered large cottonwood trees along the river and cottonwood poles have been planted. Coyote willow has regenerated to form dense stands in places along the river and on several small tributaries. The flycatcher and meadow jumping mouse are known to occur at higher elevations in the Mora River watershed on Coyote Creek (approximately 25 stream miles and 19 linear miles from the refuge).

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) Continuation of current management would not have an impact on listed species because they do not occur on the refuge.

Alternative B – Proposed Action As the refuge implements restoration projects, riparian conditions would improve potentially creating suitable habitat for both the southwestern willow flycatcher and NM meadow jumping mouse. As habitat improves, the refuge would conduct surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher. An Intra-Service section 7 consultation was conducted with the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, a division of the Service, and the refuge has determined that implementing the proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” these listed species.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 16

Bison Management The area containing the refuge and a portion of the watershed became part of the Mora Land Grant, a large Mexican communal land grant encompassing 827,000 acres. The land was used for subsistence farming and livestock grazing. In the 20th century, the land was purchased privately and mainly used for domestic livestock. The former Wind River Ranch repatriated bison to the land, and since 2005, a bison herd of 70–80 bison has been managed on the property. The refuge has maintained the same type of management of bison since that time through a partnership with the Pueblo of Pojoaque.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) The refuge would continue to work in partnership with the Pueblo of Pojoaque on bison management. Maintenance of fencing and corrals and the culling of bison would continue to be conducted by the Pueblo of Pojoaque in accordance with the existing MOU and SUP. The Pueblo of Pojoaque would continue to practice low impact management resulting in minor impacts to natural resources even during culling activities. When necessary, animals would be introduced to improve genetic diversity. Animal numbers would be kept consistent and bison would continue to be allowed to roam unconfined on 90% of the refuge. Bison are the refuge’s principal management tool used to maintain grassland health on the refuge, which results in beneficial impacts on grasslands and grassland obligate species. Adverse impacts may occur from overgrazing caused by not implementing a forage stocking rate protocol to keep the herd size at the carrying capacity of the habitat. Under the SUP, the refuge manager may determine areas where bison would be excluded due to resource sensitivity or repeated damage to facilities.

Alternative B – Proposed Action There is a need to determine the level and type of grazing which would be appropriate for the refuge. Grasslands are early successional ecosystems that are maintained primarily by frequent disturbances. Some of the disturbances come from drought, but additional disturbances come from fire, grazing, and the behavior of grassland megafauna (Owen-Smith 1987; Briggs et al. 2005; Bond 2010).

The refuge would develop a bison-grazing plan that would address stocking rates, desired grassland condition, and bison management (e.g., surplus of excess individuals, addition of individual(s) to enhance herd genetics, herd reduction during drought). A forage stocking rate protocol would govern the animal unit months (AUMs) needed for managing established grassland objectives based on a 365-day grazing program. The plan would address the type of grazing and potential grazers needed to encourage ecological integrity of the refuge, promote native prairie, and provide or enhance habitat for grassland birds and other resident wildlife. The environmental consequences of the bison-grazing plan would be evaluated with the plan and prior to its implementation. It is anticipated that improved bison management would provide beneficial long-term impacts on a local scale.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 17

Vegetation The most significant habitats (Ecological Systems – National Vegetation Classification Standard 2008) represented on the Rio Mora NWR include shortgrass prairie, piñon-juniper woodlands, and smaller amounts of ponderosa pine woodlands and riparian systems, approximately 5 miles of the Mora River flows through the center of the refuge. Vegetation along 25 percent of the river is dominated by relatively dense willow (Salix spp.) thickets with scattered cottonwood (Populus spp.) trees.

Native riparian habitat has been reduced and has been lost in certain stretches of the river. In some places, areas have been eroded, partially because of reduced vegetation cover, or where the natural meander of the river has been altered. This has led to down cutting of the stream, in- turn lowering the water table, and stressing the native riparian vegetation as well as lowering the productivity of the habitat for wildlife. Willows and cottonwood trees are less abundant than they would have been historically. Cottonwoods no longer form continuous forest galleries, but have been reduced to small isolated stands.

In general, upland grassland and piñon-juniper habitats have been altered by fire suppression, over-grazing, and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide inputs (Romme et al 2009). This has reduced the productivity of many of these habitats, increased water runoff and erosion, lowered the local water table, and increased down cutting in streams and arroyos. Piñon/juniper trees have invaded the deeper soils of the grasslands where they out-compete grasses, causing desertification (Deboodt et al. 2009). Some localities on the refuge have reached densities of 60 percent; the normal range should be 30 percent.

The refuge is within a number of terrestrial and aquatic conservation sites identified as part of TNC’s 2007 Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Southern Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion (The Nature Conservancy 2007) and the Southern Rocky Mountains: An Ecoregional Assessment and Conservation Blueprint (Neely et al. 2001).

A number of non-native plant species have become established in the ecosystems within the watershed, replacing or reducing the abundance of some native species. It is common for non- native grass species or alfalfa (Medicago sativa) to be planted in land cleared for hay meadows. Some of these species can invade native habitats in the area. Cheatgrass is invading in some areas. A number of non-native plants have been observed in the watershed but to date none are known to be causing extensive problems. These include tamarisk, Russian olive, Siberian elm, tumbleweed or Russian thistle, Canada thistle and kochia. The refuge continues to monitor and survey portions of the refuge for additional invasives species.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) The main habitat types are shortgrass prairie, riparian, ephemeral natural catchments, and perennial wetlands, woodlands, and coniferous forests. Grasslands dominate the refuge, although the Mora River flows through a canyon providing some riparian habitat. Vegetation along 25 percent of the river is dominated by relatively dense willow thickets with scattered cottonwood trees. There are canyons feeding the Mora River, and those canyons contain seeps, springs and ephemeral wetlands.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 18

Habitat conditions would remain the same as described above, with current management achieving minor beneficial effects on a local scale.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (NM Department of Game and Fish 2006) stated that wetland and riparian habitats may be at higher risk of alteration by multiple factors than other habitat types, and suggested that these habitat types should be key areas upon which to focus conservation efforts in New Mexico. During the last Century, New Mexico and Arizona have lost an estimated 90 percent of their original riparian and ecosystems (NM Department of Game and Fish 2006). The Strategy states; “The most significant factors affecting the persistence of SGCN [Species of Greatest Conservation Need] statewide are those that cause habitat conversion, loss, and degradation” (NM Department of Game and Fish 2006, p. iv). The State Plan ranked habitats by a cumulative score; ephemeral natural catchments scored 165, perennial marsh/spring/seeps scored 158 and riparian areas scored 156. These scores/rankings are the highest in the state and demonstrate the value of these habitats. The proposed actions along the river and wetland areas would improve all three identified habitats.

Non-native species are present on the refuge. General patterns suggest that non-native species tend to become more abundant over time in most areas, especially with increased disturbance and land conversion. Climate change is expected to increase the probability that non-native species could invade new areas. Non-native species are sometimes able to out-compete native species in disturbed areas, or will be able to take advantage of changing climate conditions better than native species. Control efforts would result in minor/moderate positive effects on a local scale.

At present, piñon/juniper cover is 60 percent, when normal cover is about 30 percent (R. Jones, pers. com.; V. Yazzie, pers. com.). This increases sheet erosion, and piñon/juniper woodlands currently lose an average of one-half inch of soil per decade to erosion (Jacobs et al. 2002; Arno and Fiedler 2005). Such sediment loss in degraded woodlands is unsustainable (Jacobs et al. 2002). In addition, there is a gradual trend for piñon/juniper to encroach onto grasslands, changing the grassland to a savanna then to woodland. In the piñon/juniper community, it would be important to establish a history of fire occurrence, and then apply fire to woodland management.

Grasslands, from the conservation point of view, represent an important ecosystem, and grasslands are the largest and most threatened ecosystem in North America (Archuleta 2014). Agriculture, human settlements, desertification, changed fire regimes, introduction of exotic livestock, fragmentation, loss of megafauna, and invasive species are the main causes of degradation (Owen-Smith 1987; White et al. 2000; Bond 2010). Fire is an important component of grassland ecosystems, but it has been eliminated from most areas. Fire prevents woody species encroachment, removes dead material, recycles nutrients, and influences grazing patterns (see references and review in Archuleta 2014). Anderson (1982), Dyer et al. (1982), and Knapp and Seastedt (1986) suggested that when plant litter is removed by fire, productivity increases in grassland ecosystems. Fire would be an important component in reversing that trend and restoring grassland health.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 19

Erosion control of roads, arroyos, head-cuts and man-made structures like berms and stock tanks are expected to heal the landscape, particularly the grasslands. Water would be directed out of the arroyos and roads to be spread, reducing flow and maximizing runoff onto the grasslands. The design of the plug and spread technique would restore grassland productivity previously damaged by old two track roads, erosion, or livestock. These restoration strategies would result in long-term beneficial impacts on the local scale to vegetation.

The location of the trail and trailhead, to include parking and a vault toilet, was the area that would experience the least amount of erosion and require less maintenance during and after initial construction. Access to the trailhead would be from the county road directly adjacent to the site. Even with the development of a parking area, a vault toilet and a kiosk, a footpath trail would be the least impactful to the habitat. Use of the trail by visitors may increase the occurrence of invasive species through the spread of seeds on visitors clothing and shoes. The selected site would provide visitors the best nature experience with minimal impacts to the natural resources. Alternative locations were eliminated because of concerns for erosion. The trailhead would be directly adjacent to the county road minimizing habitat impacts/losses.

Geology and Soils On the refuge and within the watershed, the natural topography is highly variable. In the eastern part of the watershed on the Great Plains, the topography is generally flat to rolling with isolated high mesas and occasional deep canyons where streams flow. Refuge soils are primarily loam and clay and geological formations are dominated by sandstone and shale. Due to previous land use activities there are many sites on the refuge that are ecologically damaged, resulting in erosion problems which are being addressed by the 5-year Plan. Table 2 from NRCS shows soil composition on Rio Mora NWR.

Table 2. Soils Inventory Report on the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge (Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey)

Code Unit Name Slope Acres Percent BC Bernal rock Outcrop—Shallow Upland Moderate 305 6 CD Colmer Loam—Loamy Upland Undulating 95 2 CF Crews-Tricon Assoc.—Shallow Upland Undulating 307 6 LM Litle-Mion Assoc.—Clayey Upland Moderate 82 2 Mc Manzano Loam—Loamy upland 1–3 percent 974 20 PC Patri-Carnero Assoc.—Loamy upland Undulating 870 18 RO Rock Outcrop Bernal Complex Steep 74 2 SA Sombordoro Rock Outcrop Tuloso Moderate 138 3 SB Sombordoro Rock Outcrop Tuloso Steep 2040 42

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 20

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current management) Changes to topography would continue as they did prior to refuge establishment. The alterations of topographic patterns are designed to influence natural drainage patterns holistically, decrease arroyo down cutting, and/or decrease sedimentation of streams. These effects are expected to be gradual but would reverse the negative effects of previous land use. The changes have been positive, and we expect continued long-term benefits.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Under Alterative B, Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, but with the potential to have moderate, long-term beneficial effects at the local and watershed level.

Research would occur to analyze, assess, and quantify the effects of erosion control structures in arroyos and would help to quantify the perceived benefits. Roads would be improved to reduce erosion and facilitate a more natural surface flow of runoff. The sediment from eroding berms would be used for Plug and Spread projects instead of allowing runoff to carry it downstream. The one-rock restoration structures and other techniques described in detail within this EA would trap sediment raising the bottom of the arroyos, slowing the erosive effect of the water, and aiding runoff to flow more naturally.

Willow and cottonwood pole planting would stabilize the riverbanks, while roots extending under the floor of the river can support the riverbed and reduce the down cutting.

Soils and topography would change as induced meander is incorporated into the river’s ecology, bringing back the floodplain. Stable rivers that meander across valley floors have functional floodplains or areas that occur naturally along the stream where the river deposits water during flood events. By dissipating energy and slowing flows, floodplains reduce erosion of the bank and bed of a flooding river. Flooding deposits rich sediments onto the floodplain, recharges water tables, creates diverse habitats, and sustains plants and animals communities. Approximately 75 percent of the wildlife species in the southwestern U.S. depend on wetland and riparian areas at some level (Bogan et al. 1998). A river confined to its channel is a river that is deprived of its ecological function.

Some alterations to topographic patterns such as juniper and/or some piñon removal may temporarily negatively influence natural drainage patterns, increase arroyo down cutting, or increase sedimentation of streams. These effects are expected to be minor in most cases, though poorly designed and/or located projects that alter topography may have moderate negative effects.

Alternative locations of the public use trail, parking, and trailhead were eliminated because of concerns for erosion and alteration of the local areas’ topography to accommodate ADA accessibility. The proposed locations of the trail, parking area, and trailhead were selected because they should experience only minimal erosion from use and ADA development. It is estimated that 8,000–10,000 visitors per year would use the site.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 21

Water Quality, Quantity and Hydrology The Mora River flows through the center of the property for approximately 5 miles (8.4 km) in a 250–300 foot deep canyon. The major source of water supply in the watershed is surface water runoff from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, but at least 47 acequias, or community operated irrigation ditches, occur on the Mora River and its tributaries throughout the watershed (Thompson and Ali 2009). Irrigation has changed the flow, geomorphology, and water quality of the Mora River and its major streams.

In some localities within the watershed, riparian areas have been eroded partially because of reduced vegetation cover due to overgrazing, and/or where the natural meander of the river has been altered. This has led to down cutting of the stream, in-turn lowering the water table and stressing the native riparian vegetation. This can also reduce oxygen levels, increase water temperature, and increase sedimentation (Schumm et al 1984). In other places, application of irrigation water has created wetlands where they would not naturally have occurred.

Water quality has been assessed in the Canadian River tributaries, including the Mora River, by the New Mexico Environment Department (2008). They reported that generally water quality was good. There were some sampling locations where water quality standards were not met: fecal coliform criteria were exceeded on the Mora and Sapello Rivers; impairment determinations of New Mexico water quality standards for specific conductance were documented for Coyote Creek (Mora River to Black Lake) and the Mora River (Hwy 434 to headwaters). Impairment of the plant nutrients criterion was determined for Little Coyote Creek (Black Lake to headwaters) and the Mora River (USGS gage east of Shoemaker to Hwy 434). Temperature criteria were exceeded on Coyote Creek (Mora River to Black Lake). Impairment due to sedimentation/siltation was determined on the Mora River (Hwy 434 to headwaters) and the Sapello River (Mora River to Manuelitas Creek). They attributed some of the impairments as being due to low flows associated with the drought conditions in 2002.

Floods would have naturally occurred, especially during spring melt-off of high snowpack or with summer thunderstorms. Human alterations along the floodplains associated with building of roads and other infrastructure and substantial changes or complete removal of native vegetation have reduced the capacity of the natural systems to slow and store floodwaters. The incision of the river has disconnected it from its natural floodplain. This has resulted in flood events with greater capacity to cause damage, especially to infrastructures located in the floodplain.

Stable rivers that meander across valley floors have functional floodplains or areas that occur naturally along the stream where the river deposits water during flood events. Floodplains are thus pressure relief valves for a river (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009). When flood waters spread across the vegetated floodplain, it spreads the energy of the river and creates resistance. By dissipating energy and slowing flows, floodplains reduce erosion of the bank and bed of a flooding river. Flooding deposits rich sediments onto the floodplain, recharges water tables, creates diverse habitats, and sustains communities of plants and animals (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009).

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 22

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) Sediment runoff from roads can be a cause of water pollution and turbidity. Road runoff is a major source of nonpoint pollution in the West. Implementation of one-rock structures along the arroyos and head-cuts slows sedimentation and improves water quality. Other riparian restoration activities such as pole planting can have long-term beneficial impacts on water quality and water quantity. Under this alternative, the minor beneficial effects to surface and groundwater quality and quantity on Rio Mora NWR would continue to improve with the current restoration and protection activities. Runoff from the roads would continue to be lost and cause erosion.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Impacts would be similar to Alternative A with additional moderate, long-term beneficial effects. The proposed restoration activities and roadwork would result in improved surface and groundwater quality and quantity not only on the refuge but downstream, resulting in beneficial impacts to the Mora River watershed.

As part of this proposal, refuge roads would be maintained to reduce runoff by minimizing their surface area. The effects of concentrated flow from roads and the proposed trail, parking area, and trailhead, would be reduced by the use of plug and spread, rolling dips and reworking slopes to minimize flow paths and create sheet-flow onto the landscape to support a more natural hydrology and healthy grassland. Drain outlets would be altered or designed in an attempt to return runoff as quickly as possible to localities with undisturbed soils, more natural flow, and reduce flow volume.

The proposal to induce meander and bring back the pool, glide, riffle, and run sequences to sections of the river will have moderate beneficial effects. Induced meandering stimulates the river’s ecological process to allow the water, within river, to accelerate the natural process of meandering channel creation and restoring the floodplain and hydrology.

Climate Change/Air Quality Climate patterns are generally driven by regional to global influences. Climate change in the Southwest is predicted to make conditions warmer and drier and precipitation events more erratic and extreme, resulting in extreme droughts and earlier snowpack melt-off that will alter hydrologic regimes and stress natural systems (IPCC 2007). The relatively small population, limited urban influence, and the current land uses on the refuge and within the watershed result in low levels of emissions by vehicles, human infrastructure, and industry. Healthy grasslands can be a factor in removing carbon from the atmosphere (FAO 2009). The land cover on the refuge is mostly natural and approximately 98 percent of the land cover within the watershed is natural, consequently carbon sequestration occurs at relatively natural levels.

Under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401-7671q, as amended in 1990), the Service has a responsibility to protect air quality and related values from the adverse effects of air pollution and to comply with Federal, State, and local air pollution control laws and regulations. The refuge has excellent air quality, due to the rural land uses in most of the surrounding area.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 23

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action (Current Management) Influences on climate from current actions on Rio Mora NWR alone would be negligible. Current levels and types of management would continue to result in some minor short-term negative impacts on air quality at a local scale. Exhaust gas and fugitive dust produced by the use of heavy equipment (e.g., backhoes, road graders, excavators, skid steers, tractors, mowers, and trucks) may produce minor adverse short-term direct effects to air quality. These restoration efforts should continue to maintain current air quality.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, in addition to the following:

Land conversion is likely to continue to some level in the Mora River watershed. As a result, carbon sequestration levels will likely decrease over time in the larger area. Protecting and restoring native vegetation on the refuge may help mitigate or buffer against climate change impacts to species or ecosystems by increasing the ecological integrity of the native habitats. The proposed erosive restoration actions are designed to reverse the adverse effects of erosion and regenerate soil so that it increases the capacity to hold water, supports more vegetation, and thus stores carbon taken from the atmosphere. Restoring plants to a degraded area such as pole planting willows and cottonwoods, slows air movement, provides shade, reduces evaporation, stores carbon, slows water flow, holds soil in place, and the ground litter from plants adds organic content (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006).

Additionally, healthy grasslands may be a factor in removing carbon from the atmosphere and putting it into the soil. According to a United Nations panel of experts, restoring health to 5 to 10 percent of the grasslands could mitigate 2 to 8 percent of the climate change effect by the year 2020 (FAO 2009).

Although the need for chemical use is minimized by implementing Integrated Pest Management (IMP) techniques, even stringent use of chemical herbicides for treating invasive plant species may produce some chemical drift that would also produce minor adverse effects on air quality in the short-term.

Prescribed burning activities would be implemented under a strict set of guidelines and weather parameters to provide for safety as well as to reduce the amount of smoke released into the air shed. Ignitions would be for one to two days and may produce visible smoke but should result in little if any residual smoke after completion. Smoke impact to populated areas is likely to be minimal if any due to the location of the refuge.

Annual refuge use levels are difficult to project at this time; however, we predict a minor increase in vehicle emissions on and near the refuge in the long-term from vehicle use by visitors, researchers, and others visiting for environmental education programs or partnership building activities. This may be offset to some degree by the restoration efforts mentioned.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 24

Overall, this alternative may have some minor temporary negative effects; however, these effects would likely be offset by the carbon sequestration that would occur from the proposed restoration of the trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. Vegetation established on the refuge would sequester the increased amounts of carbon lost from juniper control. Air quality in the area is expected to remain at current levels or possibly improve in the long-term.

Cumulative Impacts on Natural Resources The no action alternative would have no cumulative impacts on natural resources. All of the action alternatives have limited adverse impacts. When the effects of the action alternatives are combined with the other past and present impacts, the total cumulative impact on natural resources is negligible and would be difficult to measure. The incremental impact of the proposed action would contribute slightly to, but would not substantially change the impacts that are already occurring.

Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. Increased frequency and severity of drought in the desert could dramatically reduce the amount and quality of vegetation to support wildlife needs such as food, shelter, and nesting structures. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have, particularly at the local level. Therefore, none of the actions outlined in the alternatives would affect climate change.

Potential cumulative impacts of the trail and associated facilities would be increased disturbance and displacement of some wildlife due to the increased vehicle traffic and maintenance along the county road and state highway as well as visitors’ activities at the parking area/trailhead and hiking activities. These impacts would be localized and limited to the species and/or individuals inhabiting the areas that encompass the trail and sites identified above. Initially these impacts may be short-term and should only temporarily displace wildlife as adequate habitat and escape cover is available for wildlife nearby. As the popularity and use of the trail increases, some species and/or individuals may abandon the area all together potentially reducing species diversity and or population(s) locally.

Within the watershed, publicly owned lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and New Mexico State Land Office are generally managed under multiple use mandates that allow some commercial extractive uses (e.g., mining, timber harvest, oil/gas extraction) and other commercial or non-commercial recreational uses. Management of federal lands must also consider maintaining ecological conditions and conserving biodiversity.

The USFS Santa Fe and Carson National Forests, manage approximately 73,000 acres of land in the watershed. This land is in the watershed’s forested, higher elevations and includes many of the headwater streams that drain to the Mora River or other major watershed tributaries. The land is managed for multiple uses.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 25

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 3,590 acres within the conservation area in scattered, small parcels, approximately 37 miles from the refuge. The National Park Service (NPS) manages the 720-acre Fort Union National Monument, which is located in the conservation area approximately 5 miles from the refuge. Fort Union is managed mainly for interpretation of historic, cultural, and natural features. It contains the largest concentration of 19th century adobe ruins in the United States and is one of the few federally managed sites preserving remains of the Santa Fe Trail. The remains of the Loma Parda village, which historically was a popular destination for soldiers from Fort Union, are partially on the refuge. Opportunities exist to partner with the NPS on outreach and interpretive work.

Most of the farming is for hay. Because farming and grazing are the primary land uses within the county, it is expected that these activities have the potential to result in the same types of affects to air quality as the alternatives analyzed in this EA. Some farming activities, however, may affect water quality, water quantity, and soils more negatively than the alternatives analyzed in this EA, particularly if they promote erosion, low-standard roads, and irrigation. When these external factors are added to the similar environmental effects produced by each of the activities mentioned, the net effect is still expected to be minor due to the use of best management practices on the refuge and short duration of disturbance in Alternatives A or B.

There are activities occurring on nearby lands with the potential to affect wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and habitat that includes grazing, rangeland improvement, and restoration efforts. These activities on the refuge have a beneficial impact on wildlife.

This analysis considers the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other projects or management activities. There are no known state or federal actions (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) occurring in the vicinity of the refuge or proposed in the future that could have potential cumulative impacts when added to the impacts of the proposed action.

Table 3. Visitor use and experience resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Educational/Recreational Opportunities Rio Mora NWR is not currently open to the public; however, the refuge hosts organized events or visits to enhance the refuge’s ability to attract visitors and teach them about natural resources, the environment, the purpose of the refuge and its role in the Refuge System. Approximately 5 events are scheduled throughout the year with an emphasis on providing the participants an opportunity to photograph and observe wildlife, hike in nature, bird watch and engage in environmental education. The refuge also serves as an outdoor classroom for 10 to 15 visiting groups per year. Primitive camping for research and environmental education is allowed by general SUP on the east side of the environmental education building.

The county road to Loma Parada provides access to three residences and several inholding tracts within the refuge’s boundary and offers visitors an opportunity to observe and photograph wildlife. State

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 26

Highway 161 parallels and is adjacent to the refuge’s south boundary providing visitors wildlife viewing and photographing prospects.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Conserving the Future, Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation” recommendation 20 states, “develop an environmental education strategy that inventories existing efforts, identifies priorities for investment of staff and funds, and outlines basic standards for all refuges.” This recommendation had been already implemented by the Wind River Ranch Foundation and now in partnership with the Denver Zoological Foundation such efforts are continuing. Over 750 schoolchildren come each year to the refuge, where they receive instruction in the natural sciences. In 2012, the Denver Zoological Foundation contracted with the Center for Research Strategies and faculty from New Mexico Highlands University to conduct a needs assessment that could inform the development of future conservation and environmental education programming for the refuge. The assessment would be used to further guide and sustain an environmental education program at the refuge.

The Visitor Services Manager for the Northern New Mexico National Wildlife Refuge Complex continues to provide support for environmental education programs at the refuge and continues to build a strong working relationship in the mutual quest to “Connect People with Nature.”

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Alternative (Current Management) Under this alternative, educational opportunities associated with current programs administered by Denver Zoo, and special events planned by the refuge and partners by request, as resources allow, would continue; however, there are no recreational opportunities. The refuge would continue to host approximately 750 visitors a year during educational and special events. Habitat restoration areas serve as demonstration sites for the benefit of other landowners interested in improving habitats on their lands. Adverse impacts from the limited visitor use would continue to be minimal on refuge resources and would be beneficial for the visitor experience.

Alternative B – Proposed Action In addition to the current management in Alternative A, a new area of the refuge would be open to the public year-round, which would provide an opportunity for wildlife-dependent recreational use via a public use trail. The new trail, trailhead, vault toilet and informational kiosk would support environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, photography, and hiking. Anticipated trail use would be 8,000 to 10,000 visitors per year, increasing gradually as knowledge of its existence grew. Peak trail use would occur during spring and early summer. The public would encounter various wildlife species including bison, which roam free on the refuge. Kiosks and signage would inform the public on how to enjoy the trail, and interact with wildlife safely. The new trail and associated visitor use would have minor adverse effects on refuge resources, but would provide increased beneficial impacts to the visitor experience.

It is anticipated that the educational programs, visiting groups, and/or SUPs issued would increase, which would potentially provide an additional 1000 participants. SUP issuance may increase by 18 to 20 permits per year. Educational programs would continue to have minimal adverse impacts on refuge resources because the majority of the programs occur indoors, in previously disturbed areas in the vicinity of the environmental education building, or along established roads and paths.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 27

Visual Resources Although the refuge is not currently open to the public, maintaining the property in its natural state has allowed the public to enjoy the open vistas and view a wide variety of wildlife from Loma Parda county road and Highway 161. In general, because the vast majority of the watershed is undeveloped, the public is able to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife viewing from many places. The proposed public use trail would provide visual opportunities to the public to experience the refuge in a way not currently available.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Alternative (Current management) Aesthetics and scenery would be preserved and enhanced as a result of continued habitat restoration efforts but would be limited to only Highway 161 and the county road. Current restoration efforts (one rock dams, etc.) have minimal short-term visual impacts. These structures blend into the landscape very rapidly.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative B would be the same as alternative A, but additional habitat management activities (grassland, piñon/juniper and riparian management and road work) would have a short-term negative impact to visuals while the projects are being implemented; however, long-term benefits are expected when the habitats are restored.

In the long-term, aesthetics and scenery would continue to be preserved and enhanced as a result of habitat restoration efforts. In addition, increased public use opportunities would be provided; the public would experience grassland, woodland and canyon land habitats via the public use trail. The trail’s kiosk, parking and vault toilet would be placed so as not to obstruct the viewscape and would be made of materials that would blend into the landscape.

Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience Resources The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 3,590 acres within the conservation area in scattered, small parcels, approximately 37 miles from the refuge. The National Park Service (NPS) manages the 720-acre Fort Union National Monument, which is located in the conservation area approximately 5 miles from the refuge. Fort Union is managed mainly for interpretation of historic, cultural, and natural features. It contains the largest concentration of 19th century adobe ruins in the United States and is one of the few federally managed sites preserving remains of the Santa Fe Trail. The remains of the Loma Parda village, which historically was a popular destination for soldiers from Fort Union, are partially on the refuge. Opportunities exist to partner with the NPS on outreach and interpretive work.

Lands managed by the New Mexico State Land Office are generally leased by private citizens or businesses and are managed as part of those agricultural operations or businesses within the agreements with the State. Public use for recreational purposes in the form of hunting and fishing is allowed on many of these State lands, however, the land must be accessible by public road or the lessee must have an agreement with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. The New Mexico State Land Office does manage over 32,000 acres within the conservation area

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 28 at the headwaters of Coyote Creek and the confluence of the Mora and Canadian Rivers. In general, these lands are managed by lease as part of private ranches, with proceeds mainly funding the public education system in New Mexico.

New Mexico State Parks manages the Coyote Creek State Park, which is approximately 83 acres in size and approximately 19 linear miles from the refuge. Coyote Creek is one of the major tributaries draining into the Mora River approximately 5 miles upstream of the refuge.

This analysis considers the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other projects or management activities. There are no known state or federal actions (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) occurring in the vicinity of the refuge or proposed in the future that could have potential cumulative impacts when added to the impacts of the proposed action.

Table 4. Cultural resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Cultural Resources Historic and cultural resources are expected to occur throughout the Mora River watershed but much of the watershed has not been surveyed for these resources. For several millennia, the Mora River provided a travel route for native peoples from the mountains to the plains. In the 1830s, the river valley was occupied by Hispanic homesteads, largely from land grants through Mexico. A large Mexican communal land grant, the Mora Land Grant, historically encompassed 827,000 acres of the area. At least 47 acequias, or community operated irrigation ditches, occur on the Mora River and its tributaries throughout the watershed (Thomson and Ali 2009). Acequias are part of a strong cultural heritage of cooperative management in the local communities and throughout New Mexico.

The 720-acre Fort Union National Monument, managed by the Department of the Interior, NPS, is located near the refuge. Fort Union was established in 1851 to protect residents, travelers, and freight along the Santa Fe Trail, and to subdue tribal resistance to the changes that came with such activities and the displacement of Indian peoples from their land. The site contains the largest concentration of 19th century adobe ruins in the United States and is one of the few federally managed sites preserving remains of the Santa Fe Trail.

The refuge holds numerous archeological sites, dating back to the Clovis Culture. There are archaic pit houses (around 5,000 years before present), rock shelters, and numerous tipi rings and hearths. Pueblo tribes, Jicarilla Apache, Utes, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa, and Deña used the area to various extents.

Rio Mora NWR currently works in partnership with the Pueblo of Pojoaque tribe on bison management at the refuge and provides a location and opportunity for bison management workshops and Native American cultural ceremonies involving bison. A number of tribes consider the area part of their historic hunting grounds and recognize cultural importance in the area.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 29

The refuge was part of the Mora Land Grant. Portions of Loma Parda, ruins of a village that served Fort Union, are on the refuge, as are parts of the old roads and trails that branched off the Santa Fe Trail. The fourth governor of New Mexico, Octavio Larrazolo, lived in the historic house (circa 1920) located in the area of the environmental education building. In an area of the state that is predominantly Hispanic, he holds the prestigious title of being one of only 6 Hispanic governors since statehood.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under this alternative, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts to the cultural environment, as current conditions would be maintained.

Cultural, archaeological, and historic resources present on the refuge would be protected under this alternative resulting in minor beneficial local effects. Part of the historic Loma Parda village will not be impacted by current or proposed action. The future decision of grazing on Rio Mora NWR would affect the opportunities for cultural uses on the refuge. It would affect cultural uses of bison by the Pueblo of Pojoaque tribe. A grazing management plan, would be completed in 2021, and would deliberate and evaluate the merits of grazing on the refuge.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, though the abandoned roads running parallel to NM State Highway 161 are not officially part of the designated Santa Fe National Historic Trail alignment; they most likely had a close association with the Santa Fe Trail traffic during the 19th century period of significance. The State Preservation Office and the FWS archeologist would be notified and consulted before any alterations are conducted to maintain their cultural integrity and significance. The ecological degradation of these roads would be reversed helping to preserve them for future generations.

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources This analysis considers the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other projects or management activities. There are no known state or federal actions (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) occurring in the vicinity of the refuge or proposed in the future that could have potential cumulative impacts when added to the impacts of the proposed action.

The refuge would maintain the current conditions of cultural resources under all of the management alternatives, and beneficial cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated through Alternative B. Therefore, the cumulative impact to the human environment is expected to be beneficial.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 30

Table 5. Socioeconomic resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Local and Regional Economies The refuge occurs in Mora County. The percentage of people with incomes below the poverty level is 19.7 percent with a population of nearly 4,600 people in 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov). The population density of the area is among the lowest in New Mexico and the counties within the Mora River watershed have lost from 2.4 to 5.8 percent of their residents over the 2000–2010 time period. The agricultural sector is important, outside of the towns and small communities. The city of Las Vegas is the largest community in the area (population of 13,391) and has the most diverse economic base (http://quickfacts.census.gov). A majority of the population in Mora County is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Alternative (Current Management) Under the No Action Alternative, the economic and social condition of the area would remain the same. There would continue to be limited opportunities for the public to use the refuge. The presence and operation of the refuge provides economic benefits to the surrounding communities within a 60-mile radius. Much of Denver Zoo’s annual budget is recycled into local businesses through staff salaries and purchases of equipment and supplies, as well as contracts for local labor to accomplish refuge projects. The annual budget is roughly 300,000 dollars. The refuge and Denver Zoo provide full-time employment for 6.5 individuals and up to 5 temporary or part-time staff (primarily college students), that live in nearby communities.

Although the refuge does not pay taxes to the counties, Revenue Sharing does provide some offset for the loss of taxes. These represent important contributions to the coffers of local governments. As such, expenditures and profits associated with these programs are important inputs to the economy of the local community.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Economic impacts of Alternative B would be greater than Alternative A, commensurate with the proposed increase in programs, actions, staffing, budget, and spending under this alternative. The refuge would have a public access point for visitors to enjoy wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. Special events and environmental educational programming would continue. The trail and associated facilities would make the refuge a destination point and one of the area’s main attractions. The presence and operation of the refuge provides minor short-term beneficial impacts to the surrounding communities within a 60-mile radius. The refuge would continue to attract local, national, and some international visitors. By attracting visitors to the area, the refuge generates revenue for the local economy. This would likely result in an increase in visitation to the refuge and associated visitor spending, which is a stimulus for the local economy, contributing jobs, income, and tax revenues. Denver Zoo staff on site recycles much of its annual budget into local businesses through purchases of equipment and supplies, as well as contracts for local labor to accomplish refuge projects. Relative to the local economy, these socioeconomic benefits would be small, but still tangible and appreciated.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 31

Under Alternative B, the impact of refuge operations and visitation on the local economy would be beneficial, minor, long-term, and widespread. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations; February 11, 1994) was designed to focus the attention of Federal Agencies on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low income communities with access to public information and opportunities for participation in matters related to human health and the environment.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: None of the alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social or health impacts on minority and low income populations. Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to benefit the environment and people in the surrounding communities.

Indian Trust Resources No Indian Trust Assets have been identified in the area. There are no reservations or ceded lands present. Because resources are not believed to be present, no impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of either alternative described in the EA.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: We do not anticipate impacts to Indian Trust Resources, because there are no known Indian Trust Resources on Rio Mora NWR.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources This analysis considers the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other projects or management activities. There are no known state or federal actions (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) occurring in the vicinity of the refuge or proposed in the future that could have potential cumulative impacts when added to the impacts of the proposed action. Therefore, the cumulative impact to the human environment is expected to be beneficial.

Within the watershed, livestock ranching dominates the use of private lands. Along some of the larger streams, there are small-irrigated hay meadows or crop fields. Private ownership is a mixture of large ranches (including at least two over 75,000 acres in size) as well as smaller ranches in the range of 100s to 1000s of acres. There are a handful of gravel-mining operations supported on private lands. At least three are currently active within the conservation area; two of these gravel-mining operations are within 1.5 miles of the refuge boundary. Nationwide, large landholdings tend to be subdivided over time, with subsequent sales, because land markets favor increased subdivision. At least two ranches in the area near the refuge were sold in the last few years, and have been subsequently marketed as large-lot residential subdivisions. Colfax

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 32

County has no zoning designation or land use regulations on the unincorporated lands. San Miguel County is zoned. Mora County is in the process of drafting a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Under each of the alternatives, there are beneficial effects to the local economy due to restoration efforts. Overall, Alternatives A and B would provide some beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources at various scales and intensities. Activities like rangeland improvement projects and restoration efforts occurring on nearby lands would add to these beneficial impacts to socioeconomics.

The refuge is located in a rural area of northeastern New Mexico. Populations are relatively small and there is limited urban influence. Current land uses in the area include ranching, agriculture, mining, residential development, etc. The impacts of past and present actions that have taken place on refuge are reflected in the current resource conditions.

Monitoring

Inventory, Monitoring and Research

All projects will be evaluated according to four major criteria: 1) compatibility with Service establishing purposes of the refuge, 2) refuge research interests, 3) priority research outcomes and 4) conservation impact and sound science. The following criteria are also used to evaluate projects: 1) Does the research support ongoing monitoring efforts on the refuge or provide information for new monitoring methods? 2) Would other research, monitoring and inventory efforts, management activities, visitor use areas, or refuge programs be affected by the proposed project? 3) Does the proposed project require any staff assistance? 4) Have the necessary compliances or other permitting been completed (e.g., US Army Corps of Engineers 404, Threatened and Endangered Species Section 7, NEPA, etc.)? 5) If the research involves manipulations of live animals (for example, trapping or handling), are there any animal welfare concerns? Has the research been approved by an existing Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and/or Animal Welfare Committee?

Restoration Efforts

1) Determine if restoration efforts reduce erosive processes (i.e., do they create shallower arroyos with more gentle slope, is runoff spread and slowed over the landscape, is vegetation recovering on restored sites). 2) Evaluate the river’s ecology subsequent to completion of restoration efforts (i.e., natural recruitment of cottonwood sprouts, increased side-to-side meander, increased floodplain development, prevention of further incision of riverbed). 3) Determine the current state of refuge grasslands and evaluate the vegetation ecological trend (i.e., are grassland progressing towards management objectives).

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

1) Evaluate the trail’s use and visitors’ experience. 2) Evaluate the trail’s construction and maintenance needs.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 33

Summary of Analysis:

The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under this alternative, there would be no change in current refuge management practices. Management efforts on the refuge would be limited to maintaining existing research, environmental education, and habitat management and restoration programs (i.e., arroyos and head-cut restoration, maintenance of main entrance road, willow and cottonwood restoration on only 25 percent of the river). The ecological process on portions of the Mora River, within the refuge, would continue to degrade. Sites where the river’s ecological processes were previously restored may be lost and or their maintenance could intensify. Efforts to use fire would be limited to naturally occurring lightning strikes. There would be no expansion of habitat and ecosystem management activities, inventories, or monitoring. Encroachment of juniper onto grasslands would continue, providing an avenue for piñon encroachment, eventually changing grasslands to woodlands. Grassland management would be limited to bison grazing and surveying and monitoring of invasive species. The public use program would remain at current levels, with wildlife-dependent recreation limited to wildlife observations along existing public roads and environmental education and staff assisted programs. No new recreational opportunities or facilities would be developed on the refuge.

This alternative meets some of the purpose and needs of the Service as described above, because it would restore hydrology on some areas of the refuge and provide environmental education for visiting school groups/landowner workshops. It provides visitors an opportunity to view wildlife along existing public roads and during partner-sponsored events.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative This alternative is the Service’s Proposed Action. Under this alternative a variety of habitat management techniques (i.e., prescribed burning, experimental grazing, and mechanical and chemical invasive species control methods) would be utilized to encourage ecological integrity, promote native prairie restoration, control invasive plant species, and provide/enhance habitat for grassland birds and other resident wildlife.

Inventory, monitoring, and research would increase, and expand to include assessment of proposed restoration and management actions described in this EA. Research, inventory, and monitoring projects that evaluate actions in this EA and/or enhance refuge management, restoration, and decision capabilities would have priority. The proposed action has the potential to impact visitor use and services, refuge management, and wildlife behavior. Proposed projects would be vetted through the research committee to minimize impacts and meet refuge needs, compatibility, and relevance. Erosion management and restoration would be increased to include existing and abandoned roads, berms, and stock tanks. The erosion restoration/mitigation techniques described in this alternative would restore the hydrology, flora and soil properties of grasslands and canyons, greatly enhancing refuge habitats and their ecology. The riparian and wetland management actions discussed in Alternative B would restore the river’s ecology,

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 34 reverse the down cutting of the river bed, enhance cottonwood and willow stands, restore the cottonwood willow riparian forest and enrich riparian wetlands within the refuge boundary. The grassland management actions of this alternative would provide additional methods (i.e., prescribed fire, control of encroaching juniper, treatment of invasive species) for enhancing and restoring grassland health. The public use program would increase and enhance educational and outreach activities, recreational opportunities (including continued wildlife observation, photography) and community involvement. The trail would provide the public an opportunity to visit and access the refuge daily. The actions stated in this paragraph may cause local and temporary impacts to sites where project work is conducted.

The Proposed Action is better suited to meeting the purpose and needs of the Service, because it would restore hydrology, river ecology, and grassland health on the refuge. It would also provide additional wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. The Service has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and the mission of the NWRS.

5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION

List of Preparers and Contributors: Philip Garcia Wildlife Biologist, Northern New Mexico NWR Complex Debbie Pike Visitor Services Manager, Northern New Mexico NWR Complex Chris Eggleston Wildlife Refuge Manager, Northern New Mexico NWR Complex Anibal Vazquez Natural Resource Planner, USFWS Carol Torrez Chief of Planning, USFWS Ariel Elliott Wildlife Biologist, Valle de Oro NWR Brian Miller Denver Zoological Foundation, contractor at Rio Mora NWR Joe Zebrowski New Mexico Highlands University Research Liaison Shantini Ramakrishnan Denver Zoological Foundation Research and Restoration Advisor at Rio Mora NWR Luis Ramirez Denver Zoological Foundation Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Director at Rio Mora NWR

Agencies or Individuals Consulted: Denver Zoological Foundation Friends of the Las Vegas NWR Hermit’s Peak Watershed Alliance FWS Archeologist Highplains Grassland Alliance NM Department of Game and Fish NM Highlands University Pritzlaff Ranch Tierra y Montes Soil and Water Conservation District U.S. National Park Service – Fort Union National Monument

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 35

Public Outreach Scoping was initiated on November 13, 2014 when a news release was sent to the Las Vegas Optic. The refuge simultaneously posted a public notice in the Las Vegas and Maxwell NWR’s visitor centers, the Las Vegas East and West post offices, and Las Vegas Public Library that established a 30-day scoping period with a scheduled culmination date of December 19, 2014. The refuge notified the Denver Zoological Foundation – Luis Ramirez and they posted the release at their office at Rio Mora NWR. The release was sent via email to the Friends of Las Vegas NWR mailing list.

During the scoping period, which lasted until December 19, 2014, the refuge received no responses from the local community.

Internal scoping of refuge and regional office staff was also conducted to identify issues, concerns, and management opportunities. Based on internal and external scoping, the following issues were identified and considered in the development of the alternatives in Chapter 2 of this EA: 1. Need to continue restoration and applied research efforts prior to refuge establishment 2. Need to determine additional beneficial restoration and management actions 3. Need to examine public use opportunities

A draft of this EA is being released for a 30-day public review period.

References: Anderson, R.C. 1982. An evolutionary model summarizing the roles of fire, climate and grazing animals in the origin and maintenance of grasslands: An end paper. Pp. 297-308 in Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. Eds. J. Estes, R. Tyrl, and J. Brunken. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Oklahoma, USA.

Archuleta, F.D. 2014. Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) response to seasonality and frequency of fire. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas, New Mexico, USA.

Arno, S.F. and C.E. Fiedler. 2005. Mimicking nature’s fire: Restoring fire-prone forests in the west. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Arnold, J.F. 1964. Zonation of understory vegetation around a juniper tree. Journal of Range Management 17:41-42.

Bogan, M.A., C.D. Allan, E.H. Muldavin, S.P Platania, J.N. Stuart, G.H. Farley, P. Mehlhop, and J. Belnap. 1998. Southwest. Pp. 543-592 in Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources. Eds. M.J. Mac, P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett-Haecker, and P.D. Doran. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Bond, W.J. 2010. Consumer control by megafauna and fire. Pp. 275-285 in Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Eds. J. Terborgh and J.A. Estes. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 36

Briggs, J.M., A.K. Knapp, J.M. Blair, J.L. Heisler, G.A. Hoch, M.S. Lett, and J.K. McCarron. 2005. An ecosystem in transition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. Bioscience 55:243-254.

Chronic, H. 1987. Roadside geology of New Mexico. Mountain Press Publishing. Missoula, Montana, USA.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. and G.K. Meffe. 1989. Small fish in strange places: A review of introduced poeciliids. Pp. 319-331 in Ecology and Evolution of Live-bearing Fishes (Poeciliidae). Eds. G.K. Meffe and F.F. Snelson. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

Deboodt, T.L., M.P. Fisher, J.C. Buckhouse, and J. Swanson. 2009. Monitoring hydrological changes due to western juniper removal, a paired watershed approach. The Grazier May 2009: 5- 12. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. USA.

Dick-Peddie, W.A., W.H. Moir, and R. Spellenberg. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: Past, present, and future. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque New Mexico, USA.

Dyer, M.I., J.K. Delting, D.C. Coleman, and D.W. Hilbert. 1982. The role of herbivores in grasslands. Pp. 255-295 in Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. Eds. J.R. Estes, R. Tyrl, and J.N. Brunken. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Oklahoma, USA.

Eberhard, T. 1988. Introduced birds and mammals and their ecological effects. Swedish Wildlife Research 13:1-107.

FAO. 2009. Grasslands: Enabling their potential to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. Submitted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 27 April 2009.

Foxx, T.S. and G.D. Tierney. 1987. Rooting patterns in the pinyon-juniper woodland. Pp. 69-79 in Proceedings of the pinyon-juniper conference, Reno, NV, Jan. 13-16, 1986. Ed. R.L Everett. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215.

Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, and N. McKay. 1999. Western juniper in eastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-464. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland.

Jacobs, B.F., R.G. Gatewood, and C.D. Allen. 2002. Watershed restoration in degraded piñon- juniper woodlands: A paired watershed study 1996-1998. Final report to: USGS-BRD Research/NPS-Natural Resource Preservation Program. Bandelier National Monument, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.

Knapp, A. K. and T. R. Seastedt. 1986. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 37

prairie. BioScience 36:662-668.

Lancia, R.A., W.L. Kendall, K.H. Pollock, and J.D. Nichols. 2005. Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. Pp. 106-153 in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats. Ed. C.E. Braun. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689-710.

McDaniel, K.C., C.R. Hart, and D.B. Carroll. 1997. Broom snakeweed control with fire on New Mexico blue grama rangeland. Journal of Range Management 50:652-659.

McDaniel, K.C., L.A. Torell, and J.W. Bain. 1993. Overstory-understory relationships for broom snakeweed-blue grama rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46:506-511.

Miller, B., B. Dugelby, D. Foreman, C. Martinez del Río, R. Noss, M. Phillips, R. Reading, M.E. Soulé, J. Terborgh, and L. Willcox. 2001. The importance of large carnivores to healthy ecosystems. Endangered Species Update 18:202-210.

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon (Eds.). 1991. Battle against extinction: Native fish management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience 38:753-762.

Neely, B., P. Comer, C. Moritz, M. Lammert, R. Rondeau, C. Pague, G. Bell, H. Copeland, J. Humke, S. Spackman, T. Schulz, D. Theobald, and L. Valutis. 2001. Southern Rocky Mountains: An Ecoregional Assessment and Conservation Blueprint. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy with support from the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2008. Water Quality Survey Summary for the Canadian River Tributaries (Vermejo River, Ocate Creek, and Mora River). Report prepared by the Surface Water Quality Bureau for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Santa Fe, new mexico, USA.

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

Noss, R.F. and A. Copperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

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

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 38

Owen-Smith, N. 1987. Pleistocene extinctions: The pivotal role of megaherbivores. Paleobiology 13:351-362.

Pimm, S.L. 1991. The balance of nature?: Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Primack, R.B. 1998. Essentials of conservation biology (2nd Edition). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.

Romme, W.H., C.D. Allen, J.D. Bailey, W.L. Baker, B.T. Bestelmeyer, P.M. Brown, K.S. Eisenhart, L. Floyd-Hanna, D.W. Huffman, B.F. Jacobs, R.F. Miller, E.H. Muldavin, T.W. Swetnam, R.J. Tausch, and P.J. Weisberg. 2009. Historical and modern disturbance regimes, stand structures, and landscape dynamics in piñon–juniper vegetation of the western United States. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:203-222.

Schumm, S.A., M.D. Harvey, and C.C. Watson. 1984. Incised channels: morphology, dynamics and control. Water Resource Publications, Littleton, Colorado, USA.

Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (Eds.). 1997. Strangers in paradise: Impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

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

Smith, D.W. and G. Ferguson. 2005. Decade of the wolf: Returning the wild to Yellowstone. The Lyons Press. Guilford, Connecticut, USA.

Smith, R.B. and L.J. Siegal. 2000. Windows into the Earth. Oxford University Press. New York, New York, USA.

Soulé, M.E., J.A. Estes, B. Miller, and D.L. Honnold. 2005. Strongly interacting species: Conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience 55:168-176.

Sublette, J. E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Tennesen, M. 2008. When juniper and woody plants invade, water may retreat. Science 322:1630-1631.

Terborgh, J., J.A. Estes, P. Paquet, K. Ralls, D. Boyd, B. Miller, and R. Noss. 1999. Role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. Pp 39-64 in Continental conservation: Scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Eds. M.E. Soulé and J. Terborgh. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

The Nature Conservancy. 2007. A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Southern Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion. Southern Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Planning Team, The

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 39

Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Thompson, B., and A. Ali (Eds). 2009. Water resources assessment of the Mora River. Water Resources Program, University of New Mexico.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern willow flycatcher recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. (library.fws.gov/bird_publications/bcc2008.pdf)

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

White, R., S. Murray, and M. Rohweder. 2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Grassland ecosystems. World Resource Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.

Zeedyk, B. 2009. An introduction to induced meandering: A method of restoring stability to incised stream channels. Paper Tiger, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. 2012. Water harvesting from low-standard rural roads. New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. and J.W. Jansens. 2006. An introduction to erosion control. Earth Works Institute and Quivira Coalition. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. and V. Clothier. 2009. Let the water do the work: Induced meandering, an evolving method for restoring incised channels. Quivira Coalition. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B., M. Walton, and T. Gadzia. 2014. Characterization and restoration of slope wetlands in New Mexico: A guide for understanding slope wetlands, causes of degradation, and treatment options. New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau, Wetlands Program. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 40

APPENDIX A TABLE OF OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources An archeological survey has not been conducted on the refuge for the American Indian Religious Freedom proposed alternative. Refuge staff consulted with the National Park Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 – Service about the segments of old roads/ruts that most likely had a close 1996a; 43 CFR Part 7 association with the Santa Fe Trail traffic during the 19th century period of significance but are not officially part of the designated Santa Fe Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. National Historic Trail alignment. The State Preservation Office and the 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3 FWS Archeologist would be notified and consulted before any alterations are conducted on the above mentioned abandoned roads. The FWS Archaeological Resources Protection Archeologist will be notified and a survey conducted, if needed, on sites Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – where project work is to be conducted if alternative B is pursued. 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810

Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971)

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996) Fish & Wildlife BGEPA prohibits the take of bald and golden eagles. No take of these Bald and Golden Eagle Protection species would occur from any of the alternatives. Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22 No take of threatened or endangered species or adverse modification to Endangered Species Act of 1973, as designated critical habitat would occur from the proposed alternative B. amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 36 Rio Mora NWR consulted with the Service’s New Mexico Ecological CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, Services Office for concurrence effects determinations to fulfill 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 obligations under section 7 of the ESA.

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 41

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m Alternative B was proposed to minimize impacts to the habitat and the ecology of the refuge. If successful the actions described should enhance Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. and restore habitat, providing additional protection to migratory birds. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21

Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001) Natural Resources Actions in alternative B are designed to address invasive species on Rio Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 Mora NWR and: 1) prevent their introduction; 2) detect and respond U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts rapidly to and control populations in a cost-effective and environmentally 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; sound manner; 3) monitor invasive species populations accurately and 48 CFR Part 23 reliably; 4) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in the ecosystem; 5) conduct research on invasive species and develop Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally seq. sound control of invasive species; and 6) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999)

Water Resources The areas of impact would be minimal enough to be covered under a Coastal Zone Management Act of Nationwide 27 permit. Rio Mora NWR will continue to coordinate and 1972, 16 U.S.C. consult with the Corps of Engineers ALBUQUERQUE District to ensure 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, that the proposed alternative B is within the Nationwide 27 permit. 933

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, and 328

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 42

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as Rio Mora NWR will consult and coordinate with U.S. Army Corps of amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 Engineers (ACOE) before any actions in alternative B are initiated within CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, the river. and 333 Within Rio Mora NWR the actions in alternative B should reduce the risk Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, human U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 141-148 values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities.

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Alternative B was designed to reduce degradation of wetlands, and to Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in (1977) carrying out Rio Mora NWR purpose.

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 43

APPENDIX B RIO MORA 5-YEAR PLAN

Draft Environmental Assessment – Rio Mora NWR 5-Year Action Plan 44

Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge

5-Year Action Plan

June 2019

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge Route 1, Box 399 Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701 505-425-8510 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Needs Assessment 5 2.1 Inventory, Monitoring and Research 5 2.2 Road Rehabilitation 5 2.3 Arroyos, Head-cuts, Berms and Stock Ponds 6 2.4 Restoring Riparian / Wetland Habitat 7 2.5 Non-native Species 8 2.6 Fire 8 2.7 Piñon/Juniper Management 9 2.8 Grazing 10 2.9 Visitor Services 10 3.0 Refuge Resources and Current Management 10 3.1 Physical Environment 10 Climate Change and Air Quality 11 Topography, Soils, and Geology 11 Water Resources and Quality 12 Flooding 13 3.2 Biological Environment 13 Vegetative Communities 13 Non-native Plant Species 14 Wildlife 16 Waterfowl 16 Breeding Birds, Bird Migration and Winter Stopover Habitat 16 Non-native Wildlife 17 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species 17 3.3 Human Environment 18 Cultural, Archeological, and Historic Resources 18 Socioeconomic Resources 19 3.4 Visitor Services 19 Visual Resources 20 3.5 Inventory, Monitoring and Research 20 Restoration Efforts 23

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan i

Erosion control 23 Riparian and Wetland Habitats 27 Grassland health 29 4.0 Goals and Objectives 30 Inventory, Monitoring and Research 30 Restoration Efforts 31 Erosion control 31 Riparian and Wetland Habitats 33 Grassland Health 33 Wildlife-Dependent Recreation 34 References: 36

Table of Figures

Figure 1. A Topographical Map of the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area...... 4 Figure 2. A topographical map of the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge...... 11 Figure 3. A road on the refuge that intercepts water and channels it away from the downhill side of the road...... 24 Figure 4. A newly constructed one-rock restoration structure in Loma Parda arroyo...... 24 Figure 5. The result of rock structures in Loma Parda Arroyo...... 25 Figure 6. First level and second level set of one-rock structures...... 26 Figure 7. A permanent pool formed by rock structures...... 26 Figure 8. On the left is a newly constructed rock run-down at the site of a three foot high head- cut. On the right is the same rock run-down one year later...... 27 Figure 9. A Zuni bowl to stop head-cut erosion within an existing arroyo (from Zeedyk et al. 2014)...... 27 Figure 10. A one kilometer stretch of river that had been straightened and incised before the induced meandering procedures...... 28 Figure 11. A rock baffle (center-right) forced the water into the opposite bank to create a meander and floodplain behind the baffle...... 28 Figure 12. Cross-vane for grade control...... 29 Figure 13. Plan for a rolling dip (from Zeedyk 2012)...... 32 Figure 14. Side view of a rolling dip (from Zeedyk 2012) ...... 32 Figure 15. A typical river meander pattern (from Zeedyk 2012)...... 33 Figure 16. Location of the proposed nature trail on Rio Mora NWR...... 35 Table of Tables Table 1. Weed species on Rio Mora NWR...... 15

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan ii

1.0 Introduction

Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge (refuge or Rio Mora NWR) was established on September 27, 2012, when the 4,224-acre former Wind River Ranch was donated by E. V. Thaw Charitable Trust to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Rio Mora NWR is the 560th unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The refuge was established to protect, conserve, and enhance native species and natural processes. It was also instituted for wildlife-dependent uses when these uses are compatible and appropriate. The goals and objectives of this plan are to continue the wildlife conservation and education efforts initiated by the former ranch as they apply to the biological priorities of Rio Mora NWR. The refuge is the cornerstone of the Rio Mora Conservation Area (CA) (figure 1), a landscape level conservation effort that will utilize partnerships and cooperative management to achieve shared conservation goals. The NWRS is uniquely capable of providing stewardship for the ecologically significant riparian and grassland ecosystems within the refuge.

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is to:

“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans”

Prior to the establishment of Rio Mora NWR, the 4,224 acres were owned by Eugene and Clare Thaw and managed by the Wind River Ranch Foundation (Foundation), a 501c3 non-profit organization. Prior to European settlement, the property and surrounding area was historically used by a number of Native American tribes. After European settlement, it became part of the Mora Land Grant, where the land was used for subsistence farming and livestock grazing. In the 20th Century, the land was purchased privately and mainly used for domestic livestock operations. The Thaws purchased the land in the 1990s and used it for recreation and horses. Over the years, they acquired 13 parcels of land that are now the boundaries of the refuge. In 2004, they decided that their land should serve a societal benefit and thus created the Foundation in January 2005. From the beginning, the goals of the Foundation were to establish a place for ecological restoration, native species, conservation research, education of local youth, and a site where people could come together and create solutions to counter degrading ecological systems.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 3

---= -w · e Service. S,'i:l:f: Rio Mora Conservation Area and NWR sYn-no Mora , San Miguel, Colfax counties , New Mexico

ffiOl)IJE IN TI-E DNSION Cf RERIGc PtWIING lANOSlATUSMl8"lTO-S'J1~ 10 20 IAAPOATEM.m21J12 Miles ~SEWN/A 1.ERIIMN: ""A Kilometers ALE. 1.b1Ril'Or basofflll)lellcr3_t62012sll 10 20 UTMZOEIJ~ N'083 Figure 1. A Topographical Map of the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area.

Some of the ecological restoration activities that the Wind River Ranch began included graduate projects and undergraduate internships; installation of rock structures to reduce soil erosion and raise the water table in arroyos and canyons; and river restoration including induced meander to create floodplains and restore pools and riffles (see Zeedyk 2009; Zeedyk and Clothier 2009). Additionally, extirpated species such as Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni) and bison (Bison bison) were repatriated, new wetlands were created, and degraded wetlands were restored. There is additional information about the history of Rio Mora NWR in the Land Protection Plan for the Proposed Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area and Environmental Assessment, which is referred to as the LPP/EA (USFWS 2012).

The Foundation built partnerships with agencies, tribes, universities, local schools, and non- governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Denver Zoological Foundation (Denver Zoo). These partnerships are important today as the Service works to develop a management plan for Rio Mora NWR. Upon establishment of the refuge, Denver Zoo and the Service entered into a partnership outlined by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to continue operations begun by the Foundation on the refuge until 2015, and later amended in 2017. The MOU amendment took effect in 2018. Refuge management activities are now being developed for the next five years, thus the creation of this 5-year Action Plan.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 4

2.0 Needs Assessment

2.1 Inventory, Monitoring and Research Species diversity has declined over the last several hundred years. As species become imperiled, ecosystems will fluctuate and it can become exceedingly difficult to reverse the decline in biodiversity. As a basic step, it is necessary to know what species occur on the refuge. Then, understanding abundance, distribution, habitat choice, and ecological interactions of vertebrates and invertebrates can promote management decisions that benefit overall ecosystem health. Monitoring programs that build an ecological model of the landscape and assess the trends in relation to biotic and abiotic changes, are essential to adaptive management; yet such programs are not always a standard part of management activities (Noss and Cooperrider 1994; Noss al. 1996; Lancia et al. 2005). Indeed, a conservation and management plan requires standardized ecological monitoring so that actions can be adjusted according to new information (Noss et al. 1996). The term monitoring implies data collection over multiple years. Taking long-term estimations of population composition before, during, and after biotic and abiotic changes provides needed information to assess the impacts of such changes and furnish useful options for management decisions (Sinclair 1991). It is also important in judging the success of species enhancements and reintroductions.

There is a need to establish systematic surveys and control plots, which would provide a baseline against which to measure the success of restoration treatments of habitats and/or for species that are threatened or highly interactive in driving ecosystem processes. There is a need to reverse the detrimental drivers of this ecosystem and provide educational opportunities for children and adult students while improving ecological functions and wildlife habitats. These educational experiences can further help people address conservation problems throughout the watershed and the larger landscape. Ecological restoration on the refuge provides thesis /dissertation projects for graduate students, internships for undergraduates, workshops for the community, and exposes local middle and high school students to nature.

2.2 Road Rehabilitation Some of the refuge roads are disrupting normal surface and subsurface water flows across the landscape. This has caused some areas to dry and lose productivity, concentrating the flow of water in other areas and causing erosion and sedimentation (Zeedyk 2012).

Road run-off is a major source of nonpoint pollution in the West. Sediment run-off near rivers can be a cause of water pollution and turbidity. On the refuge, roads are typically low standard, two track roads, lacking typical drainage structures such as culverts and ditches. They were designed with the idea that water on the roads is a nuisance to be removed as quickly and cheaply as possible (Zeedyk 2012). The ecological value of water was not considered when the refuge roads were designed. Because of poor drainage, fine materials from the roads are lost, causing them to erode, increasing maintenance and cost.

There is a need to assess refuge roads to determine their importance and necessity. There is also a need to assess how water will be diverted and dispersed from the roads to the adjacent

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 5

landscape; considering topography, soils, geology, and precipitation patterns.

2.3 Arroyos, Head-cuts, Berms and Stock Ponds Erosion, lack of water, and declining health of grasslands are issues of concern in our region, and 80 percent of New Mexicans agree that restoration of such ecosystems is important (NM Game and Fish 2006). The New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (hereafter NM State Plan) states, “[t]he most significant factors affecting the persistence of SGCN [Species of Greatest Conservation Need] statewide are those that cause habitat conversion, loss, and degradation” (NM Game and Fish 2006, p. iv). There is a need to mend arroyos, head-cuts, berms and stock ponds to reduce existing soil erosion on the refuge. The methods below are designed to reverse the adverse effects of erosion and aid in controlling soil loss so that it holds water, supports more vegetation, and thus stores carbon taken from the atmosphere.

It is important for the refuge to implement methods designed to reverse the adverse effects of erosion and regenerate soil to increase its capacity to hold water, support more vegetation, and thus store carbon taken from the atmosphere. Erosion on the refuge is specific to the arroyos, head-cuts, abandoned roads, and old stock tanks. Controlling upland erosion is key to nearly all restoration efforts on the refuge. Upland erosion degrades soils, reduces plant diversity and density, lowers the water table, and increases sediment in the river. Erosion happens when there is not enough soil cover to protect the surface from the sheer force of flowing water; erosion worsens as the slope increases in angle, as the slope lengthens, and as the soil becomes more fragile (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). Where a grade suddenly becomes steep, or soil hardness changes, run-off creates a head-cut. Head-cuts, in turn, increase the speed of run-off, deepen the arroyo, and lengthen it (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). An arroyo or gully is a highly erosive land feature created by precipitation run-off. As arroyos form and develop run-off increases, the flow velocity increases, which increases the power of erosive forces exponentially (double the velocity cubes the energy of water). On the refuge this erosion continues to the river, changing sediment levels, temperature, and oxygen content of the river. These gullies then lower the water table.

Berms and stock ponds can sometimes have unintended consequences. Portions of refuge grasslands have eroded because of previous landowners’ construction and development of berms and stock ponds. These structures have created half a dozen head-cuts and have caused gully erosion. There is a need to correct the erosive processes created by these berms and stock ponds.

One of the most important factors of soil is its ability to hold water; degraded soils lose that capacity (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). In the Southwest, rainfall can be scarce, and climate change that increases drought will worsen the effect. Scarce rainfall is complicated by unintended water loss through erosion. To return life to the land, soils must recover the ability to hold water. Slowing the flow of water allows it to soften the ground and increase the amount of infiltration into the soil. Water stored in the soil is less vulnerable to evaporation: it flows slowly downhill to feed seeps, wetlands and springs, and creates riparian habitat—one of the most valuable habitats in the Southwest (N.M. Department of Game and Fish 2006; Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). Soil moisture boosts microorganisms, such as mycelium, that help transport water to plant roots (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). Restoring plants to a degraded area slows air movement, provides shade, reduces evaporation, stores carbon, slows water flow, holds soil in

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 6

place, and adds organic content from the ground litter produced by plants into the soil (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). These changes provide habitats for a host of vertebrates and invertebrates.

2.4 Restoring Riparian / Wetland Habitat The riparian and wetland habitat area along the Mora River has been degraded and altered. There is a need to restore natural riparian vegetation, reestablish river meander and create riverine wetlands to mimic historic floodplain processes. Willows (Salix spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus spp.) are less abundant than they would be in an undisturbed area. Thus, willows and cottonwoods need to be restored along much of the entire 5 miles of river that flows through the refuge. Currently, willows cover about 25 percent of the riverbank, whereas cottonwoods no longer exist as a gallery forest. Cottonwoods were once actively eliminated because landowners thought they were conserving water by removing the trees from the river. Cottonwoods now exist in small and isolated stands, or as individual trees, with little to no recruitment of saplings along the floodplain.

The value of cottonwoods and willows as habitat cannot be overemphasized. While cottonwoods and willows cover only a small percentage of the area, perhaps less than 2 percent, these sites are biological hotspots, affecting a large variety of animals. Smith and Ferguson (2005: 119) say it succinctly: “[a]ny recovery that gets going in these plant communities is going to affect a lot of players.” Expanded willow thickets along the river will supply neo-tropical migratory birds habitat for nesting and feeding (species like the yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) and Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)), and improve the structure and quality of the river and riparian area. These plants also stabilize the banks, while roots extending under the floor of the river can support the riverbed and reduce down cutting of the bed.

The Audubon Society recognizes the refuge as an Important Bird Area and 194 bird species have been documented. Water-surface foraging bats, hovering gleaner bats, and aerial pursuing bats should benefit as well. The ponds and wetland vegetation should provide nesting structure and food for a variety of vertebrates and invertebrates, helping assemble a food chain across trophic levels (insects, bats, birds, mammalian herbivores, raptors, and mammalian carnivores) (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2006). Riparian and wetland areas represent less than 1 percent of the total area in the Southwest, but 75 to 80 percent of vertebrate life depend on these areas for food, water, cover, and movement (Bogan et al. 1998).

In the past, parts of the Mora River were straightened or disturbed by mining, roads, de- vegetation, overgrazing, livestock trailing, agriculture, etc.; becoming incised to the point that it no longer has a functional floodplain. The loss of beavers during the fur trade added to environmental disturbance. When the floor of the river cuts down, it increases the force of floods, increases sediment deposition, lowers the water table, and reduces wildlife habitat (Zeedyk 2009). The floor of the Mora River tends to flatten and move away from the pool, glide, riffle, and run sequence that are important for fish habitat. There is a need to restore meander back to portions of the river that flow through the refuge.

Rivers, not incised, that meander across valley floors have functional floodplains or areas that occur naturally, adjacent to the channel, where the river deposits water during flood events. Floodplains are thus pressure relief valves for a river. When floodwaters spread across the

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 7

vegetated floodplain, it spreads the energy of the river and creates resistance. By dissipating energy and slowing flows, floodplains reduce erosion of the bank and bed of a flooding river. Flooding deposits rich sediments onto the floodplain, recharges water tables, creates diverse habitats, and sustains communities of plants and animals. Approximately 75 percent of the wildlife species in the southwestern U.S. depend on wetland and riparian areas at some level (Bogan et al. 1998). A river confined to its channel is a river that is deprived of its ecological function.

The NM State Plan concludes that riparian habitats, ephemeral catchments, perennial seeps, marshes, and springs are at the highest risk of eradication from multiple factors throughout the state, and that these are “key areas upon which to focus conservation efforts” as “New Mexico and Arizona have lost an estimated 90 percent of their original riparian ecosystems” (NM Game and Fish 2006, p. v, 78, 89 and 219).

2.5 Non-native Species Non-native or exotic species are a great threat to native biodiversity and, where possible, there is a need to manage, control and eradicate these species on the refuge. A non-native species could be a plant, animal or even disease. While not all exotics colonize, and some of them that do cause no damage, there are also cases where entire communities have been devastated (Eberhard 1988; Courtenay and Meffe 1989; Minckley and Deacon 1991; Pimm 1991; Simberloff et al. 1997; Wilcove et al. 1998; Mack et al., 2000). The problem of non-native species has been accelerated by fragmenting the landscape, extirpating native species, intentionally moving species for agriculture, and unintentionally moving species as unwanted passengers during transportation.

Within the Mora River watershed, a number of non-native plant species have become established in the ecosystems, replacing or reducing the abundance of some native species that evolved with the ecosystems. Such invasive plants are not only effective at pioneering disturbed sites, but may proliferate to the exclusion of native plants, interrupting the natural process of plant succession and permanently dominating the vegetative communities in the absence of natural biocontrols. Once established, invasive species can have a dramatic, negative impact on ecosystems. Native grasses may also decline while shrubs and other weedy species may increase altering the ecology of the grasslands.

2.6 Fire There is a need to consider fire (prescribed and wildland) as a potential grassland and piñon/juniper management tool for the refuge. Grasslands are better adapted than trees to arid conditions. Grasslands represent an important ecosystem and are the largest and most threatened ecosystems in North America (Archuleta 2014). Noss et al. (1996) categorized United States grasslands as critically endangered. Current fire regimes bear little resemblance to those of the past, with post-settlement charcoal deposition much lower than pre-settlement, suggesting that fire frequency decreased after European settlement of the Great Plains (Archuleta 2014). Agriculture, human settlements, desertification, changed fire regimes, introduction of exotic livestock, fragmentation, loss of megafauna, and invasive species are the main causes of degradation (Owen-Smith 1987; White et al. 2000; Bond 2010).

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 8

Fire is an important component of grassland ecosystems, but it has been eliminated from most areas. Fire prevents woody species encroachment, removes dead material, recycles nutrients, and influences grazing patterns (see references and review in Archuleta 2014). Anderson (1982), Dyer et al. (1982), and Knapp and Seastedt (1986) suggested that when plant litter is removed by fire, productivity increases in grassland ecosystems.

In the piñon/juniper community, there is a need to determine the ecological fire history and occurrence, and then apply fire to woodland management. There is a gradual trend of juniper encroachment onto grasslands, changing the grassland to a juniper savanna supporting piñon encroachment and eventually becoming a woodland, which contributes to erosion. Fire could be an important component in reversing the trend and restoring grassland health.

2.7 Piñon/Juniper Management In addition to implementing prescribed fire management, there is a need to mechanically remove and thin juniper and occasionally piñon encroaching onto the grasslands on some sites. As juniper increases on western grasslands, diversity and abundance of grasses declines, erosion increases, and infiltration rates of moisture reduce (Gedney et al. 1999). This has caused desertification in eastern Oregon (Debroodt et al. 2009), and millions of acres of dry western grasslands have been lost throughout the western United States (Jacobs et al. 2002; Tennesen 2008). Globally and in North America, grasslands are a highly threatened ecosystem (Primack 1998).

Drought speeds the conversion of grasses to woodland through competition for water (Arno and Fiedler 2005). Plants with multi-level root systems, like junipers, have a distinct advantage. When there is rainfall, they can out-compete grass for the surface moisture via a layer of fine root-filaments 6 to 36 inches beneath the soil surface that can extend laterally three times the height of the tree (Foxx and Tierney, 1987). A halo effect of reduced grass density and diversity, reported by Arnold (1964), is clearly visible. When there is no rain, juniper can draw water from deep tap-roots (Tennesen 2008). Taproots of one-seed juniper can extend 160 feet below the surface (Foxx and Tierney 1987).

There has been a fundamental shift from grasslands to wooded savannas in the last 125 years (Arno and Fiedler 2005). Predictions for increased drought following climate change will exacerbate the problem. If fragmentation proceeds in a random fashion, when 40 percent of an original habitat type is left, the patches become disconnected (Primack 1998). The isolated patches of that habitat-type then continue to shrink and become more distant from each other, with the invading habitat-type becoming increasingly more dominant. Loss of grasslands to expanding woodlands eventually eliminates the matrix of different habitat-types in an area and thus removes ecological boundaries that allow greater diversity of species to exist across a landscape.

Piñon/juniper plants have advanced onto refuge grasslands, as observed by comparing older aerial photos to the present-day sites. The density of the piñon/juniper communities has also increased, a National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) agent has ranked stands on the refuge at “Medium to Dense” (R. Jones, pers. com.). In some locations, the cover percentage is 60 percent when normal cover is about 30 percent (Dick-Peddie et. al. 1993; V. Yazzie, pers.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 9

com.). High densities weaken the plants and make them vulnerable to pitch mass borer (Dioryctria ponderosae) infestations. Competition for water in high-density piñon/juniper stands may also reduce the nut crop, which provides an important food base for many vertebrate species.

2.8 Grazing The area containing the refuge and a portion of the watershed became part of the Mora Land Grant, a large Mexican communal land grant encompassing 827,000 acres. The land was used for subsistence farming and livestock grazing. In the 20th century, the land was purchased privately and mainly used for domestic livestock. In more recent history and previous to becoming part of the NWRS, the former Wind River Ranch managed a bison herd on the property.

There is a need to determine the level and type of grazing which would be appropriate for the refuge. Grasslands are early successional ecosystems that are maintained primarily by frequent disturbances. Some of the disturbances come from drought, but additional disturbances come from fire, grazing, and the behavior of grassland megafauna (Owen-Smith 1987; Briggs et al. 2005; Bond 2010).

2.9 Visitor Services Rio Mora NWR and CA offers wildlife viewing and photography with opportunities to photograph elk, mule deer, turkey, bison, as well as a host of small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Public access is limited to the county road, state highway, and during special events that include five organized guided hikes offered throughout the year. Wildlife observation and photography are conducted along the public roads and during organized events such as traditional environmental education activities (teacher-led or staff-led on-site field trips), annual landowner workshops, guided interpretive and natural history walks, etc. Though limited to the public roads and special events, wildlife observation and photography are popular wildlife- dependent refuge recreational uses. Several academic and conservation organizations use the refuge for educational and interpretive purposes. Presently, the refuge is primarily functioning as a research and educational facility. In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, there is a need to provide public use opportunities on the refuge.

3.0 Refuge Resources and Current Management

3.1 Physical Environment The refuge sits at 6,500 to 6,900 feet above sea level (Figure 2). The main habitat types are shortgrass prairie, riparian, ephemeral natural catchments, and perennial seeps/springs/marsh wetlands, piñon/juniper/oak woodlands, and coniferous forests. Grasslands dominate the refuge, although there are about 5 miles (8.4 km) of the Mora River flowing through a canyon that is up to 300 feet deep (Figure 2). There are canyons feeding the Mora River, and those canyons contain seeps, springs and ephemeral wetlands. The rimrock lining the canyons is mostly sandstone.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 10

Climate Change and Air Quality

Climate patterns are generally driven by regional to global influences. Climate change in the Southwest is predicted to make conditions warmer and drier and precipitation events more erratic and extreme, resulting in extreme droughts and earlier snowpack melt-off that will alter hydrologic regimes and stress natural systems (IPCC 2007). The relatively small population, limited urban influence, and the current land uses on the refuge and within the watershed result in low levels of emissions by vehicles, human infrastructure, and industry. Healthy grasslands can be a factor in removing carbon from the atmosphere (FAO 2009). The land cover on the refuge is mostly natural and approximately 98 percent of the land cover within the watershed is natural, consequently carbon sequestration occurs at relatively natural levels.

Under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401-7671q, as amended in 1990), the Service has a responsibility to protect air quality and related values from the adverse effects of air pollution and to comply with Federal, State, and local air pollution control laws and regulations.

US f•h&W,ldoles.,,..;c•

Legend

Rk)MOf,1NWR __ inholdings

I ,. ... Figure 2. A topographical map of the Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge.

Topography, Soils, and Geology

On the refuge and within the watershed, the natural topography is highly variable. In the eastern part of the watershed on the Great Plains, the topography is generally flat to rolling with isolated high mesas and occasional deep canyons where streams flow. In the western part of the watershed in the Rocky Mountains and foothills, the topographic relief is greater and can be extreme over a small area. Human changes to the topography in the area are mainly a result of

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 11

minor excavations for roads, buildings, irrigation ditches, and utility lines, as well as some tilling of land for crop or hay production. In some places, these alterations may have impacted drainage patterns. Gravel mining operations that occur within the watershed often alter the natural topography to a greater degree, but the changes to the natural topography occur over a relatively small area.

Soil composition on the refuge was created from a series of historical events dating back millions of years ago. About 140 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period of the Mesozoic Era, eastern New Mexico was flooded by a shallow sea (Chronic 1987; Smith and Siegal 2000). This sea left thick deposits of shales and sandstones (Chronic 1987). About 80 million years ago, the Laramide Orogeny began fault-lifting Pre-Cambrian rocks upward to start the New Mexican part of the Rocky Mountain chain; the upward faulting continued into the Cenozoic Era (Smith and Siegal 2000). Along the east edge of the faulting, sedimentary layers bent upward to form the present-day hogbacks (Chronic 1987).

Erosion from the mountains was heaviest during the Pleistocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Era because of continued uplift combined with Ice-Age precipitation (Chronic 1987). Dakota sandstone and Pierre shale still lie on the basin east of the mountains today. The dark, gray Pierre shale was deposited as mud on the floor of the shallow sea (Smith and Siegal 2000). The Dakota sandstone, however, is a beach and shore deposit, and like beach sand, it is porous and permeable (Smith and Siegal 2000). Thus, the soil-covered sandstone serves as an aquifer throughout the east side of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Smith and Siegal 2000). Various layers of soil cover this sedimentary base, with topsoil averaging about 4 inches thick (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006).

Water Resources and Quality

The Mora River flows through the center of the property for approximately 5 miles (8.4 km) in a 250–300 foot deep canyon (Figure 2). The major source of water supply in the watershed is surface water runoff from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, but at least 47 acequias, or community operated irrigation ditches, occur on the Mora River and its tributaries throughout the watershed (Thompson and Ali 2009). Irrigation has changed the flow, geomorphology, and water quality of the Mora River and its major streams.

In some places within the watershed, riparian areas have been eroded partially because of reduced vegetation cover due to overgrazing, and/or where the natural meander of the river has been altered. This has led to down cutting of the stream, in-turn lowering the water table and stressing the native riparian vegetation. This can also reduce oxygen levels, increase water temperature, and increase sedimentation (Schumm et al 1984). In other places, application of irrigation water has created wetlands where they would not have naturally occurred.

Water quality has been assessed in the Canadian River tributaries, including the Mora River, by the New Mexico Environment Department (2008). They reported that generally water quality was good. There were some sampling locations where water quality standards were not met: fecal coliform criteria were exceeded on the Mora and Sapello Rivers; impairment determinations of New Mexico water quality standards for specific conductance were

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 12 documented for Coyote Creek (Mora River to Black Lake) and the Mora River (Hwy 434 to headwaters). Impairment of the plant nutrients criterion was determined for Little Coyote Creek (Black Lake to headwaters) and the Mora River (USGS gage east of Shoemaker to Hwy 434). Temperature criteria were exceeded on Coyote Creek (Mora River to Black Lake). Impairment due to sedimentation/siltation was determined on the Mora River (Hwy 434 to headwaters) and the Sapello River (Mora River to Manuelitas Creek). They attributed some of the impairments as being due to low flows associated with the drought conditions in 2002.

Flooding

Floods would have naturally occurred, especially during spring melt-off of high snowpack or with summer thunderstorms. Human alterations along the floodplains associated with building of roads and other infrastructure and substantial changes or complete removal of native vegetation have reduced the capacity of the natural systems to slow and store floodwaters. The incision of the river has disconnected it from its natural floodplain. This has resulted in flood events with greater capacity to cause damage, especially to infrastructure located in the floodplain.

Stable rivers that meander across valley floors have functional floodplains or areas that occur naturally along the stream where the river deposits water during flood events. Floodplains are thus pressure relief valves for a river (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009). When flood waters spread across the vegetated floodplain, it spreads the energy of the river and creates resistance. By dissipating energy and slowing flows, floodplains reduce erosion of the bank and bed of a flooding river. Flooding deposits rich sediments onto the floodplain, recharges water tables, creates diverse habitats, and sustains communities of plants and animals (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009).

3.2 Biological Environment The refuge is situated within a unique and significant ecological area where the elevation transitions between the Great Plains and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The juxtaposition of two ecoregions and riparian habitats in this arid part of New Mexico all enrich the species diversity of the area.

Vegetative Communities

The most significant habitats (Ecological Systems – National Vegetation Classification Standard 2008) represented on Rio Mora NWR include shortgrass prairie, piñon-juniper woodlands, and smaller amounts of ponderosa pine woodlands and riparian systems with approximately 5 miles of the Mora River that flows through the center of the refuge. Vegetation is dominated by relatively dense willow thickets with scattered cottonwood trees along 25 percent of the river.

The native riparian habitat has been reduced and lost in certain stretches of the river. In some places, areas have been eroded, partially because of reduced vegetation cover, or where the natural meander of the river has been altered. This has led to down cutting of the stream, in-turn lowering the water table, and stressing the native riparian vegetation, which lowers habitat productivity for wildlife as vegetative diversity declines. Willows and cottonwood trees are less

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 13

abundant than they would have been historically. Cottonwoods no longer form continuous forest galleries, but have been reduced to small isolated stands.

In general, upland grassland and piñon-juniper habitats have been altered by fire suppression, overgrazing, and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide inputs (Romme et al 2009). This has reduced the productivity of many of these habitats, increased water runoff and erosion, lowered the local water table, and increased down cutting in streams and arroyos. Piñon/juniper trees have invaded the deeper soils of the grasslands where they out-compete grasses, causing desertification (Deboodt et al. 2009). Encroachment has reached 60 percent densities in locations on refuge; the normal range should be approximately 30 percent.

The refuge is within a number of terrestrial and aquatic conservation sites identified as part of TNC’s 2007 Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Southern Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion (The Nature Conservancy 2007) and the Southern Rocky Mountains: An Ecoregional Assessment and Conservation Blueprint (Neely et al. 2001).

Non-native Plant Species

A number of non-native plant species (Table 1) have become established in the ecosystems within the refuge watershed, replacing or reducing the abundance of some native species that evolved within the ecosystems. It is common for non-native grass species such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) to be planted in land cleared for hay meadows. Some of these species can invade native habitats in the area. Cheatgrass is invading in some areas of the refuge. A number of non-native plants have been observed in the watershed but to date none are known to be causing extensive problems. These include tamarisk, Russian olive, Siberian elm, Russian thistle, Canada thistle and kochia. It is unknown if a thorough non-native plant species inventory has been completed.

Historically, cattle wintered and calved near and within the area of the current environmental education building; horses were also concentrated in this area. This site is near the Mora River, about 75 acres has degraded and hosts spots of bare soil, erosion, and invasive/exotic plants. There are several patches of cheatgrass, the largest about two acres. Cheatgrass can cause considerable problems for livestock and wildlife, as it can change the native plant community into an exotic monoculture, change soil chemistry, change the fire regime, and cause ungulates discomfort when the dried awns get stuck in their mouths. The Foundation began removing cheatgrass in 2005; Denver Zoo has continued the removal of cheatgrass initiated by the Foundation. Removal/control is possible, but requires a combination of methods. Methods presently used are hand pulling and bagging, mowing and catching seed in a bag, in combination with disking to kill the root.

Poison hemlock has invaded several spots along the river and many sites along the irrigation canal. Cutting the root below ground has been successful at reducing numbers. This will be a multi-year effort. Western sticktight and puncture vine can be found on disturbed areas. Hand- pulling is currently the method of removal.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 14

The uplands of the refuge are in better condition than the area encompassing the environmental education building. Approximately 300 acres of grassland are heavily infested with broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae). Broom snakeweed is a native, but can dominate areas where the grasslands have been overgrazed. Summer drought and winter moisture can also stimulate numbers of snakeweed, as can an absence of fire (http://extension.usu.edu/rangeplants).

In an experiment, McDaniel et al. (1997) compared burning grasslands with broom snakeweed in spring and summer. During spring, fires were cooler and moved faster; in addition, broom snakeweed was in the bud stage. Summer fires had higher temperatures. McDaniel et al. (1997) found that spring fires killed 8 percent of the broom snakeweed crown and 65 percent of the shrubs while summer fires killed 66 percent of the crown and 92 percent of the shrubs. E. Martínez and B. Miller (Luis Ramiez personal communication) tested mowing broom snakeweed in the summer which also seems like an effective method. Blue grama (Bouteloua gacilis) can increase dramatically when broom snakeweed is controlled (McDaniel et al. 1993).

Table 1. Weed species on Rio Mora NWR

Common name(+) Scientific name Synonym Comments/locations Canada thistle(A) Cirsium arvense perennial Hydrilla(A) Hydrilla verticllata Scotch thistle(A) Onopordum acanthium Common teasel (B) Dipsacus fullonum Musk thistle(B) Carduus nutans Biennial or annual Poison hemlock(B) Conium maculatum Bull thistle(C) Cirsium vulgare Biennial Cheatgrass(C) Bromus tectorum Facilities headquarters Russian olive(C) Elaeagnus angustifolia Siberian elm(C) Ulmus pumila Russian elm Saltcedar(C) Tamarix spp. 12 trees on refuge Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae Broomweed Overgrazed sites, perennial Common mullein Verbascum thaspsus biennial Common reed Phragmite australis Curlycup gumweed* Grindelia squarrosa Rosinwood Rangeland, biennial or perennial Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Kochia Kochia spp. annual Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris Russian thistle Salsola spp. tumbleweed annual Western sticktight Lappula occidentalis *A native plant but undesirable as forage and/or unpalatable or poisonous to livestock and possibly some wildlife + Class A, B, or C weed based on New Mexico Noxious Weed Management Act 1998, updated 2009

Two areas that could be burned as described in McDaniel et al. (1997) are 40 acres near the corral (UTM 13S 495272 W 3965357) and about 250 acres near the west gate (UTM 13S 491258 W 3966442).

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 15

A number of non-native plants have been observed in the watershed but to date are not known to cause extensive problems. These include tamarisk (only a dozen trees on the refuge), Russian olive, Siberian elm, Russian thistle, Canada thistle and kochia.

Wildlife

The elevation transition between the Great Plains and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the juxtaposition of two ecoregions and riparian habitats within this part of New Mexico all enrich the species diversity of the area. The location of the refuge is in the heart of this transition, and recent management and restoration projects, provide for remarkable species diversity. Approximately 194 bird species, 28 amphibian and reptile species, 48 mammal species, and eight fish species occur on the refuge. A large proportion of the watershed still supports native vegetation and provides resources for abundant wildlife populations. Nevertheless, a number of species that challenge coexistence with local human habitation and an individual’s livelihood have been eliminated from large areas of their former range, including the Mora River watershed. Some of these species are viewed as competing with livestock for grass (i.e., prairie dogs, Cynomys spp. and bison), impeding attempts at irrigation (i.e., beavers, Castor canadensis), or preying on livestock (i.e., wolves, Canis lupus and grizzly bears, Ursus arctos). These are often considered keystone species that may contribute greatly to ecological and evolutionary functions.

On November 14, 2013, the Service announced its 12-month finding on a petition to list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After reviewing the best available scientific and commercial information, listing was not warranted and the Gunnison’s prairie dog was removed from the candidate list. The former Wind River Ranch introduced 300 Gunnison’s prairie dogs in 2005 and 2006 to the property. The introduction was unsuccessful in that none of the individuals became established.

Waterfowl

Northeastern New Mexico has historically been an important migration and wintering area for waterfowl in the Central Flyway. The rolling high plains along the eastern slope of the rugged Sangre de Cristo Mountains, scattered with numerous playa wetlands, are a haven for waterfowl and sandhill cranes during the fall and winter months. The limited aquatic habitats in this arid part of the country have always been heavily utilized by ducks and geese, and have been of some importance as production areas.

Breeding Birds, Bird Migration and Winter Stopover Habitat

Habitats within the Mora River watershed provide important life-cycle needs for a wide variety of neo-tropical migratory birds and many other riparian, grassland, woodland, aquatic, and wetland dependent species. In addition to the species referenced above, the Migratory Bird Program in the Service’s Southwest Region has identified at least 18 species from the Birds of Conservation Concern list (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) that utilize the area during

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 16

migration, or for winter stopover habitat.

Audubon has designated the refuge as an Important Bird Area (IBA). Important Bird Areas are sites that provide essential breeding, migrating or wintering habitat for one or more species of birds and/or they support one or more high-priority species, large concentrations of birds, exceptional habitat, and/or have substantial research value. Designation as an IBA confers no regulatory authority.

Non-native Wildlife

Non-native fish have been stocked in the watershed purposely, or have been introduced from bait buckets dumped into waterways. Non-native trout and warm-water sport fish are commonly stocked for recreational fishing off the refuge. Non-native fish and amphibians often outcompete or prey on native fish to the extent that the native species are completely removed, or are limited to locations where the non-native species are excluded by barriers (such as waterfalls). The refuge however has an intact, native fishery (central stonerollers Campostoma anomalum, creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus , Rio Grande chub Gila pandora etc.) with non-native fish occurring upstream of the refuge. Several ponds on the refuge have populations of American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), which can displace native frog species such as the Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens). There is current research on the refuge investigating the effect of bullfrogs on trophic cascades by New Mexico Highlands University professor Jesus Rivas.

Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species

Federally Listed Species

The Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) breeds in dense riparian habitats in the Southwest. Its breeding range includes far western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California, southern portions of Nevada and Utah, Southwestern Colorado, and possibly extreme northern portions of the Mexican States of Baja California del Norte, Sonora, and Chihuahua. The species breeds in relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands, including lakes (e.g., reservoirs). Most of these habitats are classified as forested wetlands or scrub-shrub wetlands. The Southwestern willow flycatcher has experienced extensive loss and modification of breeding habitat, with consequent reductions in population levels. The recovery plan for the Southwestern willow flycatcher (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) outlines habitat characteristics suitable for the species, and the average abundance of the species is known for some habitats. Recent information suggests that higher elevation habitats for this species, such as those in the Mora River watershed, may support greater densities than estimates from lower elevation range (USFWS NM Ecological Services Field Office).

As a result of restoration activities over the last several years, riparian vegetation structure is beginning to recover from past management impacts. There are scattered remnant large cottonwood trees along the river and cottonwood poles have been planted in efforts to restore the native tree community. Coyote willows have regenerated to form dense stands in places along the river and on several small tributaries. In 2008, flycatchers were observed during breeding

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 17

season, although nesting activities was not confirmed. New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office staff has confirmed that suitable breeding habitat is present. Designated critical habitat for the species occurs at higher elevations in the Mora River watershed on Coyote Creek (approximately 25 stream miles and 19 linear miles from the refuge).

The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) is endemic to New Mexico, and Arizona, and possibly a small area of southern Colorado. It uses dense streamside riparian/wetland vegetation up to an elevation of about 8,000 feet mainly in two riparian community types: 1) persistent emergent herbaceous wetlands; and 2) scrub-shrub wetlands composed of willows and alders along perennial streams. Threats to the species include habitat degradation due to development, conversion of habitat to agricultural crop production, excessive grazing pressure from livestock, removal of beavers and their dams, down cutting of streams, drought, and water diversions that reduce suitable habitat. The species has been documented to occur at Coyote Creek State Park in the upper part of the Mora River watershed. Suitable habitat is not uncommon in the Mora River watershed, but systematic surveys have not been conducted in the area to fully document the presence or abundance of the species.

State Listed Species

At least 13 species listed as threatened, endangered, or species of conservation need by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish occur in the watershed. One particularly notable example is the southern redbelly dace (Chrosomus erythrogaster), which is listed as endangered in New Mexico. The species is more common in the Ohio and Mississippi River basins but there are a few disjunct populations in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The only location for this species in New Mexico is in the headwaters of the Mora River, mainly Coyote Creek, one of the larger tributaries of the Mora River, and tributaries to Black Lake (Sublette et al. 1990, NM Department of Game and Fish 2006), these locations are off the refuge and are at high elevations within the watershed.

3.3 Human Environment Cultural, Archeological, and Historic Resources

Historic and cultural resources are expected to occur throughout the Mora River watershed but much of the watershed has not been surveyed for these resources. For several millennia, the Mora River provided a travel route for native peoples from the mountains to the plains. In the 1830s, the river valley was occupied by Hispanic homesteads, largely from land grants through Mexico. A large Mexican communal land grant, the Mora Land Grant, historically encompassed 827,000 acres of the area. At least 47 acequias, or community operated irrigation ditches, occur on the Mora River and its tributaries throughout the watershed (Thomson and Ali 2009). Acequias are part of a strong cultural heritage of cooperative management in the local communities and throughout New Mexico.

The 720-acre Fort Union National Monument, managed by theNational Park Service (NPS), is located near the refuge. Fort Union was established in 1851 to protect residents, travelers, and freight along the Santa Fe Trail, and to subdue tribal resistance to the changes that came with such activities and the displacement of Native peoples from their land. The site contains the

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 18

largest concentration of 19th century adobe ruins in the United States and is one of the few federally managed sites preserving remains of the Santa Fe Trail.

The refuge holds numerous archeological sites, dating back to the Clovis Culture. There are archaic pit houses (around 5,000 years before present), rock shelters, and numerous tipi rings and hearths. Pueblo tribes, Jicarilla Apache, Ute, Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa, and Diné used the area to various extents.

Rio Mora NWR currently works in partnership with the Pueblo of Pojoaque on bison management at the refuge and provides a location and opportunity for bison management workshops and Native American cultural ceremonies involving bison. A number of tribes consider the area part of their historic hunting grounds and recognize cultural importance in the area.

The refuge was part of the Mora Land Grant. Portions of Loma Parda, ruins of a village that served Fort Union, are on the refuge, as are parts of the old roads and trails that branched off the Santa Fe Trail. The fourth governor of New Mexico, Octavio Larrazolo, lived in the historic house (circa 1920) located in the area of the environmental education building. In an area of the state that is predominantly Hispanic, he holds the prestigious title of being one of only six Hispanic governors since statehood.

Socioeconomic Resources

The refuge is in Mora County. The percentage of people with an income below the poverty level is 19.7 percent with a population of nearly 4,600 people in 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov). The population density of the area is among the lowest in New Mexico and the counties within the Mora River watershed have lost from 2.4 to 5.8 percent of their residents over the 2000–2010 time period. The agricultural sector is important, outside of the towns and small communities. The city of Las Vegas is the largest community in the area (population of 13,391) and has the most diverse economic base (http://quickfacts.census.gov). A majority of the population in Mora County is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.

3.3 Visitor Services

Rio Mora NWR is not currently open to the public; however, the refuge hosts organized events or visits to enhance the refuge’s ability to attract visitors and teach them about natural resources, the environment, the purpose of the refuge and its role in the Refuge System. Approximately five events are scheduled throughout the year with an emphasis on providing the participants an opportunity to photograph and observe wildlife, hike in nature, bird watch and participate in environmental education activities. The county road to Loma Parda provides access to one residence and several inholding tracts within the refuge’s boundary and offers visitors an opportunity to observe and photograph wildlife. State Highway 161 parallels and is adjacent to the refuge’s south boundary providing visitors wildlife viewing and photography prospects.

The Service’s “Conserving the Future, Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation” recommendation 20 states, “develop an environmental education strategy that inventories

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 19

existing efforts, identifies priorities for investment of staff and funds, and outlines basic standards for all refuges.” This recommendation was in large part being implemented by the Foundation prior to refuge establishment and now the Service, in partnership with the Denver Zoo continue this effort. Over 750 participants come each year to the refuge to engage in onsite environmental and/or conservation education programs to include programs provided by Denver Zoo, universities, environmental organization and/or refuge staff. If a program consists of multiple days, camping in the area of the refuge’s environmental building may be granted under a Special Use Permit (SUP). When an educational program is more of a conservation or environmental workshop and the students gather field data, then an SUP is needed. Approximately 10–15 Special Use Permits are issued per year for these educational visits. Attendees are usually students from K–12 as well as pre and post graduates from colleges and universities, primarily from New Mexico and Colorado. In addition to the environmental education programs/workshops, the refuge hosts approximately five special events on the refuge per year. Emphasis for these events are to provide the public an opportunity to photograph and observe wildlife, hike in nature, and bird watch; these events are available to the public, restricted to a designated site/route, and organized/staffed by refuge personnel or Denver Zoo. The public’s opportunity to participate in these special events is limited by the event’s logistics and focus/objective, an individual’s personal interest, weather, etc. Participation by the public in the special events does not exceed 240 individuals annually and the attendees are primarily local residents.

In 2012, the Denver Zoological Foundation contracted with the Center for Research Strategies and New Mexico Highlands University faculty to conduct a needs assessment that could inform the development of future conservation and environmental education programming for the refuge. The assessment will be used to further guide and sustain an environmental education program at the refuge.

Visual Resources

Although the refuge is not currently open to the public, maintaining the property in its natural state has allowed the public to enjoy the open vistas and view a wide variety of wildlife from Loma Parda county road and Highway 161. In general, because the vast majority of the watershed is undeveloped, the public is able to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife viewing from many places. The proposed public use trail described in chapter 4 would provide visual opportunities to the public to experience the refuge in a way not currently available.

3.5 Inventory, Monitoring and Research Inventory is defined as determining species presence, numbers within a species, habitat associations, and/or level of ecological integrity at particular locations at a particular time (West et al. 1994). Ecological integrity is defined as possessing all the parts of an ecosystem in densities and distribution that allow the system to function well. Monitoring documents changes or trends over time.

Based on past and ongoing surveys conducted by the Wind River Foundation and the Denver Zoological Foundation, there have been 194 species of birds, 28 species of reptiles and amphibians, eight species of fish, 48 species of mammals, 210 insects, and 47 species of grasses

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 20

identified within the refuge. Opportunistic and systematic surveys and control plots have begun to provide a baseline against which we can measure the success of restoration for habitats and species that are threatened or highly interactive in driving ecosystem processes. The ecological restoration activities that the Wind River Foundation began included graduate projects and undergraduate internships. The Wind River Foundation also built partnerships with agencies, tribes, universities, local schools and NGOs, including the Denver Zoological Foundation to assist with these scientific efforts.

Evaluation of management prescriptions by the use of inventorying, monitoring, and research practices will guide future management activities and provide educational opportunities for children and adults. These educational experiences can further help people address conservation problems throughout the watershed and the larger landscape. Ecological restoration on the refuge can, and does, provide thesis/dissertation projects for graduate students, internships for undergraduates, workshops for the community, and exposes local middle and high school students to nature.

Currently, all research proposals are evaluated according to criteria outlined in the Northern New Mexico NWR Complex Research Handbook (January 2014) and vetted by an established research committee. The four major criteria are: 1) compatibility with the Service’s establishing purposes of the refuge; 2) refuge research questions; 3) priority research outcomes; and 4) conservation impact and sound, applied science.

The following are priority management questions that the Service identified in cooperation with Denver Zoological Foundation and New Mexico Highlands University. Research proposals that address these issues are given priority.

The major habitat types on Rio Mora NWR are grasslands, riparian/wetlands, and woodlands. Major interests for research and restoration include:

1. Preventing piñon/juniper encroachment onto grasslands and the bottomland of the river valley: When piñon/juniper advances onto grassland, they out-compete grasses and eventually turn grassland into savannas, then into woodlands. When piñon/juniper populations are dense and on a slope, the denuded soil can start gully erosion. Piñon/juniper can also lower the water table, particularly if they are in the river bottomland.

2. Addressing gully erosion and head-cuts in the grasslands: Gully erosion lowers the water table and reduces the productivity of adjacent grassland. It is often a result of overgrazing.

3. Protecting seeps and springs in tributary canyons: Gully erosion on grasslands often produces erosion of seeps, wetlands, and springs in the canyons feeding the Mora River. About 75 percent of all life in the Southwest depends on riparian/wetland habitat.

4. Restoring highly interactive species that drive ecosystem function: Restoration of a system cannot occur without restoring the key species that help drive the ecosystem processes.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 21

Highly interactive species include carnivores that drive trophic cascades, ecosystem engineers that shape habitat in a way that increases species diversity, and mutualists whose activities benefit a host of other species.

5. Removal of exotic species, including exotic diseases: Exotic species can change ecosystem function by changing habitat and community structure, disrupting trophic cascades, breaking mutualisms, or eliminating ecosystem engineers.

6. Promoting the health of threatened and endangered species’ populations.

7. Acknowledging woodland health: Currently, the piñon/juniper woodlands are extensively dense and the scrub oak stands need to be managed at varying successional stages to mature. This offers an avenue to research the effects of fire and woodland thinning.

8. Exploring landscape connectivity: Does research promote landscape connectivity across the region for wide-ranging species and large scale ecological functions.

Priority research outcomes The refuge has identified five desired outcomes from any research proposal:

● Does the work have direct conservation benefit and expand on established efforts or current projects? Does it meet one or more of the research themes above? Resources are limited and projects that can demonstrate direct conservation benefit on the refuge and the CA as well as expand on existing or past conservation projects will be given a higher priority. However, sound science must be involved.

● Projects with outcomes that are transportable An objective of the refuge is to work in partnership on conservation issues that benefit wildlife managers and private landowners. Projects with tangible, replicable methods not constrained to the location of Rio Mora NWR and the CA are of high interest.

● Demonstrate benefits to larger landscapes A vision of the refuge is to preserve and expand cooperation among landowners, agencies, NGOs, tribes and local governments so that strategies beneficial to conservation and private land management can be coordinated across a broader area and that lessons learned can be shared. We strive to foster stewardship by demonstrating methods for management, protection, and restoration of the native species and natural resources in the Mora River watershed.

● Ecologically appropriate – priority for habitat, species of concern, keystone species, native species, and natural ecosystem processes and function Through landscape-level conservation work we preserve the ecological function of these habitats by providing for natural/historic river processes, groundwater recharge, carbon sequestration, improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, and the establishment of highly interactive species to the level where they can perform their ecological function.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 22

● Capacity building An important element to achieve management, protection, and restoration through research is to engage a diverse representative of resource managers through undergraduate and graduate education and to promote the reconnection of people with nature. It is important to connect future resource managers by providing experiential learning, exploration, and land management demonstration that makes Rio Mora NWR and CA so unique.

Other evaluation criteria considered by the committee ● Does the research support ongoing monitoring efforts on the refuge or provide information for new monitoring methods? ● Would other research, monitoring and inventory efforts, management activities, visitor use areas, or refuge programs be affected by the proposed project? ● Does the proposed project require any staff assistance? ● Have the necessary compliances or other permitting been completed (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits, Endangered Species Act compliance, National Environmental Policy Act compliance, etc.)? ● If the research involves manipulations of live animals (for example, trapping or handling), are there any animal welfare concerns? Has the research been approved by an existing Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and/or Animal Welfare Committee?

Benefits to scientific research on-refuge include ● Information to assist management of Rio Mora NWR and the CA. ● Information to assist management of other refuge and public lands, especially properties near Rio Mora NWR and within the CA. ● Transferable information for private land and landscape level ecosystem management. ● Restoration and conservation of native species and natural ecosystem function.

Current research includes six projects (up to two participants per project) that began prior to the development of the Northern New Mexico NWR Complex Research Handbook and research committee. Some of these projects are set up for graduate students and usually require two field seasons for completion. In addition, some desired research topics are assessments of land management techniques not yet implemented. New proposals are considered on a case-by-case basis, and if approved require a SUP.

Restoration Efforts

Current/ongoing restoration efforts can be broadly grouped into three categories: 1) erosion control; 2) riparian and wetland habitats; and 3) grassland health.

Erosion control

To date, efforts to reduce erosion in arroyos, head-cuts and old stock tanks have been limited to construction of one-rock structures. The rock used for these structures are gathered from previously disturbed sites (primarily roadside tailings) within the refuge boundary.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 23

Figure 3. A road on the refuge that intercepts water and channels it away from the downhill side of the road. [Note that the grass is taller uphill from the road.] Arroyos The Foundation built approximately 170 one-rock restoration structures in arroyos to slow water flow and reverse the effects of erosion before refuge establishment (See Figures 4, 6 & 7). The structure is called a one-rock restoration structure because it is only one rock high. The rocks should not be taller than 1/3 bankfull depth of the channel, and the rocks should be placed in several layers from the upstream to downstream edge; the top of the structure should be level from upstream to downstream edge (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). The rocks are not stacked on top of each other. To withstand flow pressure, the distance of the one-rock structure from the upstream to downstream edge should be at least 1/3 the width of the arroyo at bankfull. If the arroyo is 15-feet wide, then the upstream to downstream distance of the parallel rows of rock in the one-rock restoration structure should be five feet (see Figure 4). Thus, one-rock restoration structures have sufficient mass, but minimal surface exposed to the sheer force of the water (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). They trap sediment to raise the floor of the arroyo, slow the erosive effect of the water, and allow water to flow over the top of the structure.

Figure 4. A newly constructed one-rock restoration structure in Loma Parda arroyo.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 24

The flow deposits and packs particles in the small gaps of the structure, strengthening it over time. The one-rock structures must extend far enough from bank to bank that flow does not travel around the edge and cut a new channel. When structures have collected enough sediment to raise the arroyo bed equal to the height of the one-rock restoration structure, a second layer of rocks can be added to the structure. The second layer should be staggered so that the downstream edge is half way on the first structure. The exposed portion of the first structure provides a rock base for water flowing over the second structure, preventing a scour pool (Figure 6).

One-rock structures have raised the bottoms of the arroyos, increased vegetation cover, and raised the water table enough to create wetlands and/or establish wetland vegetation in some places. Figure 5 shows the results of arroyo restoration using one-rock structures; willows inhabited the one-rock dam, slowed water flow and assisted in raising the water table, thus forming a pool. The pool is permanent and withstood the drought of 2010–2013.

Figure 6 shows that rock structures also capture sediment to build up the floor of the arroyo, returning it to a more natural form. Figure 7 shows how the rock structures blend into the landscape over time.

Figure 5. The result of rock structures in Loma Parda Arroyo. [Photo taken five years after structure was built, pool is permanent.]

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 25

Figure 6. First level and second level set of one-rock structures. [Initially the arroyo was eroded down to bedrock. The structures have captured about three feet of sediment and deposited it on top of the bedrock and a portion of the first one-rock structure.]

Figure 7. A permanent pool formed by rock structures. [The rocks blend into the landscape over time.]

Head-cuts Head-cuts are a dry waterfall at the head of an arroyo or an abrupt change in the slope of the arroyo floor. They are characterized by a crumbling lip at the point of the falls, a pool at the base of the falls, dehydration of soil, and undercutting (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). They lengthen the arroyo by migrating up-flow, and they deepen the arroyo by accelerating the flow and erosive effects. The higher the falls, the more power there is to feed erosion.

To restore head-cuts, slopes were reduced to at least 3:1 or 4:1. Flows were dispersed over a larger area rather than concentrating in a canal and the base of the falls were hardened protecting them from erosion. The restoration efforts allowed vegetation to colonize and grow, held the soil and slowed or reversed the erosive processes; retaining the moisture at the site within the soils.

Rock run-downs (area armored with baseball-sized rocks) have been built in head-cuts to lessen the slope. In the left photo of Figure 8 a 3-foot drop was changed to a gentle slope of about 5:1

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 26 and the slope was lined with flat rocks. The base of the rock run-down was covered with baseball-sized rocks. Run-off pools at the base of the rock run-down and flow is reduced before encountering the concave Media Luna (concave structure at base of figure 8 left photograph), which dispersed it over a wider area. The photo on the right in Figure 8 shows the same area one year later, after natural re-vegetation has occurred. Another restoration technique for head-cuts is a Zuni bowl that turns a waterfall into a series of cascades (Zeedyk and Jansens 2006). Zuni bowls create a pool that wildlife can use. The pool slows the sheer force of the water at the bottom of the cascade (Figure 9).

Figure 8. On the left is a newly constructed rock run-down at the site of a three foot high head- cut. On the right is the same rock run-down one year later. [The flow travels down the rocks onto a solid base where there is a Media Luna (concave structure at base) that spreads the water over a wider area. Leftmost photo was taken in September 2013; rightmost photo was taken in October 2014.]

Berms and stock ponds Three berms and three stock ponds constructed by previous landowners need to be rehabilitated. To date, some work has been done on one berm, but there is a need to complete this effort.

~...... -- , .... _ pool one rock dam ~ ...... ·.•.. .. !. : footer rock footer rocks .. ···

Figure 9. A Zuni bowl to stop head-cut erosion within an existing arroyo (from Zeedyk et al. 2014).

Riparian and Wetland Habitats

The five miles of riparian habitat within the refuge are in need of bank stabilization, habitat

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 27 improvement and floodplain development. Additionally, the ponds adjacent to the Mora River created for waterfowl need to be assessed.

Current riparian restoration actions have been limited to pole planting of willows and cottonwoods. These are biological hotspots. By expanding willow thickets along the river, neo- tropical migratory birds like the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher may be provided habitat for nesting and feeding as well as improving the structure and quality of the river ecosystem. Willow poles are harvested on site during February and March. The cut poles, which are planted in groups of three to five stems, are planted along the open banks of the river. Cottonwoods are pole-planted in late fall or early spring.

Figure 10. A one kilometer stretch of river that had been straightened and incised before the induced meandering procedures.

Figure 11. A rock baffle (center-right) forced the water into the opposite bank to create a meander and floodplain behind the baffle.

The Foundation restored meander to a one-kilometer stretch of the Mora River (Figures 10–12), prior to refuge establishment. Figure 10 shows a portion of the river meander in 2010 that was degraded prior to restoration efforts. Figure 11 shows a rock baffle and a new meander within the same stretch of the river. An efficient baffle is shaped like a 30/60 right triangle (Zeedyk and

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 28

Clothier 2009; Zeedyk 2009). Figure 12 shows a cross-vane as a grade control device on this stretch of river.

There is still a need to restore meander, expand willows and cottonwoods, reduce and reverse river bed incision and enhance the ecological processes to portions of the river within the refuge.

Figure 12. Cross-vane for grade control. [The cross-vane prevents further entrenchment of the river and helps the river create the natural pool, glide, riffle, run sequence of a normal river floor.]

Grassland health

Grasslands represent an important ecosystem, and grasslands are the largest and most threatened ecosystem in North America (Archuleta 2014). Globally and in North America, grasslands are a highly threatened ecosystem (Primack 1998). Agriculture, human settlements, desertification, changed fire regimes, introduction of exotic livestock, fragmentation, loss of megafauna, and invasive species are the main causes of degradation (Owen-Smith 1987; White et al. 2000; Bond 2010). Grasslands make up about 2,000 acres of the refuge. Current efforts to increase grassland health are ongoing. Some examples are construction of one-rock restoration structures for erosion control, non-native plant control and unconfined bison grazing. Grazing is currently permitted by SUP and in cooperation with our partners. The SUP is for a temporary period and will be evaluated through the development of a grazing plan in 2021.

Once established, invasive species can have a dramatic, negative impact on ecosystems, and early detection rapid response is vital to prevention. Current actions for non-native plants are limited to surveying and monitoring as well as minimal treatment by mechanical means such as the use of hand tools, pulling, mowing, or disking. However, mechanical treatment does not always work to control or eradicate the non-native species.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 29

4.0 Goals and Objectives

Actions outlined within this plan are intended to 1) protect and restore part of one of the great grassland landscapes of North America; 2) protect and restore riparian areas in the Mora River watershed; 3) reduce threats to species from habitat fragmentation and degradation, altered ecological processes, invasive species, and impacts from global climate change; and 4) build on existing partnerships to restore wildlife populations and productivity to degraded ecosystems. The actions in this plan are to continue the habitat management, restoration, and research previously initiated; provide public use activities; and focus biological priorities to meet the purposes for which the refuge was established.

The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance over the next five years for the management of Rio Mora NWR and CA. The plan will steer management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge purposes. It describes management activities that occur on the refuge and provides goals, measurable objectives, and management actions. Unless otherwise stated refuge objectives will occur during the life of the plan

Inventory, Monitoring and Research

The following proposed priority inventory, monitoring and research will assist with the refuge’s biological goals and objectives:

Goal 1: Monitor geomorphology of arroyos and evaluate the efficacy of one rock structures on arroyo erosion, vegetation enhancement, hydrology, and biotic species use.

Objective 1: Determine if one-rock structures reduce channel incision (that is, do they create shallower arroyos with more gentle slope) during the first 5 and 10 years after installation.

Objective 2: Determine if one rock structures increase vegetation coverage within arroyos at 5 and 10 year increments (growing seasons) post installation.

Objective 3: Determine if one-rock structures increase coverage of riparian or hydrophilic vegetation at 5 and 10 year increments (growing seasons) post installation.

Objective 4: Determine biotic species utilization of arroyos during the first 5 years after establishment of hydrophilic vegetation.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 30

Goal 2: Use Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) as the desired grassland vegetation condition model. Within five years, set/develop desired vegetation states for refuge grassland that reflect both NRCS ecological site conditions and refuge management goals (e.g., vegetation conditions associated with Plains-Mesa Grassland avian species).

Objective 1: Develop a monitoring protocol for refuge grasslands to determine the current condition of vegetation and any trends. Within one year of protocol development and trend analysis, establish vegetation objectives and initiate management strategies for refuge grasslands.

Objective 2: Monitor migrating and nesting Plains-Mesa Grassland obligate bird species.

Objective 3: Determine avian Plains-Mesa Grassland obligate species habitat and nesting requirements (e.g., plant community, plant density, plant height) and determine grassland qualities that are most limiting on the landscape.

Goal 3: Develop a bison-grazing plan that will address stocking rates, desired grassland condition (objective one above), and bison management (e.g., surplus of excess individuals, addition of individual(s) to enhance herd genetics, herd reduction during drought).

Objective 1: Develop and implement a forage stocking rate protocol to govern the animal unit months (AUMs) needed for managing established grassland objectives based on a 365-day grazing program.

Restoration Efforts

Restoration on the refuge can be broadly categorized into three types: 1) erosion control; 2) riparian and wetland habitats; and 3) grassland health.

Erosion control

GOAL 1: Restore geomorphology of arroyos, grasslands, and ephemeral drainages. Reduce arroyo incision and increase arroyo vegetation coverage, reduce grassland and ephemeral drainage erosion, increase grassland and ephemeral drainage grass coverage.

Objective 1: Reduce and or reverse the erosive process occurring throughout the refuge canyons, grasslands and ephemeral drainages by 20 percent using methodologies previously described in this plan and the techniques described by Zeedyk, B. 2009, Zeedyk, B. 2012, Zeedyk, B. and J.W. Jansens. 2006, Zeedyk, B. and V. Clothier. 2009, Zeedyk, B., M. Walton, and T. Gadzia. 2014.

Objective 2: Enhance existing refuge roads using rolling dips (figure 13 and 14) by 5 percent to slow runoff velocity and redistribute flow over a larger area.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 31

Rollin Dip (Plan 1 \\)

D ip Hollm11

~ X Ru.,d ,,·.. 111, :I X !toad \\'idth

Variable L•::-.i~ 1i11l{ Road \\\11<·1 l·lo\\

The material that is removed (cut) from the drain area is moved up on the roadway and becomes the fill for the elevated portion of the rol ling dip.

Figure 13. Plan for a rolling dip (from Zeedyk 2012).

Rolling rrfpf or Pick-up with Trailer (Longitudinal Profile)

Dip 30' to 40' (+ ) ------~-- atiable j 2% to 4%(!.) - ---=.;--~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-;-- 30' to 40' (~) Rollout Length of dip and length of rollout each approximately equal to total length of truck and trailer.

Figure 14. Side view of a rolling dip (from Zeedyk 2012)

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 32

Riparian and Wetland Habitats

GOAL 1: Restoration of willow and cottonwood stands along the river; bring back floodplains and meanders as well as create and enhance riparian wetlands. Increase refuge wetland habitat and continue to restore the river’s ecological processes.

Objective 1: Reverse the incisioning of the river floor and restore the flow sequence (pool, glide, riffle, run, Figure 15) of the water by 10 percent. The influences that incising and water flow sequences have on river ecology are important. Restoration of the river’s ecology by re-introducing side-to-side meander into the rivers geomorphology, thus increasing floodplain development and the pool, glide, riffle, run sequence of the water’s flow.

Objective 2: Restore cottonwood and willow stands along the river corridor by 10 percent using pole plantings. To enhance and develop genetic diversity within the refuge obtain pole stocks from other sites off-refuge and from along the Mora River or its adjacent drainages.

Typical River Meander @BZ&TEG

Terrace -~•··•-· ... ···--·---.... . ------. -,- .. ----•. -.... -·------~------···

......

A' YCIHey Length A FP = Floodplain Pool XXXX = Point Bar == Channel Length Figure 15. A typical river meander pattern (from Zeedyk 2012).

Grassland Health

Goal 1: Use NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) as the desired grassland vegetation conditions. Manage refuge grassland vegetation conditions that reflect both NRCS ecological site conditions and refuge management goals (e.g., allow for vegetation conditions associated with Plains-Mesa Grasslands avian species). Manage 80% of the refuge grasslands within NRCS ESD’s Reference State.

Objective 1: Continue grazing with bison to promote native prairie, encourage ecological integrity and provide and enhance habitat for grassland birds. Develop a Grazing Management Plan that institutes the animal units needed to assist with managing grassland goals and objectives (i.e., enhance/develop native grass and other plant communities).

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 33

Objective 2: Use prescribed fire to assist with the management of refuge grasslands. Develop a Prescribed Burn Plan that institutes the prescription(s) needed to achieve grassland goals and objectives (i.e., manage encroachment of juniper and other woody species, enhance and develop desired grassland communities).

Objective 3: Control, reduce expansion of, and limit infestations of invasive species. Survey and monitor known site(s) of invasive species. Use best management practices, to include herbicide, for invasive species treatment. Annually treat invasive species that are prolific, persistent, or pose the greatest threat to native plants, animal and people. Reduce refuge populations or expansions by five percent within 5 five years.

Objective 4: Reduce juniper in areas where densities are greater than 30 percent. Reduce total acreage of areas with juniper, greater than 30 percent, by 3 percent. Reduce juniper encroachment onto the grassland by 15 percent. Use best management practices for juniper removal and treatment. Partners will coordinate with refuge staff on juniper treatment sites and methodologies.

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation

The refuge will continue environmental education and visitor services programs as established initially by the Foundation, and as described under current management in chapter 3, as well as develop new opportunities for public involvement.

Goal 1: Increase the public’s understanding and awareness of the purpose and mission of the refuge and the area’s culture and history through effective education and interpretation. Continue to provide opportunities for safe, quality compatible wildlife- dependent public use and recreation.

Objective 1: Enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and photography by opening a new area of the refuge to the general public after construction of an approximately 2- mile nature trail that will be open from sunrise to sunset.

The trail will also serve as a location for environmental education and interpretation activities in addition to current locations used for such activities. Access to the trail will be via a trailhead adjacent to Loma Parda county road (see Figure 16). The route will be two miles long and meander through grassland, piñon /juniper woodland, and canyon habitats. The path will traverse the rolling uplands and gradual inclines of the landscape east of the county road and through Loma Parda Canyon until it parallels the canyon cliff ledge overlooking the Mora River. The trail will then parallel Loma Parda Canyon until it reunites with itself. A portion of the trail will be accessible as defined under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The trailhead would contain a parking area, a vault toilet, and an informational kiosk. Construction would begin in late 2019.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 34

Cliff Trail

-.,.. ;. ~-. ·~. ....· ':

------, ______---- Tra il Grav el R oad --- Two Track Road

0 500 1 ,000 1 ,500 2 ,000

Figure 16. Location of the proposed nature trail on Rio Mora NWR. [The green dash line represents the proposed nature train and the orange line is the Loma Parda County Road.]

Objective 2: In coordination with Denver Zoo and Highlands University, provide environmental education related to grassland habitat management, prairie and arroyo restoration, and other conservation activities to approximately 750 people annually.

Objective 3: Over the life of the plan, determine population size and evaluate future opportunities for establishing a youth turkey hunt on the refuge.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 35

References:

Anderson, R.C. 1982. An evolutionary model summarizing the roles of fire, climate and grazing animals in the origin and maintenance of grasslands: An end paper. Pp. 297-308 in Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. Eds. J. Estes, R. Tyrl, and J. Brunken. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Oklahoma, USA.

Archuleta, F.D. 2014. Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) response to seasonality and frequency of fire. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas, New Mexico, USA.

Arno, S.F. and C.E. Fiedler. 2005. Mimicking nature’s fire: Restoring fire-prone forests in the west. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Arnold, J.F. 1964. Zonation of understory vegetation around a juniper tree. Journal of Range Management 17:41-42.

Bogan, M.A., C.D. Allan, E.H. Muldavin, S.P Platania, J.N. Stuart, G.H. Farley, P. Mehlhop, and J. Belnap. 1998. Southwest. Pp. 543-592 in Status and Trends of the Nation’s Biological Resources. Eds. M.J. Mac, P.A. Opler, C.E. Puckett-Haecker, and P.D. Doran. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Bond, W.J. 2010. Consumer control by megafauna and fire. Pp. 275-285 in Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature. Eds. J. Terborgh and J.A. Estes. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Briggs, J.M., A.K. Knapp, J.M. Blair, J.L. Heisler, G.A. Hoch, M.S. Lett, and J.K. McCarron. 2005. An ecosystem in transition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. Bioscience 55:243-254.

Chronic, H. 1987. Roadside geology of New Mexico. Mountain Press Publishing. Missoula, Montana, USA.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. and G.K. Meffe. 1989. Small fish in strange places: A review of introduced poeciliids. Pp. 319-331 in Ecology and Evolution of Live-bearing Fishes (Poeciliidae). Eds. G.K. Meffe and F.F. Snelson. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

Deboodt, T.L., M.P. Fisher, J.C. Buckhouse, and J. Swanson. 2009. Monitoring hydrological changes due to western juniper removal, a paired watershed approach. The Grazier May 2009: 5-12. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. USA.

Dick-Peddie, W.A., W.H. Moir, and R. Spellenberg. 1993. New Mexico vegetation: Past, present, and future. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque New Mexico, USA.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 36

Dyer, M.I., J.K. Delting, D.C. Coleman, and D.W. Hilbert. 1982. The role of herbivores in grasslands. Pp. 255-295 in Grasses and Grasslands: Systematics and Ecology. Eds. J.R. Estes, R. Tyrl, and J.N. Brunken. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman Oklahoma, USA.

Eberhard, T. 1988. Introduced birds and mammals and their ecological effects. Swedish Wildlife Research 13:1-107.

FAO. 2009. Grasslands: Enabling their potential to contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation. Submitted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 27 April 2009.

Foxx, T.S. and G.D. Tierney. 1987. Rooting patterns in the pinyon-juniper woodland. Pp. 69-79 in Proceedings of the pinyon-juniper conference, Reno, NV, Jan. 13-16, 1986. Ed. R.L Everett. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215.

Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, and N. McKay. 1999. Western juniper in eastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-464. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva, Switzerland.

Jacobs, B.F., R.G. Gatewood, and C.D. Allen. 2002. Watershed restoration in degraded piñon- juniper woodlands: A paired watershed study 1996-1998. Final report to: USGS-BRD Research/NPS-Natural Resource Preservation Program. Bandelier National Monument, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA.

Knapp, A. K. and T. R. Seastedt. 1986. Detritus accumulation limits productivity of tallgrass prairie. BioScience 36:662-668.

Lancia, R.A., W.L. Kendall, K.H. Pollock, and J.D. Nichols. 2005. Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. Pp. 106-153 in Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats. Ed. C.E. Braun. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10:689-710.

McDaniel, K.C., C.R. Hart, and D.B. Carroll. 1997. Broom snakeweed control with fire on New Mexico blue grama rangeland. Journal of Range Management 50:652-659.

McDaniel, K.C., L.A. Torell, and J.W. Bain. 1993. Overstory-understory relationships for broom snakeweed-blue grama rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46:506-511.

Minckley, W.L. and J.E. Deacon (Eds.). 1991. Battle against extinction: Native fish management in the American West. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 37

Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience 38:753-762.

Neely, B., P. Comer, C. Moritz, M. Lammert, R. Rondeau, C. Pague, G. Bell, H. Copeland, J. Humke, S. Spackman, T. Schulz, D. Theobald, and L. Valutis. 2001. Southern Rocky Mountains: An Ecoregional Assessment and Conservation Blueprint. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy with support from the U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

New Mexico Environment Department. 2008. Water Quality Survey Summary for the Canadian River Tributaries (Vermejo River, Ocate Creek, and Mora River). Report prepared by the Surface Water Quality Bureau for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

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

Noss, R.F. and A. Copperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

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

Owen-Smith, N. 1987. Pleistocene extinctions: The pivotal role of megaherbivores. Paleobiology 13:351-362.

Pimm, S.L. 1991. The balance of nature?: Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Primack, R.B. 1998. Essentials of conservation biology (2nd Edition). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.

Romme, W.H., C.D. Allen, J.D. Bailey, W.L. Baker, B.T. Bestelmeyer, P.M. Brown, K.S. Eisenhart, L. Floyd-Hanna, D.W. Huffman, B.F. Jacobs, R.F. Miller, E.H. Muldavin, T.W. Swetnam, R.J. Tausch, and P.J. Weisberg. 2009. Historical and modern disturbance regimes, stand structures, and landscape dynamics in piñon–juniper vegetation of the western United States. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:203-222.

Schumm, S.A., M.D. Harvey, and C.C. Watson. 1984. Incised channels: morphology, dynamics and control. Water Resource Publications, Littleton, Colorado, USA.

Simberloff, D., D.C. Schmitz, and T.C. Brown (Eds.). 1997. Strangers in paradise: Impact and management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 38

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

Smith, D.W. and G. Ferguson. 2005. Decade of the wolf: Returning the wild to Yellowstone. The Lyons Press. Guilford, Connecticut, USA.

Smith, R.B. and L.J. Siegal. 2000. Windows into the Earth. Oxford University Press. New York, New York, USA.

Soulé, M.E., J.A. Estes, B. Miller, and D.L. Honnold. 2005. Strongly interacting species: Conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience 55:168-176.

Sublette, J. E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Tennesen, M. 2008. When juniper and woody plants invade, water may retreat. Science 322:1630-1631.

The Nature Conservancy. 2007. A Biodiversity and Conservation Assessment of the Southern Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion. Southern Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Planning Team, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Thompson, B., and A. Ali (Eds). 2009. Water resources assessment of the Mora River. Water Resources Program, University of New Mexico.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern willow flycatcher recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA. (library.fws.gov/bird_publications/bcc2008.pdf)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Environmental Assessment, Land Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Ria Mara National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area, Colfax, Mara, and San Miguel counties, New Mexico. Southwest Region - Division of Planning, Albuquerque, NM.

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

White, R., S. Murray, and M. Rohweder. 2000. Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: Grassland ecosystems. World Resource Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 39

Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. (1998). Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.

Zeedyk, B. 2009. An introduction to induced meandering: A method of restoring stability to incised stream channels. Paper Tiger, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. 2012. Water harvesting from low-standard rural roads. New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. and J.W. Jansens. 2006. An introduction to erosion control. Earth Works Institute and Quivira Coalition. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. eedyk, B. and V. Clothier. 2009. Let the water do the work: Induced meandering, an evolving method for restoring incised channels. Quivira Coalition. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B., M. Walton, and T. Gadzia. 2014. Characterization and restoration of slope wetlands in New Mexico: A guide for understanding slope wetlands, causes of degradation, and treatment options. New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau, Wetlands Program. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. 2009. An introduction to induced meandering: A method of restoring stability to incised stream channels. Paper Tiger, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. 2012. Water harvesting from low-standard rural roads. New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B. and J.W. Jansens. 2006. An introduction to erosion control. Earth Works Institute and Quivira Coalition. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. eedyk, B. and V. Clothier. 2009. Let the water do the work: Induced meandering, an evolving method for restoring incised channels. Quivira Coalition. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Zeedyk, B., M. Walton, and T. Gadzia. 2014. Characterization and restoration of slope wetlands in New Mexico: A guide for understanding slope wetlands, causes of degradation, and treatment options. New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau, Wetlands Program. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Draft Rio Mora National Wildlife Refuge 5-Year Action Plan 40