J.05_2011_10_BA_for_RGCP.pdf

FINAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

INTEGRATED LAND MANAGEMENT FOR LONG-TERM

RIVER MANAGEMENT OF THE RIO GRANDE

CANALIZATION PROJECT

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES SECTION

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

Prepared by:

SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

In Association with:

MWH AMERICAS

October 2011

Biological Assessment for Integrated Land Management for the Rio Grande Canalization Project

SWCA Environmental Consultants i October 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.1 RGCP Location and Operation

2.2 New River Management Alternatives, 1999–present

4.1 Overview of the RGCP, Past and Current Conditions

4.2 Proposed Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Critical Habitat Re-designation

4.3 Selected Restoration Sites

5.1 No Action Alternative

5.2 Proposed Action (Selected Alternative): Integrated Land Management Alternative

5.3 Timeline for the Implementation of the Proposed Action

7.1 Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis)

7.2 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

7.3 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

7.4 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

7.5 Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii)

7.6 Proposed Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

9.1 Typical Mitigation Measures for Construction Activities

9.2 Typical Mitigation Measures for Vegetation Treatments

SWCA Environmental Consultants ii October 2011

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Rio Grande Canalization Project restoration sites Figure 2. Median mean daily flows at Rio Grande at Caballo gage (USGS Gage No. 08362500) and the

Rio Grande at El Paso gage (EBID gage) for the periods from WY1938 through WY2006 and WY1975 through WY2006. Reproduced with permission from USIBWC 2009 Figure 3. Proposed critical habitat designation for the flycatcher in New Mexico (USFWS 2007). Note that some of the proposed critical habitat is being considered for exclusion, none of which is in the RGCP Figure 4. Extent of proposed flycatcher critical habitat along the RGCP Figure 5. Restoration sites within proposed flycatcher critical habitat along the RGCP

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Location, Size (acreage), and Ownership of the 30 Sites Proposed for Habitat Restoration along the RGCP Reach Table 2. Geomorphologic and Vegetation Characteristics of the 30 RGCP Sites Proposed for Habitat

Restoration Table 3. Proposed Prescription for the 30 Selected Restoration Sites along the RGCP Table 4. Species Federally Listed as Threatened and Endangered Recorded and Potentially Occurring in Sierra and Doña Ana Counties, New Mexico, and El Paso County, Texas Table 5. RGCP Restoration Sites with Recent Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Detections

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 October 2011

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to determine all likely effects on threatened, endangered, and proposed species resulting from the implementation of long-term river management actions set forth in the Integrated Land Management Alternative described in the

2009 Record of Decision (ROD) for management of the Rio Grande Canalization Project

(RGCP). The RGCP is a reach of the Rio Grande extending from the Percha Diversion Dam in

New Mexico to near the American Diversion Dam in Texas. The proposed long-term river management actions in the Integrated Land Management Alternative include:

Habitat restoration at 30 sites along the RGCP;

Environmental water transactions;

Levee system management consisting of routine levee and road maintenance in addition to ongoing levee improvement and floodwall construction;

Floodway management involving grazing leases elimination and mowing modifications;

Channel and irrigation facilities management, with debris removal and channel protection in addition to American Dam maintenance; and

Sediment management (control and removal).

An important element of the Integrated Land Management Alternative consists of habitat restoration at 30 sites along the RGCP (Figure 1). The sites were identified in a Conceptual

Restoration Plan and Cumulative Effects Analysis (hereafter referred to as Conceptual Plan) completed in 2009 by the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission

(USIBWC) with technical assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), based in part on flood inundation and water-surface elevation modeling results. The USIBWC proposes restoration of aquatic habitat at three of the 30 sites and restoration of a mosaic of native plant communities—grasslands, riparian woodlands, riparian forests, and dense riparian shrub. The

Conceptual Plan (USIBWC 2009) includes the following components:

Identification of the restoration sites;

Specification of site-specific restoration prescriptions (e.g., removing riprap, destabilizing and lowering the riverbank opposite the arroyo mouth, and ceasing channel dredging for aquatic habitat restoration);

A water budget for each site comprising an offset for an increase in depletions or an allocation for supplemental irrigation; and

An estimated average water budget of 9,000 acre-feet for a periodic (once every three to five years) environmental peak release of 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) from Caballo

Lake between April 24 and June 7 to enhance river floodplain hydrologic connectivity at

12 of the 30 sites, including eight sites targeted for restoration of dense riparian shrub habitat.

Transfer of Rio Grande Project water rights as proposed under the Proposed Action will occur within the following framework (hereafter ―environmental water transfer framework‖):

SWCA Environmental Consultants 2 October 2011

Project water will be donated, leased or acquired from willing water rights holders;

Habitat restoration sites will be located within Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) or El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1 (EPCWID) irrigation district service boundaries;

Irrigation district service boundaries may be expanded through an EBID and/or

EPCWID board-approved boundary realignment process to include habitat restoration sites and comply with existing contracts which specify limits on total project and district acreage;

Project water will be leased or water rights permanently acquired and transferred through a EBID or EPCWID board-approved leasing, voluntary suspension and transfer or reclassification process;

The use of Rio Grande Project water for enhancement and establishment of riparian and wetland habitat will be considered an agricultural use;

Within a district, all water users receive an equal allocation per acre with water users sharing equally in times of water shortage. This policy will apply to all district constituents including any entity who owns or leases water rights for habitat restoration sites; and

The use of Rio Grande Project water for an environmental peak release could be considered a miscellaneous use subject to the requirements set forth under the federal

Miscellaneous Purposes Act at 41 Stat. 451.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs to conserve threatened and endangered species, and to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed or proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. A BA must be prepared for federal actions that entail major construction activities (also defined as a project significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined under the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]) to evaluate the potential effects on listed or proposed species.

This BA will enhance the USIBWC’s compliance with the following federal and state laws and regulations:

NEPA (Public Law [PL] 91-190, 42 United States Code, [USC] 4321 et seq.);

ESA of 1973 (PL 93-205) and amendments of 1988 (PL 100-478);

New Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act (9-10-10 New Mexico Statutes Annotated and attendant Regulation 19 New Mexico Annotated Code 21.2);

New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974 (New Mexico Statutes Annotated 17-2-

37 through 17-2-46, 1978 compilation); and

Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, and Section 65.171-65.184 of

Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 3 October 2011

Figure 1. Rio Grande Canalization Project restoration sites.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 4 October 2011

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

2.1 RGCP LOCATION AND OPERATION

The RGCP extends for 169.6 km (105.4 miles) from the Percha Diversion Dam—just downstream of Caballo Dam in Sierra County, New Mexico, to near the American Diversion

Dam in El Paso County, Texas. The RGCP consists of the river channel and adjoining right-of-way land under the jurisdiction of the USIBWC.

Following an Act of Congress authorizing the project, the RGCP was engineered between 1938 and 1943 to facilitate compliance with the 1906 Convention between the United States and

Mexico on the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande. The RGCP was intended to facilitate compliance with the 1906 treaty and properly regulate and control, to the fullest extent possible, the water supply for use in the two countries, as provided in the treaty. Improvement in the river channel conveyance efficiency was required to deliver irrigation waters not just to

Mexico but also to the United States. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Rio

Grande Project in the Las Cruces and El Paso region is a regional water initiative that provides irrigation water for about 178,000 acres of land and electric power for communities and industries in south-central New Mexico and west Texas. Implementation of the Rio Grande

Project was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior on December 2, 1905, under the provisions of the Reclamation Act, and funds were allocated to initiate construction of the first diversion unit. The Reclamation Act was extended to the entire State of Texas on June 12, 1906, following a partial extension for Engle (Elephant Butte) Dam in 1905. Elephant Butte Reservoir, constructed from 1912 to 1916, provides most of the storage for the Rio Grande Project, while three diversion dams route stored water to the irrigation canals: Leasburg Dam, completed in

1908, and Percha and Mesilla dams, constructed between 1914 and 1919 (Reclamation 2002).

Key elements to the construction of the RGCP were identified in the Engineering Record Plan of

December 14, 1935. Those elements included 1) acquisition of right-of-way for the river channel and adjoining floodways, 2) improvement of the alignment and efficiency of the river channel conveyance for water delivery, and 3) flood control measures extending through the Rincon and

Mesilla valleys of New Mexico and the El Paso Valley in Texas. As part of the implementation of the canalization plan, a deeper main channel was dredged for a length of 153 km (95 miles) to facilitate water deliveries for irrigation. It resulted in the removal of river meanders, reducing the overall length of the reach by 16 km (10 miles) due to river cutoffs (Baker 1943). The RGCP reach is also now characterized by a width that varies from 53 to 91 m (175–300 feet) and a depth of 0.6 to 0.9 m (2–3 feet) in the lower reaches and 2.1 to 3 m (7–10 feet) in the upper reaches. Sections of the river banks are armored with rock revetment to reduce erosion and help maintain a consistent channel alignment.

The USIBWC has been responsible for maintaining flood control and water delivery capabilities of the RGCP since its completion in 1943. To fulfill its mission, the USIBWC undertakes the following operation and maintenance activities: 1) sediment removal from the channel and lower end of tributary arroyos; 2) leveling of the floodway; 3) vegetation management along channel banks, floodways, and levees; 4) replacement of channel bank riprap; 5) maintenance of sedimentation /flood control dams in the tributary arroyos (since the construction of those dams

SWCA Environmental Consultants 5 October 2011 in the early 1970s); and 6) maintenance of all RGCP infrastructure, including levee roads, bridges, and the American Diversion Dam.

2.2 NEW RIVER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, 1999–PRESENT

In 1998 the Southwest Environmental Center (SWEC), an environmental advocacy organization based in Las Cruces, New Mexico, stated its belief that an updated, comprehensive

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required for continued operation and maintenance of the RGCP, and to address alleged violations of the ESA and NEPA in correspondence addressed to the USIBWC Commissioner, the U.S. Secretary of State, and the U.S. Secretary of the

Interior. On March 22, 1999, the USIBWC and SWEC signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) that established the terms for the preparation of the EIS and called for continued flood control while improving the environmental quality of the RGCP. The MOU also established provisional green zones where mowing would be minimized, a limited tree-planting program, and the Rio Grande Citizens’ Forum, a quarterly public meeting that provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to learn and discuss EIS developments.

The USIBWC, in coordination with the USACE Albuquerque District, also evaluated the RGCP flood containment capacity in 1996 and subsequently in 2005. These studies identified a number of potential levee deficiencies along the RGCP on the basis of hydraulic modeling of the 100-year storm. The modeling indicated that an increase in levee height would be required to meet design criteria for flood protection. After Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, levees became a major concern to the general public. Created by Congress in response to the rising cost of disaster relief for flood victims, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is managed by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Federal Insurance and Mitigation

Administration. To be recognized as providing a 1% annual chance level of flood protection on the modernized NFIP maps, called Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), levee systems must now meet and continue to meet the minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards

(44 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 65.10). For the purposes of the NFIP, FEMA has established levee design criteria for freeboard, closures, embankment protection, embankment and foundation stability, settlement, interior drainage, and other design criteria. Freeboard is a factor of safety usually expressed in feet above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), or the level that water is anticipated to rise to during a 100-year flood. Freeboard is a useful concept for floodplain management. It is designed to anticipate the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as the hydrological effect of urbanization of a watershed.

For riverine levees, design criteria set forth in 44 CFR Section 65.10 include:

A minimum freeboard of 0.9 m (3 feet) above the BFE;

An additional 0.3 m (1 foot) above the minimum is required within 30.5 m (100 feet) on either side of structures (e.g., bridges) riverward of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted; and

An additional 0.15 m (0.5 foot) above the minimum at the upstream end of the levee, tapering to not less than the minimum at the downstream end of the levee, is also required.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 6 October 2011

Levees without 0.9 m (3 feet) of freeboard do not meet federal requirements and the structures behind them are considered to be in a flood zone. Without levee accreditation, local properties are mapped within the Special Flood Hazards Area (within the 1% or 100-year floodplain), and homeowners may be required to purchase flood insurance, as decertification of the levee system will place thousands of property owners into the floodplain. FEMA certification of RGCP levees in El Paso County, Texas, and Doña Ana and Sierra counties, New Mexico, cannot occur until the existing levees are rehabilitated to meet certification standards. Recent preliminary DFIRMs released by FEMA indicate increased newly designated Special Flood Hazard Areas along the

Rio Grande.

In the EIS (Draft EIS released in December 2003, Final EIS released in June 2004), the

USIBWC examined potential environmental impacts of four long-term river management alternatives, the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. The Preferred Alternative, integrated land management, proposed the continuation of the same operation and maintenance activities for flood protection and water delivery, the continuation of channel maintenance and flood-control improvements, modification of the grazing lease program to improve erosion control, partial changes in floodplain maintenance, environmental measures within the

USIBWC’s right-of-way, the development of a riparian corridor for bank stabilization, and stream bank reconfiguration for overbank flows.

Following the release of the Final EIS, signing of the ROD was delayed at the request of

Governor Richardson, Senators Bingaman and Domenici, and stakeholders, pending further investigations and stakeholder collaboration. In April 2005, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Environmental Defense, and EBID submitted a proposal to examine the feasibility of targeted habitat enhancement within a water rights framework, with safeguards recognized under the ESA for water rights provided through the districts. Namely, the proposal—and part of the Proposed

Action examined in this BA—aims at the following two elements: 1) restoring habitat at select sites along the RGCP and 2) securing water rights consistent with the environmental water transfer framework and ESA safeguards for water rights provided through the districts. Also in

2005, the USACE completed FLO-2D modeling of the RGCP to predict floodplain inundation, water surface elevation and levee inundation or overtopping associated with flood wave attenuation of return period flood events. An updated version of the FLO-2D model of the RGCP was used to estimate baseline hydraulic conditions in the RGCP, including the amount of overbank restoration flows up to 5,000 cfs, to assist in evaluating restoration potential along the reach. The results of this study were released as the 2009 Conceptual Plan. The Conceptual Plan presents 30 potential restoration sites totaling 565 acres that have been identified for restoration of aquatic habitat and a mosaic of native plant communities—grasslands, riparian woodlands, riparian forests, and dense riparian shrub.

In August 2006, the USIBWC entered into an agreement with EBID to formulate an administrative framework to transfer surface water to restoration projects and evaluate legal options under the ESA should restoration result in an increase in the distribution and population of southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; flycatcher). In 2006, Reclamation entered into a cooperative agreement with EBID under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act to fund complementary studies in partnership with the WWF on enhancement of breeding habitat for the flycatcher in the RGCP and legal options under the ESA.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 7 October 2011

On June 4, 2009, USIBWC Commissioner C.W. Ruth signed the ROD for river management alternatives for the RGCP. The ROD completed an eight-year consultation period with many key stakeholders.

Compared to the Final EIS, the Integrated Land Management Alternative set forth in the 2009

ROD incorporates proposed habitat restoration as evaluated in the 2009 Conceptual Plan and complemented by flycatcher surveys, soils surveys, evaluation of channel maintenance practices, and legal options under the ESA. An increase in flood containment capacity will be achieved primarily by raising sections of the existing levees to meet the 0.9-m (3-foot) freeboard design criteria required by FEMA. New levees would be constructed in unconfined areas where flood levels could extend past the right-of-way boundary. With funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the USIBWC is currently rehabilitating approximately 169 km

(105 miles) of its levees. Current work targets the following critical RGCP areas:

Hatch West levee: Salem Bridge to Bignell Arroyo (21.9 km [13.6 miles]);

Mesilla Phase 1 Project area: west levee from Shalem Bridge to Rio Bosque Park, east levee from Mesilla Dam to Vado Bridge, and west levee from Mesilla Dam to Vado

Bridge (53.75 km [33.4 miles]);

Mesilla Phase 2 Project area: east levee from Radium Springs to Mesilla Dam (31.5 km

[19.6 miles]);

Canutillo Phase 1 Project area (under construction): east levee from Vado Bridge to

Vinton Bridge, west levee from Vado Bridge to Borderland Bridge (30.7 km [19.1 miles]); and

Sunland Project area: east levee from Borderland Bridge to the El Paso Electric

Company power plant (19.2 km [11.9 miles]).

Thus, while retaining multiple operation and maintenance measures currently conducted for efficient water delivery and flood control within an adaptive management framework, the

Integrated Land Management Alternative provides for habitat restoration and for increasing flood containment capacity. It also improves soil erosion protection practices. As part of this alternative, the existing grazing lease management program will also be modified to protect water quality by reducing erosion and runoff of sediment, E. coli, and other potential pollutants and to promote bank stabilization. The modified program includes a ban on issuing new grazing leases to new lessees and a ban on renewing existing leases that expire during the term of this management plan. If any grazing leases remain in effect during the term of this management plan, the USIBWC will work with the lessee to implement a variety of vegetation treatments, construct fencing and infrastructure on existing lease areas to increase vegetation cover and streamside buffering, control saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), exclude river access, and develop watering alternatives. Recreational use of some sections of the floodway will be continued or expanded under proposed cooperative agreements with local and state organizations or other interested stakeholder groups. The USIBWC will ensure that recreational use of the floodway does not foreclose riparian restoration potential. Finally, under the Integrated Land Management

Alternative, the USIBWC will continue to perform routine maintenance of roads and facilities, as well as of its levees, new and rehabilitated.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 8 October 2011

3.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

Several of the measures proposed under the Integrated Land Management Alternative have the potential to affect the flycatcher and other listed, proposed, or candidate species. A small population of the federally and state endangered flycatcher is now known to breed within the

169-km (105-mile) reach of the RGCP including on some of the proposed restoration sites. The

Conceptual Plan identified up to 192 acres for restoration of dense riparian shrub suitable for breeding flycatchers. An increase in the distribution and population of flycatchers could help

New Mexico satisfy the Lower Rio Grande recovery target and contribute to efforts to delist the species. Farmers, however, are concerned that delivery of project water to these sites could give rise to potential liability under the ESA and restrict water deliveries for crop irrigation especially during low water years. Revegetation at some of the proposed restoration sites could increase evapotranspiration rates or require irrigation. Where restoration of flycatcher habitat will require

EBID or EPCWID board-approved water transfers, it will be necessary for stakeholders to obtain water rights consistent with the environmental water transfer framework. The analysis of likely effects presented in this BA focuses on both the proposed habitat restoration within its environmental water transfer framework and other proposed measures including continued routine maintenance of roads, levees, and facilities, continued sediment management, modifications of the grazing lease management program, and levee rehabilitation and construction.

Since project planning began in 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has attended meetings and field trips with the USIBWC and others to discuss project features, design, and construction methods. Additional biological data and background information were derived through review of relevant literature and personal communications. The USIBWC provided the

USFWS with technical and background information on the project area, much of which was prepared by Parsons Engineering, Inc. (Parsons). Parsons performed an extensive literature review and inventory of the fish, wildlife, vegetation, and habitat for the RGCP in 2000 and

2001. Parsons also developed a qualitative wildlife habitat rating system (Wildlife Habitat

Appraisal Procedure) to assess wildlife habitat value in the RGCP (Parsons 2003). The USFWS also reviewed baseline fish and wildlife information collected in the project area by its own agency staff, CH2M Hill, and Geo-Marine, Inc., for the El Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable

Water Project.

On February 2004, the USIBWC sent a letter to the USFWS requesting consultation pursuant to

Section 7 of the ESA. This consultation concerned the effects of the Integrated Land

Management Alternative—as set forth in the final EIS released later that year—on the endangered flycatcher, the endangered interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), and the then-threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In its response letter to the USIBWC on June

28, 2004, the USFWS concurred with an effect determination of ―May Affect, Is Not Likely to

Adversely Affect‖ for all three listed species.

On August 31, 2009, after the ROD had been signed, the USIBWC again requested consultation with the USFWS regarding the potential effects on listed and proposed fish and wildlife resources during the implementation phase of the Integrated Land Management Alternative. The need for this new consultation reflects modifications of the Integrated Land Management

Alternative since public release of the final EIS in 2004, including mainly the newly proposed

SWCA Environmental Consultants 9 October 2011 habitat restoration at 30 sites along the RGCP, together with proposed flood flows and an environmental water transfer framework necessary to make habitat restoration possible. As part of this requested new consultation, safeguards recognized under the ESA are sought for the environmental water transfer framework.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 10 October 2011

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE RGCP, PAST AND CURRENT CONDITIONS

The Rio Grande flows from its headwaters in southern Colorado through New Mexico, discharging into the Gulf of Mexico as it forms the border between Texas and Mexico. The primary source of surface water for the 3,034 km (1,885 miles) of river begins in the mountains of Colorado. From a water resources perspective, the area of influence for the project begins at

Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico, and extends south approximately 323 km (200 miles) along the Rio Grande to Fort Quitman, Texas. The drainage basin above Elephant Butte

Reservoir is 67,195 km²

(25,923 square miles) and has a 79-year runoff average of 904,900 acre-feet (USIBWC 2004). There are no major tributaries in the project area.

Project water storage is provided primarily in Elephant Butte Reservoir. Caballo Reservoir is used for flood control and seasonal water storage (USIBWC 2004). The maximum combined storage for the two reservoirs is 2,396,520 acre-feet. The normal annual release from the reservoirs, including Mexico’s 60,000 acre-foot allotment, totals 790,000 acre-feet (USIBWC

2004).

The regulated flows in the Rio Grande downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir modify the historical natural hydrograph following a pattern of sustained moderately high irrigation flows during late spring and summer and low flows during fall and winter months, with additional high flows from summer thunderstorms. An average annual hydrograph (U.S. Geological Survey

[USGS] Gage at Station 08362500) for the river below Caballo Dam shows that the seasonal peak releases usually occur in June and July. Average monthly discharges range from approximately 48 to 1,895 cfs). The average winter base flow of approximately 107 cfs usually persists from November through February, and average flows during the irrigation season

(March–October) are typically 1,318 cfs (USIBWS 2004) (Figure 2).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 11 October 2011

Figure 2. Median mean daily flows at Rio Grande at Caballo gage (USGS Gage No.

08362500) and the Rio Grande at El Paso gage (EBID gage) for the periods from WY1938 through WY2006 and WY1975 through WY2006.

Reproduced with permission from USIBWC 2009.

Historically, the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico was characterized by a wide, active floodplain with numerous marshes, backwater, oxbow pools, and a fringe forest of cottonwoods

(Populus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), and shrubby phreatophytes (USFWS 2005). Stream flows, although subject to great fluctuations, were believed to be perennial in all years. By 1880, however, most of the land along the river that could be irrigated was now under development.

Stream flows became more erratic and, in the Mesilla Valley, ceased completely at times. It was these conditions that eventually led to the development of several major water projects

(mentioned earlier) on the river.

There are four mainstem diversions (Percha, Leasburg, Mesilla, and American), and more than

1,609 km (1,000 miles) of canals, laterals, and drains along the RGCP downstream of Caballo

Dam (USIBWC 2004). The channel and floodway have a capacity ranging from 22,000 cfs in the upper reaches to 11,000 cfs in the lower reaches. Within the United States section, the USIBWC operates and maintains the channel and floodway. Maintenance includes dredging sand out of the channel and mowing the floodway to limit the growth of riparian vegetation to maintain floodwater conveyance.

The environmental consequences of channelization activities include the severance of the river from its floodplain; the straightening, narrowing, and incising of the river channel; the curtailment of the meandering process that formed oxbows and backwaters; and the loss of

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec 1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep

M e d ia n M e a n D a il y F lo w c fs

Caballo (WY39-06)

Caballo (WY75-06)

El Paso (WY39-06)

El Paso (WY75-06)

SWCA Environmental Consultants 12 October 2011 native wetland and riparian vegetation (USFWS 2005). The incised channel and dam operations prevent overbank flows and periodic scouring of floodplain areas. Most of the floodplain of the

Rio Grande has been replaced by row crops and orchards. Except for a few locations upstream of

Selden Canyon, the river is now confined to a single channel that ranges in width from about 46 to 91 m (150–300 feet). A few gravel riffles occur upstream of Hatch, New Mexico, near the mouth of arroyos and immediately downstream of Leasburg Dam. These riffles provide unique habitat for longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae). Aside from these areas, the streambed consists almost entirely of sand, which actively shifts and moves downstream even at moderate flows. The changed hydrology and current management practices largely preclude natural regeneration of native cottonwoods and willows and promotes the growth of non-native vegetation such as saltcedar and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). These two non-natives, primarily saltcedar, have largely replaced the native cottonwood/willow that occurred originally along the RGCP. Cumulatively, all the changes resulting from water diversion and dams have significantly reduced the complexity of aquatic and riparian habitats and their ability to support healthy fish and wildlife populations (USFWS 2005).

4.2 PROPOSED SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER CRITICAL

HABITAT RE-DESIGNATION

The USFWS is proposing to revise critical habitat for the flycatcher under the ESA of 1973, as amended (USFWS 2011d). In total, approximately 3,364 stream km (2,090 stream miles) are being proposed for designation as critical habitat. These areas are being proposed as stream segments, with the lateral extent including the riparian areas and streams that occur within the

100-year floodplain or flood-prone areas. The proposed critical habitat is located on a combination of federal, state, tribal, and private lands in California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. In New Mexico, critical habitat is proposed for Catron, Cibola, Doña

Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Santa Fe, San Juan, Sierra, Socorro, Taos, and Valencia counties (Figure 3). Some of the proposed critical habitat is situated along the

RGCP south to Leasburg Dam (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Currently there is no flycatcher critical habitat along the RGCP.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 13 October 2011

Figure 3. Proposed critical habitat designation for the flycatcher in New Mexico

(USFWS 2007). Note that some of the proposed critical habitat is being considered for exclusion, none of which is in the RGCP.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 14 October 2011

Figure 4. Extent of proposed flycatcher critical habitat along the RGCP.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 October 2011

Figure 5. Restoration sites within proposed flycatcher critical habitat along the RGCP.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 16 October 2011

4.3 SELECTED RESTORATION SITES

The Proposed Action includes habitat restoration at 30 sites along the RGCP, along with continued implementation of measures identified in the 2009 ROD for management of the RGCP and further refined based on additional site-specific data (USIBWC 2011). These additional site-specific data were obtained from soil surveys, an examination of groundwater depths, cultural resources surveys, and flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) surveys.

The 30 sites are described in the 2009 Conceptual Plan, and summary information regarding their location, size, and ownership status is presented in Table 1. The sites were selected based on their potential for achieving the restoration objectives of enhancing ecological diversity, improving riparian and channel functionality, and expanding native habitat in a manner that does not jeopardize water delivery requirements and public safety (USIBWC 2009). One of the 30 sites, Lack Property, has since been removed from the list due to ownership-related issues.

Another site referred to here as the USIBWC Broad Canyon Parcel was added as a new restoration site.

Information on geomorphology, vegetation, and management history is presented in Table 2, based on the description of the sites in the Conceptual Plan, as updated during biological surveys conducted by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) from June 6 to 9, 2011. A detailed description of the sites (SWCA 2011) is appended to this Draft BA (Appendix A). Sites 1 through 16 fall within the stretch of the RGCP proposed for critical habitat designation (USFWS

2011d).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 17 October 2011

Table 1. Location, Size (acreage), and Ownership of the 30 Sites Proposed for Habitat Restoration along the RGCP Reach

Site Number

Site Name River Mile

Acreage Side of the

River Ownership / Management

Proposed Critical Habitat for Flycatcher

1 Trujillo 103 14.0 West USIBWC Yes

2 Jaralosa 94.9 4.5 East USIBWC Yes

3 Yeso Arroyo 94 10.6 East and west USIBWC Yes

4 Yeso East 93.7 9.7 East USIBWC Yes

5 Yeso West 93.5 2.5 West USIBWC Yes

6 Crow Canyon A 92 90.0 East USIBWC Yes

7 Crow Canyon B 90.5 25.6 East USIBWC Yes

8 Placitas Arroyo 85 21.8 East and west USIBWC Yes

9 Rincon Siphon (2 parcels) 82.5 16.3 East USIBWC Yes

10 Angostura Arroyo 80 15.4 East and west USIBWC Yes

New USIBWC Broad Canyon Parcel (Site added in replacement of #11, Lack Property)

67.7 25.8 West USIBWC Yes

12 Pasture 18 69.5 52.0 East New Mexico State

University Yes

13 Broad Canyon Ranch Middle 67 13.8 West New Mexico State Parks Yes

14 Broad Canyon Ranch South 66.8 20.6 West New Mexico State Parks Yes

15 Selden Point Bar 66 7.8 East USIBWC Yes

16 Bailey Point Bar 64 16.6 East Private property Yes

17 Shalem Colony 50.5 14.2 East USIBWC No

Leasburg Extension Lateral Wasteway

47.8 4.1 East USIBWC No

19 Clark Lateral 43.5 6.0 East USIBWC No

20 Mesilla Valley Bosque State Park 41.5 31.8 West USIBWC/State of New

Mexico No

21 Mesilla East 41 15.8 East USIBWC No

22 Berino West 25.5 10.3 West USIBWC No

23 Berino East 24.8 9.5 East USIBWC No

24 Vinton A 17 14.7 West USIBWC No

SWCA Environmental Consultants 18 October 2011

Site Number

Site Name River Mile

Acreage Side of the

River Ownership / Management

Proposed Critical Habitat for Flycatcher

25 Vinton B 16 20.0 West USIBWC No

26 Valley Creek 9 22.0 West USIBWC No

27 Nemexas Siphon 7 16.7 West USIBWC No

28 Country Club East 6.8 29.0 East USIBWC No

29 Sunland Park 4 28.8 East USIBWC No

30 Anapra Bridge 3 11.0 East USIBWC No

Site numbering follows that of the Conceptual Plan. Site # 11 was removed from the original list of restoration sites. A new site was added in replacement of Site # 11.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 19 October 2011

Table 2. Geomorphologic and Vegetation Characteristics of the 30 RGCP Sites Proposed for Habitat Restoration

Site Number

Site Name Geomorphology Dominant Existing Vegetation Management History

1 Trujillo Alluvial terrace (overbank) Mixed stands of coyote willow, saltcedar, and arrowweed and native grassland.

Arroyo mouth realignment and channel revetment. No mowing and no dredging. No levees.

2 Jaralosa Abandoned meander bend Native and non-native herbaceous vegetation, arrowweed, scattered saltcedar, and a few senescent cottonwood trees.

Periodic mowing

3 Yeso Arroyo Arroyo inlet River banks lined with 4- to 5-m-tall (13- to 16-foot-tall) saltcedar. There are few Rio Grande cottonwoods.

Periodic mowing

4 Yeso East Shallow depression (likely a former channel meander)

Non-native weeds (mostly amaranth), and alkali sacaton, aster, and arrowweed.

Periodic mowing

5 Yeso West Small, inset floodplain just upstream from the mouth of a small arroyo

Grass along the edge of the water and bordered by a dense strip of saltcedar.

Crow Canyon A (2 parcels)

Large former river meander opposite the mouth of the outlet wash channel from Crow Canyon Dam

First parcel: alkali sacaton with several remnant cottonwoods; second parcel: alkali sacaton, saltgrass, and sprouts of screwbean mesquite and arrowweed. Some resprouting saltcedar in both parcels.

Periodic mowing

7 Crow Canyon B Meander depression

Meadow with alkali sacaton and saltgrass, plus scattered clumps of arrowweed, rush, bulrush, and cattail; coyote willows and especially saltcedar along the bank.

Periodic mowing

8 Placitas Arroyo Arroyo inlet

Site highly disturbed by mowing, levee repair work, and dumping of garbage. Along the banks is a thin strip of coyote willow with also some southern cattail.

Periodic mowing; levee repair

Rincon Siphon (2 parcels)

Overbank Saltcedar in monotypic stands and screwbean mesquite, willow, and/or arrowweed associations.

Periodic mowing

10 Angostura Arroyo Arroyo inlet Large, open field dominated by sapling saltcedar.

Periodic mowing

New USIBWC Broad Canyon Parcel

Overbank Dominated by tall saltcedar with some honey mesquite

SWCA Environmental Consultants 20 October 2011

Site Number

Site Name Geomorphology Dominant Existing Vegetation Management History

12 Pasture 18 Overbank Screwbean mesquite associations, wolfberry associations, alkali meadow.

Most of the site was burned in spring 2007

Broad Canyon Ranch Middle

Some open areas created from saltcedar removal, with remaining patches of screwbean mesquite and a ground cover of weeds and shrubs. Mature mesquite grows along the river’s edge, though no longer forming a thick corridor of trees. A wetland occurs in the north-central part of the site.

Vegetation treatments have been conducted since 2009, including mechanical removal of saltcedar, chipping of the debris, pile burning, spraying of herbicide (Garlon), and extensive plantings of native vegetation including coyote and Goodding’s willow.

Resprouting saltcedar is treated with herbicide on an annual basis.

Broad Canyon Ranch South

Open areas created from saltcedar removal.

The only remaining mature saltcedar is present along the edge of the river. Large wetlands occur toward the northern end of the site, while the southern end has more barren ground from the occurrence of flooding.

Saltcedar removal mostly in 2009 and pole planting of native vegetation including coyote and Goodding’s willow.

Resprouting saltcedar is treated with herbicide on an annual basis.

15 Selden Point Bar – Monotypic saltcedar stands, wet meadow with saltcedar, small emergent.

16 Bailey Point Bar – Monotypic saltcedar stands, saltcedar/willow associations, screwbean mesquite, wet meadow.

17 Shalem Colony –

5-acre stand of maturing screwbean mesquite trees with a ground cover of alkali sacaton, saltgrass, and spike dropseed.

Same ground cover elsewhere throughout the site; resprouting coyote willow in mowed areas.

Periodic mowing; levee construction

Leasburg Extension Lateral Wasteway 8

Overbank Mowed grassland with scattered resprouting saltcedar.

Periodic mowing

19 Clark Lateral Overbank Mowed grassland with scattered resprouting saltcedar.

Periodic mowing

SWCA Environmental Consultants 21 October 2011

Site Number

Site Name Geomorphology Dominant Existing Vegetation Management History

Mesilla Valley Bosque State Park

Overbank

Mixture of mowed grassland and wet meadow, robust coyote willow bordering the bankline, scattered cottonwoods, and, in the downstream portion, saltcedar.

Periodic mowing

21 Mesilla East Overbank Regularly mowed grasses with minor saltcedar resprouting and a few native shrubs.

Periodic mowing

22 Berino West Overbank Regularly mowed grasses and native and exotic herbaceous vegetation.

Periodic mowing

23 Berino East – Regularly mowed grasses and native and exotic herbaceous vegetation.

Periodic mowing

24 Vinton A –

Regularly mowed grasses and native and exotic herbaceous vegetation, with scattered resprouting saltcedar and some willows.

Periodic mowing

25 Vinton B –

Regularly mowed grasses and native and exotic herbaceous vegetation, with scattered resprouting saltcedar and some willows.

Periodic mowing

26 Valley Creek –

Regularly mowed grasses and native and exotic herbaceous vegetation, with scattered resprouting saltcedar and some willows.

Periodic mowing

27 Nemexas Siphon – Dense stand of saltcedar with several mature cottonwoods and small patches of coyote willows.

Country Club East

Mowed grassland with scattered resprouting saltcedar.

Periodic mowing

29 Sunland Park Overbank Relatively dense grasses (primarily saltgrass) and scattered cottonwoods and shrubs, with minor saltcedar resprouting.

Periodic mowing; paved recreational trail recently constructed adjacent to this site

30 Anapra Bridge Overbank Grasses (primarily saltgrass) and mature cottonwoods, coyote willow, and screwbean mesquite.

Periodic mowing; paved recreational trail recently constructed adjacent to this site

SWCA Environmental Consultants 22 October 2011

5.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE

Potential environmental effects of river management alternatives were evaluated in a Draft EIS released for agency and public review on December 18, 2003, and completed in final form on

June 29, 2004. River management alternatives consisted of the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives: the Flood Control Improvement Alternative, the Integrated Land

Management Alternative, and the Targeted River Restoration Alternative. These alternatives were developed to enhance and partially restore the riparian ecosystem and floodplain function while maintaining the flood control and water delivery requirements of the RGCP. Alternatives addressed practices such as flood control, channel maintenance, and erosion reduction, as well as environmental measures intended to enhance river floodplain hydrologic connectivity, and support restoration of native riparian vegetation and diversification of aquatic habitats along the

RGCP. Alternatives formulation was the result of an eight-year public consultation process that included regulatory agencies, irrigation districts, and environmental organizations. Alternatives were described in detail in a Reformulation of Alternatives Report completed in August 2003

(Parsons 2003) and further refined in the Conceptual Plan completed in March 2009. Additional studies including flycatcher surveys, soils surveys, evaluation of channel maintenance practices, and legal options under the ESA were also completed in December 2008.

During preparation of the Draft EIS, an administrative decision was made not to select a

Preferred Alternative. In making this decision, the USIBWC considered that a review of environmental effects and public comment were needed as key elements in selecting a river management alternative for the RGCP. Following evaluation of environmental effects, and comments received on the Draft EIS, the USIBWC concluded that the Integrated Land

Management Alternative provided the best balance of flood control, water delivery, and habitat enhancement. This alternative was, therefore, selected as the agency’s preferred approach, or

Proposed Action, for long-term management of the RGCP. The Targeted River Restoration alternative was not selected for future RGCP management because a number of proposed measures extended beyond the USIBWC’s jurisdiction, its implementation had a potential for a significant increase in water use, and it conflicted with the RGCP water delivery mission. Costs of the Targeted River Restoration Alternative were also considered prohibitively high. However, in the Final EIS and 2009 Conceptual Plan, many of the measures proposed as part of the

Targeted River Restoration alternative were integrated as part of the Preferred Alternative as reflected in the ROD.

5.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the USIBWC would continue RGCP operation and maintenance activities as currently conducted. Those activities are directed toward flood protection and water delivery, with some activities involving environmental improvements. Key features of this alternative are management of the levee system, floodway maintenance through mowing, grazing leases and recreational areas, maintenance of pilot channel and irrigation facilities, and sediment control and disposal. Mowing of the floodway is conducted annually over an area totaling 4,657 acres, or as circumstances warrant, to control weeds, brush, and tree growth, including saltcedar. The USIBWC administers a land lease program that covers approximately 43% of the RGCP floodway. Pilot channel maintenance is performed during non-

SWCA Environmental Consultants 23 October 2011 irrigation periods when water levels are lowest by removing debris and deposits, including sand bars. The agency conducts dredging at the mouth of arroyos to maintain grade of the channel bed and ensure the channel conveys irrigation deliveries.

5.2 PROPOSED ACTION (SELECTED ALTERNATIVE): INTEGRATED LAND

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE

While the USIBWC currently implements operation and maintenance procedures that enhance ecosystem functions within the RGCP, the river and floodway will remain highly altered from events predating RGCP construction. Thus, the USIBWC recognizes the need and opportunity to better integrate flood control, water delivery, and operation and maintenance activities in a manner that enhances or restores the riparian ecosystem. At the same time, the rising cost of disaster relief for flood victims and the general public’s increased concern for the ability of levees to control flood have resulted in FEMA developing riverine levee design criteria that include a 0.9 (3-foot) freeboard above the BFE. To address these design criteria and earn levee accreditation from FEMA, the USIBWC has begun work on approximately 169 km (105 miles) of its levees under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Integrated Land

Management Alternative is the action selected by the USIBWC for long-term maintenance and operation of the RGCP. Some measures will be implemented directly by the USIBWC. A number of measures will be conducted through cooperative agreements with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other organizations.

The Proposed Action is essentially the same as the Integrated Land Management Alternative described above, with the exception of select projects that will require separate consultation.

Specifically, the Proposed Action consists of the following main elements:

Levee Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Construction

Levee work included as part of the Proposed Action consists of both levee maintenance along the entire RGCP and construction or rehabilitation work at select sites listed below. Levee maintenance equipment consists of water trucks, maintainers and rollers for levee surface, and slope grading and blading activities. Levees are inspected regularly at the beginning of each flood season and immediately after each flood event. Maintenance includes encouraging grass growth on the levee slopes for erosion control, cutting brush and tall weeds from the slopes, and repairing levee slopes. Levee slopes are mowed to prevent growth of brush and trees that could obstruct flows, or cause root damage to the structure itself. Levee roadways are generally unpaved gravel roads designed for passage of operations and maintenance personnel and equipment. Levee maintenance includes road grading and resurfacing with gravel as needed. The entire levee road system for RGCP is resurfaced within a 20-year cycle. No bulldozers are used as part of levee maintenance activities.

As previously stated, the USIBWC is currently rehabilitating approximately 169 km (105 miles) of its levees. Current work targets the following critical RGCP areas:

Hatch West levee: Salem Bridge to Bignell Arroyo (21.9…