USIBWC_RGCP_River_Management_Plan_FINAL_December_8_2016_reduced.pdf

International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section

Last Updated December 8, 2016

USIBWC Rio Grande Canalization Project

River Management Plan

USIBWC Canalization River Management Plan ii ii

River Management Plan USIBWC Rio Grande Canalization Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................................... II ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... VII COLLABORATORS ....................................................................................................................... VIII

PART 1 ‐ INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1 RIO GRANDE CANALIZATION PROJECT (RGCP)

1.1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY

1.1.2 RGCP RECORD OF DECISION

1.1.3 RGCP ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION

1.2 RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES

1.3 UPDATING THE RMP

PART 2 ‐ FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 LEVEES

2.2.1 LEVEE MAINTENANCE

2.2.2 LEVEE REHABILITATION AND CONSTRUCTION

2.2.3 MITIGATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

2.3 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

2.3.1 BIRD BREEDING SEASON

2.3.2 BIRD NESTING SURVEYS

2.3.3 BIRD NESTING SURVEY TRAINING AND MATERIALS

2.3.4 ROD AND BIOLOGICAL OPINION REQUIREMENTS

2.3.5 MOW ZONES

2.3.6 USIBWC NO‐MOW ZONES

2.3.7 EXCEPTIONS TO NO‐MOW ZONES

2.3.8 SALTCEDAR MANAGEMENT IN NO‐MOW ZONES

2.3.9 MARKING OF NO MOW ZONES

2.3.10 NO‐MOW ZONE CALCULATIONS METHODOLOGY

2.3.11 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF NO‐MOW ZONES

2.4 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT

2.4.1 CHEMICAL METHODS

2.4.2 HERBICIDE TREATMENT

2.4.3 HERBICIDE TREATMENT SAFETY AND TRAINING

2.4.4 MECHANICAL TREATMENT

iii iii

2.5 PRESCRIBED BURNS

2.6 RESTORATION SITES

2.6.1 RESTORATION SITES

2.6.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS

2.7 MONITORING OF RESTORATION SITES

2.8 WATER RIGHTS FOR RESTORATION SITES

2.9. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

2.9.1 ALLOWED ACTIVITIES

2.9.2 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND ENFORCEMENT

2.9.3 HUNTING

2.10 LEASED AREAS/ AREAS MAINTAINED BY NON‐USIBWC ENTITIES

2.10.1 GRAZING LEASE PROGRAM

2.10.2 LEASES FOR RECREATIONAL USE AREAS

2.11 ACCESS TO LEVEE ROADS AND GATES

2.12 ADOPT‐A‐RIVER PROGRAM

2.13 OTHER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN

2.13.1 TREE DEBRIS

2.13.2 SEDIMENT EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL WITHIN THE ROW

2.14 COORDINATING WITH EMD

2.15 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND ROD IMPLEMENTATION GROUP

2.16 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

2.17 LONG TERM RIVER MANAGEMENT OF RESTORATION SITES

PART 3 ‐ ENDANGERED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

SUBPART 3.1 FLYCATCHER MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.1.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1.1.1 BIOLOGICAL OPINION

3.1.1.2 USIBWC GOALS TO PROTECT FLYCATCHERS

3.1.2 SPECIES INFORMATION

3.1.2.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND LISTING HISTORY

3.1.2.2 NESTING HABITAT DESCRIPTION

3.1.2.3 MIGRATORY HABITAT

3.1.2.3 BREEDING BIOLOGY

3.1.2.3 THREATS

3.1.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF HABITAT

3.1.4 RESTORATION SITES FOR FLYCATCHER HABITAT

3.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL WATER TRANSACTION PROGRAM

3.1.6 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR HABITAT ESTABLISHMENT

3.1.7 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

3.1.7.1 BUFFERS

3.1.7.2 EXOTIC SPECIES REMOVAL

3.1.8 VEGETATION MAPPING

iv iv

3.1.8.1 NDVI OVERVIEW

3.1.8.2 USIBWC NDVI CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

3.1.8.3 CORE ACREAGE IN OPINION

3.1.8.4 OTHER METRIC OPTIONS

3.1.9 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1.10 REFUGE SYSTEM

3.1.11 SALTCEDAR LEAF BEETLE

3.1.12 SURVEYS

3.1.12.1 TERRITORY SURVEYS

3.1.12.2 COLLABORATION WITH USBR

3.1.12.3 NESTING SUCCESS SURVEYS

3.1.13 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS OF THE RECOVERY PLAN

3.1.14 USIBWC LICENSES/LEASES/PERMITS

3.1.15 DREDGING/CHANNEL MAINTENANCE

3.1.16 SUMMARY OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FLYCATCHER PROTECTION

3.1.17 FLYCATCHER LOWER RIO GRANDE RECOVERY MANAGEMENT UNIT IMPLEMENTATION SUBGROUP ... 23

3.1.18 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR DROUGHT

3.1.18.1. NATURAL CONDITIONS

3.1.18.2. SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION

3.1.18.3. GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND NON‐DROUGHT YEAR PRIORITIZATION

3.1.19 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE TASKS

3.1.20 REPORTING TO USFWS

SUBPART 3.2 ‐ OTHER ENDANGERED SPECIES

3.2.1 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

3.2.2 ACTIONS TO PROTECT

3.2.2.1 YELLOW‐BILLED CUCKOO

3.2.2.2 OTHER SPECIES

PART 4 ‐ CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLAN

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

4.1. INTRODUCTION AND AUTHORITY

4.2 OBJECTIVES OF USIBWC AND STAKEHOLDERS REGARDING CHANNEL MAINTENANCE

4.2.1 USIBWC OBJECTIVES

4.2.2 STAKEHOLDER OBJECTIVES

4.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF RIVER CHANNELIZATION

4.3 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE ROD

4.3.1 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE BEFORE THE ROD

4.3.2 ROD REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNEL MAINTENANCE

4.3.3 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE APPROACH – FISCAL YEARS 2009‐2016

4.3.4 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE APPROACH FOR 2016‐2019

4.3.5 LONG‐TERM CHANNEL MAINTENANCE APPROACH FOR 2019 AND BEYOND

4.4 HYDROLOGIC, HYDRAULIC, AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELING

4.4.1 MODELS

v v

4.4.2 STUDIES

4.4.3 2015 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVES AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDY

4.4.4 UPDATING CROSS SECTIONS

4.5 DAM MAINTENANCE

4.5.1 AMERICAN DIVERSION DAM

4.5.2 OTHER DIVERSION DAMS

4.5.3 MAINTENANCE OF NRCS DAMS BY USIBWC

4.6 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PLANNED ACTIVITIES

4.6.1 ROUTINE RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE WORK AND 5‐YEAR PLAN

4.6.2 DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR ALL ROUTINE CHANNEL MAINTENANCE

4.6.3 NON‐ROUTINE CHANNEL MAINTENANCE AND DOCUMENTATION

4.6.4 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALL CHANNEL WORK

4.6.5 EMERGENCY CHANNEL MAINTENANCE WORK

4.7 DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING

4.7.1 RECOMMENDED DATA COLLECTION AND MONITORING FOR ROUTINE AND NON‐ROUTINE CHANNEL

MAINTENANCE WORK

4.8 RESTORATION SITE IN‐CHANNEL ENHANCEMENTS AND BANK WORK

4.9 BANK WORK

4.9.1 BANK MAINTENANCE AND STABILIZATION

4.9.2 EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION

4.9.3 CRITICAL ERODING SITES

4.10 TREES AND SNAG REMOVAL

4.11 MAINTENANCE OF IRRIGATION FACILITIES

4.12 SPOIL AREAS/ SEDIMENT DEPOSITION AREAS

4.13 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

4.13.1 CWA SECTION 404 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

4.13.2 USEPA CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT

4.13.3 EXCAVATION ONLY

4.13.4 EMERGENCY REPAIR

4.13.5 IRRIGATION DITCHES

4.13.6 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IN‐CHANNEL INFRASTRUCTURE

4.13.7 LETTER OF PERMISSION FOR NEW MEXICO WORK

4.14 MITIGATION

4.14.1 PAST MITIGATION

4.14.2 FUTURE MITIGATION

4.15 COST ANALYSIS

4.16 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVES

4.16.1 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVES FROM THE 2015 CMA STUDY

4.16.2 OTHER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER

4.17 LONG‐TERM MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS

4.17.1 GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURES

4.17.2 SEDIMENT CONTROL DAMS/TRAPS

vi vi

4.17.3 OTHER SEDIMENT CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE

4.17.4 ACQUISITION OF LAND

4.17.5 SEDIMENT CONTROL INITIATIVE

4.18 UPDATING THIS PLAN

4.19 CHANNEL MAINTENANCE MAPS

PART 5 ‐ FIELD GUIDE TO COMMON NATIVE & NON‐NATIVE FLORA & FAUNA IN THE RGCP RIPARIAN ZONE .. 1

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.2 NATIVE PLANTS OF THE RIO GRANDE RIPARIAN ZONE

5.3 NATIVE SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES OF WILDLIFE OF THE RIO GRANDE CANALIZATION RIPARIAN ZONE

5.4 NON‐NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA

5.5 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND PHOTO SOURCES

5.5.1 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

5.5.2 PHOTO SOURCES:

PART 6 ‐ NO‐MOW ZONE MAPS

APPROVAL SIGNATURES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.2 MAPS

PART 7 ‐ REFERENCES

vii vii

ABBREVIATIONS

BA ‐ Biological Assessment BMP ‐ Best Management Practice BRO ‐ USIBWC Boundary and Realty Office cfs ‐ cubic feet per second CMA – channel maintenance alternative CSWCD – Caballo Soil and Water Conservation District CWA ‐ Clean Water Act CY ‐ cubic yards EBID ‐ Elephant Butte Irrigation District EIS ‐ Environmental Impact Statement EMD ‐ USIBWC Environmental Management Division EPCWID#1 – El Paso County Water Improvement District #1 ESA ‐ Endangered Species Act ESD ‐ USIBWC Engineering Services Division EWTP ‐ Environmental Water Transaction Program Flycatcher ‐ Southwestern Willow Flycatcher IBWC ‐ International Boundary and Water Commission, both U.S. and Mexican Sections MOU ‐ Memorandum of Understanding (or Memorandum of Agreement) NDVI ‐ Normalized Differential Vegetation Index NEPA ‐ National Environmental Policy Act NMDOT ‐ New Mexico Department of Transportation NMOSE ‐ New Mexico Office of the State Engineer NRCS ‐ Natural Resources Conservation Service NWP ‐ Nationwide Permit OHWM ‐ Ordinary High Water Mark O&M ‐ USIBWC Operations and Maintenance Division Opinion ‐ Biological and Conference Opinion POD ‐ Point of Diversion PPE ‐ Personal Protective Equipment RGCP ‐ Rio Grande Canalization Project ROD ‐ Record of Decision ROW ‐ Right of Way RPM ‐ Reasonable and Prudent Measure SANWR ‐ San Andres National Wildlife Refuge SCS ‐ Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) SHPO ‐ State Historic Preservation Officer USACE ‐ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USBR ‐ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USFWS ‐ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ‐ U.S. Geological Survey USIBWC ‐ International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section WRN ‐ Water Right Number viii viii

COLLABORATORS

USIBWC:

Elizabeth Verdecchia, Natural Resources Specialist, Environmental Management Division, lead author Gilbert Anaya, Division Chief, Environmental Management Division Billy Finn, Division Chief, Water Accounting Division Tony Solo, Area Operations Manager, Upper Rio Grande Projects Dr. Padinare Unnikrishna, Hydraulic Engineer, Engineering Services Division

Cesar Bosselier, Assistant Area Operations Manager, Upper Rio Grande Projects Sheryl Franklin, Division Chief, Operations and Maintenance Division Larry Krieger, GIS Specialist Duane Price, Boundary and Realty Officer

Stakeholders:

Beth Bardwell, New Mexico Audubon Kevin Bixby, Southwest Environmental Center Gary Esslinger, Elephant Butte Irrigation District Conrad Keyes Jr., Paso del Norte Watershed Council Zack Libbon, Elephant Butte Irrigation District

USFWS:

Deborah Hill, Ecological Services Division, Albuquerque, NM cover photo: View from Rincon Railroad Bridge looking north towards the Rincon Siphon restoration site, May 2012. E. Verdecchia

Part 1 ‐ Introduction and Overview, Last updated 11/6/14 1‐1

USIBWC Canalization River Management Plan -

PART 1 - INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1 Rio Grande Canalization Project (RGCP)

The Rio Grande Canalization Project (RGCP), located in Doña Ana and Sierra Counties in New

Mexico and El Paso County, Texas, extends for

105.6 miles along the Rio Grande from Percha

Diversion Dam in New Mexico, to approximately

200 feet downstream from American Diversion

Dam where the Rio Grande begins to form the international boundary at El Paso, Texas and

Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua (see Figure 1‐1). The

RGCP is designed to provide flood protection against a 100‐year flood and assures releases of waters to Mexico from the upstream Elephant

Butte and Caballo Reservoirs in accordance with the 1906 Convention between the United States and Mexico. The U.S. Section of the International

Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) was granted authority to construct, operate, and maintain the project through the Act of June 4, 1936, 49 Stat. 1463, Public Law No.648.

1.1.1 Statutory Authority

The USIBWC operates and maintains the RGCP under the requirements of the 1906 Convention, the Act of June 4, 1936 (Public Law 648; 49 Stat.

1463), and 22 U.S.C 277 (implementing regulations for the USIBWC). The USIBWC also must follow federal laws enacted after the 1936

RGCP authorization, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act

(ESA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA). These laws require compliance as part of USIBWC’s statutorily‐ required duties.

1.1.2 RGCP Record of Decision

This River Management Plan is being updated in accordance with USIBWC’s 2009 Record of Decision on the River Management Alternatives for the RGCP. In compliance with NEPA, in 1999, the USIBWC began a public scoping and consultation process to develop alternatives for an Environmental Impact

Figure 1‐1. Rio Grande Canalization Project location

1‐2

Statement (EIS) on river management of the RGCP. In 2001, an Alternatives Formulation Report was issued, and in 2003, the Reformulation of River Management Alternatives Report was issued, leading to the release of the Draft EIS in December 2003 for public comment. The Final EIS was issued in July 2004

(Parsons 2004a), with a Record of Decision (ROD) expected in August 2004. On August 3, 2004, New

Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman and Pete Domenici, and other stakeholders from New Mexico requested a delay in signing the ROD in order to address concerns of stakeholders. From 2004 to 2009, the RGCP Collaborative, a group of stakeholders working with USIBWC on the RGCP, revisited aspects of the EIS, biological assessments, hydraulic modeling, and technical assessments to address stakeholder concerns.

The RGCP EIS evaluated four long‐term River Management Alternatives: a) No Action, b) Flood Control

Improvement, c) Integrated Land Management, and d) Targeted River Restoration. The goals were to accomplish flood control, water delivery, and operation and maintenance activities in a manner that would enhance or restore the river ecosystem. Following an 8‐year consultation process with stakeholders, the USIBWC selected the Integrated Land Management Alternative and the RGCP ROD was finally signed by USIBWC Commissioner Ruth on June 9, 2009 (USIBWC 2009). The ROD committed

USIBWC to a 10‐year implementation of the Integrated Land Management Alternative as well as 30 conceptual river restoration sites developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) documented in the Conceptual Restoration Plan of March 2009 (USACE 2009). The total cost was estimated initially at just over $5 million and included restoration projects throughout the 105‐mile project area (USACE

2009). USIBWC later estimated the total cost to be closer to $11.1 million.

The Integrated Land Management Alternative addressed the following issues:

Continued RGCP Mission – USIBWC will continue mission operations of water delivery and flood control, as well as levee improvements to meet flood capacity;

Water Use and Environmental Water Transactions – The Conceptual Plan estimated water used by restoration sites and USIBWC would acquire or lease water to offset depletions as result of restoration sites

Maintaining Farmland in production – Nearly all measures will be implemented on

USIBWC property, and the remaining measure would only take place through voluntary cooperative agreements with private landowners

Environmental Improvements – USIBWC will balance mission while improving the environmental quality of the river as well enhancing multiple‐use of RGCP (hike and bike trails, horse trails, boating)

ESA Liability – USIBWC will comply with Endangered Species Act (ESA), complete a

Biological Assessment and ESA Section 7 consultations to provide regulatory assurances to stakeholders for the federally and state endangered Southwestern Willow

Flycatcher;

Channel Maintenance – USIBWC will:

o update the river management plan to incorporate new strategies for channel maintenance;

o establish a data collection and evaluation program for channel maintenance;

1‐3 o update and evaluate river cross section data and hydraulic model (in 4‐5 year cycles);

o conduct in‐channel enhancements at 3 arroyos (Yeso, Placitas, Angostura) and one inset floodplain (Yeso West)

Floodway Vegetation Management – USIBWC will:

o restore 553 acres on 30 conceptual restoration sites within the floodplain, including 4 sites with in‐channel enhancements;

o minimize or reduce mowing at these sites o make permanent three (3) “no‐mow” zones ;

o reduce grazing by phasing out grazing leases;

o implement up to 1,983 acres of managed grasslands;

o actively remove and control salt cedar and Russian thistle.

The ROD set a 10‐year implementation period where the first Phase (2009 to 2014) included studies, pilot projects of restoration sites, and the creation of an environmental water rights transaction framework, and the second Phase (2014 to 2019) includes completing the implementation of the remaining restoration sites. Adaptive Management will guide the implementation of environmental measures (USIBWC 2009).

1.1.3 RGCP Endangered Species Consultation

In 2010 and 2011, the USIBWC contracted a number of technical studies to begin implementation of the

ROD, including groundwater and soil surveys, cultural resource surveys, endangered species surveys, and a biological assessment (BA). The latter two, in conjunction with the ROD and Conceptual

Restoration Plan, became the basis for reinitiating consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to address the potential impacts of the ROD activities on the endangered Southwestern Willow

Flycatcher (flycatcher), in accordance with the ESA. The Section 7 consultation process resulted in

USFWS issuing a Biological and Conference Opinion (Opinion) in August 2012 (USFWS 2012b), which committed the USIBWC to several Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPM) to ensure the creation and protection of habitat for the flycatcher. Floodplain management decisions affecting the flycatcher are incorporated into the Part 2 ‐ Floodplain Management Plan, as well as Part 3 ‐ Endangered Species

Management Plan.

1.2 River Management Plan Objectives

This River Management Plan (RMP) was developed to provide a guide for preserving and enhancing the resources of the RGCP in a manner consistent with USIBWC mission requirements and recent USIBWC resource management commitments. The objectives of this RMP are to outline management procedures of the RGCP in order to provide USIBWC staff with a guide to:

Fulfill statutory duties to operate and maintain the RGCP, Complete mission requirements of flood control and water delivery while preserving and restoring natural resources, Implement the requirements outlined in the ROD, Ensure compliance with the Opinion and related ESA consultation, and

1‐4

Ensure compliance with other federal and state regulations.

This RMP updates and replaces the 2004 River Management Plan for the RGCP prepared by Parsons for the USIBWC (Parsons 2004a). This RMP document is divided into multiple parts:

Part 1 ‐ Introduction and Overview

Includes the River Management Objectives and Background of the RGCP

Part 2 ‐ Floodplain Management Plan

Describes levee, floodplain, and vegetation management procedures along the floodplain within the USIBWC Right of Way (ROW) in the RGCP, including ROD implementation actions

Part 3 ‐ Endangered Species Management Plan

Describes conservation management procedures, many of which are included in Part 2, to protect endangered, threatened, and candidate species of the Endangered Species Act, and includes the Flycatcher Management Plan

Part 4 ‐ Channel Maintenance Plan

Includes dredging and channel maintenance protocols, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and permit information

Part 5 ‐ Field Guide to Common Native & Non‐Native Flora & Fauna in the RGCP Riparian Zone

Includes photographs of common animals and plants in the RGCP, for the purposes of quick identification to assist the field staff in determining areas that should not be disturbed

Part 6 ‐ No‐Mow Zones Maps

Includes a map book outlining the green zones, no‐mow zones, and other maintenance zones on an aerial background

Part 7 ‐ References

1.3 Updating the RMP

Parts 2 through 6 each have their own approval signatures and will be updated and dated according to agency needs. Part 4 recommends timeframes for updating the Channel Maintenance Plan. Whenever any Part of this RMP is updated, the date in the footer of the appropriate Part should reflect the new date. In addition, the cover page should have a revised "Last Updated" date, and the Table of Contents and References should also be updated.

Part 2 ‐ Floodplain Management Plan, Last updated 11/6/14 2‐2 feet to about 10 feet, are designed and maintained to provide 3 feet of freeboard during the 100‐year design flood in most reaches. The levees have a gravel maintenance road along the top (Parsons 2004a).

2.2.1 Levee Maintenance

Levee maintenance along the entire RGCP is conducted on a routine basis per the RGCP Operations &

Maintenance Manual. Levees are inspected regularly at the beginning of each flood season and immediately after each flood event. Levee maintenance equipment consists of water trucks, graders and rollers for levee surface, and slope grading and blading activities. Maintenance includes encouraging grass growth on the levee slopes for erosion control, cutting brush and tall weeds from the slopes, and repairing levee slopes following flooding. Levee slopes are mowed to prevent growth of brush and trees that could obstruct flows, or cause damage to the levee as a result of penetration by roots of plants.

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 dozers are used as part of levee maintenance activities (SWCA 2011).

USIBWC has an informal agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to remove small amounts of water (less than 20 acre feet per year) from the river for levee maintenance purposes. A formal Memorandum of Understanding is in the works for this activity.

2.2.2 Levee Rehabilitation and Construction

The Final Environmental Assessment for Flood Control Improvements to the Rio Grande Canalization

Project completed in December 2007, outlines USIBWC actions for raising the elevation of a number of levee segments for improved flood protection, as well as additional levee construction improvements

(USIBWC 2007). USIBWC continues to implement construction and rehabilitation projects. Many of the levee improvement projects were conducted from 2009 to 2013. Certain segments of the river levees are currently still in design phase, including Canutillo and Sunland Park areas. USIBWC Engineering

Services Division (ESD) continually evaluates the flood containment capacity of the floodplain and certifies that the levees meet standards set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Additional levee work remains for the Vado Reach, Courchesne Reach, Nemexas Reach, and the

Canutillo Reach. The Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment ‐ Flood Control Improvements to the

Rio Grande Canalization Project in Vado, New Mexico from July 2014 documents levee work and associated river re‐alignment for the Vado Reach.

2.2.3 Mitigation for Construction Activities

Whenever USIBWC has construction activities underway in the floodplain, USIBWC and its contractors should follow these mitigation requirements (SWCA 2011).

Water Resources Protection

During construction near the river, best management practices (BMPs) and spill control procedures will be used to prevent contamination and increased erosion to the river. Servicing of heavy equipment will be done outside of the riparian zone.

2‐3

Sediment for restoration bankwork (USACE 2009) on New Mexico restoration sites may be moved to nearby floodway locations and stabilized by revegetation during shavedowns and bank preparation. Shavedowns will be designed to promote backflow inundation and reduce the possibility of sediment entering the river.

Proper permits or authorization is required for any river water use related to construction activities, such as water spraying for dust abatement.

Soil Protection

Temporary materials and equipment‐staging areas for construction areas will be reclaimed and revegetated with suitable native woody trees, shrubs, and native grasses and forbs. The USIBWC will monitor performance of these environmental measures.

Signage will indicate that riparian use and access will be limited during construction activities to limit erosion, minimize damage to vegetation, and provide refuge areas where wildlife can remain undisturbed.

Levees will be reinforced if construction activity threatens levee protection.

Wildli fe Protection

Construction should occur outside of the migratory bird breeding season from September 1 through February 28; If construction is necessary during the migratory bird breeding season, surveys will be conducted per Section 2.3.1 and treatment will be selected to minimize the effect.

A 0.25‐mile buffer zone will be established around flycatcher territories. Buffer zones may also be established for the yellow‐billed cuckoo under the guidance of the USFWS.

No construction activities will be conducted in known habitats of listed or sensitive species. If construction activities must occur during the flycatcher breeding season and within the buffer zones, USIBWC will utilize Best Management Practices listed in Section 3.1.16, Table 3‐7.

Aquatic Habitat Protection

If fish are stranded when equipment is operating in the river or arroyo tributaries, they will be salvaged and put into the main river channel.

Work in the channel should be conducted during low‐flow or dry river conditions.

2.3 Vegetation Management

The USIBWC has jurisdiction on about 9,000 acres of land within the RGCP Right of Way (ROW). The floodplain within the ROW is maintained to reduce erosion potential, remove potential obstructions that could reduce flood containment capacity, help stabilize stream banks, control weed and brush including saltcedar, and provide wildlife habitat at suitable locations. Vegetation is managed by mowing, mechanical or chemical treatment, through provisions in leases, or through cooperative agreements for recreation areas. This section discusses vegetation management and new alternatives that USIBWC will implement to meet ROD requirements, such as the implementation of managed grasslands.

2‐4

2.3.1 Bird Breeding Season

To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, USIBWC will not mow or conduct management activities within the floodplain or on the levee slopes during the active migratory bird breeding season without a bird nesting survey. For RGCP, the breeding season has been designated by USFWS as March 1 through

August 30.

2.3.2 Bird Nesting Surveys

In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, USIBWC may perform management activities

(mowing, herbicide treatment, levee grading, etc.) on an as‐needed basis during the active bird breeding season (March 1 to August 30) only if bird nesting surveys are conducted and impacts and disturbance to any active or potentially active nests are minimized. Maintenance activities will not occur within a35‐ foot buffer from active nests (HDR 2012).

Survey protocol (HDR 2012) is as follows:

1. Use the field sheet provided to the field office by Environmental Management Division

(EMD) (Figure 2‐1).

2. Using a GPS, record a start coordinate each day for this activity.

3. Walk along a planned route parallel to the flood control area.

4. Adjust distance between surveyors depending on vegetation height and density. Distance should be no more than 30 feet.

5. Look for nests in trees, along banks, on the ground and undercover (Figure 2‐2).

6. If a nest or evidence of nesting is found:

a. Obtain a GPS coordinate.

b. Write down GPS coordinates and fill out other cells on field sheet (ex: names of surveyors)

c. Note if the nest is active or inactive.

d. Identify the species of bird and plant that the nest is in or near, if possible, in the comments section. A basic bird identification guide is available from the EMD staff.

e. Take a photograph and write the photo number on the field sheet.

f. Flag a buffer of at least 35 feet from the nest.

g. Write the “nest number” on the buffer flagging and on the field sheet.

h. Keep your distance if nest is active!

7. Record a stop coordinate each day.

8. Conduct Post‐Action Monitoring within 7 days of management action.

a. Record a start and stop coordinate each day for this activity.

b. Verify that buffers were not compromised.

c. If buffers were not compromised:

i. Remove the flagging.

ii. Record not disturbed (ND) on field sheet, date, and sign.

d. If buffers were compromised:

i. Take a picture and identify the “nest number”.

ii. Record the picture number for the appropriate compromised nest number.

2‐5

iii. Notify EMD.

9. Field staff should give the field notebook to the administrative staff after each survey event.

10. Administrative staff enters field data into the spreadsheet stored in the Upper Rio Grande

Project network drive, under Operations/Bird Surveys.

11. Administrative staff will download photos (from 6.e. and 8.d.) and rename accordingly and/or ensure the current names match the field sheet.

Figure 2‐1. Sample Field sheet for bird nesting surveys

Figure 2‐2. A) Nest in a tree in the floodplain B) Ground nest in the floodplain.

2.3.3 Bird Nesting Survey Training and materials

The USIBWC EMD conducted bird nesting survey protocol training for the USIBWC Upper Rio Grande

Project staff of Las Cruces, El Paso, and Fort Hancock on July 17, 2012. EMD will conduct refresher

2‐6 training every spring for all three field offices in the Upper Rio Grande Project (Las Cruces, El Paso, and

Fort Hancock). Refresher training was conducted in March 2013 and 2014. Refresher training can include classroom portion and/or field work. Field office staff should contact EMD staff with questions concerning bird surveys.

EMD provided the following equipment to the all the USIBWC Upper Rio Grande Project field offices for the bird nest surveys: Survey Protocol Reference Guide, point‐and‐shoot camera, Garmin GPS unit, permanent marker, field books, flagging tape, and carrying case. As needed, EMD can replace bird survey supplies such as flagging tape and field books.

2.3.4 ROD and Biological Opinion Requirements

The ROD outlined changes to vegetation management, as follows:

Convert 1,983 acres to managed native grasslands;

Enhance 553 acres with native riparian vegetation.

In addition, the Biological Opinion outlined additional vegetation management:

Establish of a minimum of 53 acres targeted for flycatcher habitat (dense riparian shrub habitat) by 2017 and up to 119 acres by 2019.

2.3.5 Mow Zones

Other than in No‐Mow Zones outlined in subsequent sections, vegetation treatments will continue to be implemented by both USIBWC Operations and Maintenance Division (O&M) and EMD. Vegetation treatments will include annual mowing of approximately 2,500 acres within the 105‐mile flood control project corridor.

Mowing of the floodway outside the main channel but between the flood control levees is completed annually to remove obstructions to flood flows and to maintain flood capacity. Mowing of the floodway controls weed, brush, and tree growth, and is conducted at least once each year. Farm tractors with 20‐ foot rotary mowers are generally used to mow the floodways. Slope mowers are used for vegetation maintenance on the channel banks and levee slopes. Some areas with dense vegetation may require a second mowing. No bulldozers are used for vegetation treatments. Cut‐stump treatment and other saltcedar removal occurs at select restoration sites. Mowing during bird nesting season will follow bird nest surveying protocol in Section 2.3.2.

Mowing and maintenance also occurs on the 5 sediment control dams built by Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), as described in Section 4.5.3. In addition, USIBWC may mow irrigation ditches as described in Section 4.11.

Mow areas are also described in Section 2.3.7.

Historically, the USIBWC has conducted mowing within the levee reaches of the RGCP. USIBWC has not been conducting any mowing where there are no levees within the ROW, including the reach from the

Percha Diversion Dam downstream to the beginning of the east levee near the Sierra and Doña Ana county line, and from Percha Diversion Dam down to the Hatch Siphon on the west levee. In addition, no

2‐7 levees exist in Seldon Canyon, where USIBWC has limited ROW, and thus USIBWC has not conducted vegetation maintenance. These reaches, unofficially called the Pre‐ROD No‐Mow Zones, have become unofficial permanent no‐mow zones and offer future habitat restoration opportunities within the river corridor.

2.3.6 USIBWC No-Mow Zones

USIBWC will implement No‐Mow zones to include the following:

553 acres of habitat restoration sites, as stipulated by the ROD

1,983 acres of managed grasslands, as stipulated by the ROD. USIBWC has determined these acres will include:

o 15‐foot wide band of riparian vegetation along the bank of the river, the "fringe"

(Figure 2‐3A) o 100‐foot buffers around restoration sites o 1/4‐mile buffers around flycatcher territories o Connectivity no‐mow zones to connect flycatcher buffers or restoration site buffers

Areas within the USIBWC ROW but outside of levees, or where no levees exist, also referred to as the Pre‐ROD No‐Mow Zones (about 2,856 acres)

Three (3) no‐mow zones called "Green Zones" from the 1999 MOU with Southwest

Environmental Center, which were made permanent in the ROD. These include:

o Percha Dam to Doña Ana County Line (5 river miles on each side of the channel for a total of 10 corridor miles), fringe width 10 to 35 feet adjacent to the river channel

(depending on the right of way and geography of the river). This Green Zone is included in the Pre‐Rod No Mow Zones.

o Seldon Canyon (8 river miles on each side for a total of 16 river miles), no vegetation maintenance. This Green Zone is included in the Pre‐Rod No Mow Zones.

o Shalem Bridge to Picacho Bridge (5 river miles on each side for a total of 10 river miles), fringe of 35 feet along the edge of the channel.

Cessation of mowing at restoration sites, riparian fringe, and managed grasslands, along with selective treatment of exotic vegetation, will allow native vegetation to establish itself for the improvement and restoration of riparian habitats. USIBWC will promote the growth of target species including: Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), Cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp), Coyote willow (Salix exiqua), Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), pale wolfberry (Lycium pallidum), four‐wing saltbush (Altriplex canescens), screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), three‐leaf sumac

(Rhus trilobata), false indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), desert willow

(Chilopsis linearis), and inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata).

As of June 2013, USIBWC has designated 2,079 acres out of the 2,536 acres allowed in the ROD.

However, restoration sites which fall under the Pre‐ROD No‐Mow Zones (Trujillo) or Seldon Canyon

(Broad Canyon Arroyo, Seldon Point Bar) are not included in these No‐Mow Zones because no maintenance has been done in the past in these areas. These 3 restoration sites total approximately 52 acres. The Green Zones also have overlap from the 15‐foot riparian fringe in the new No‐Mow Zones.

2‐8

Therefore, there are about 350 remaining acres allowed in the ROD to be designated as No‐Mow Zones, and these will be designated in future years to accommodate new conditions, such as increased flycatcher buffer areas or new restoration sites.

In addition, some No‐Mow Zones include restoration sites that are covered in areas maintained by other entities under recreation leases (Sunland Park)). These are currently marked as No‐Mow Zones and included in the 2,134 acres discussed above; initial coordination has been conducted with the City of

Sunland Park on the recreation lease changes in management.

2.3.7 Exceptions to No-Mow Zones

USIBWC has established exceptions to the No‐Mow Zones in order to comply with USIBWC mission, facilitate maintenance activities, facilitate recreational use as agreed upon with stakeholders, minimize flood impacts, minimize impacts to flood control infrastructure, and reduce flooding bottlenecks. The following are Exceptions to the No‐Mow Zones, where USIBWC will continue to mow vegetation:

Levee slopes, 20 feet from levee toe for a maintenance road, 300 feet around USIBWC, EBID, and USGS gages, 300 feet upstream and downstream of bridges, including the fringe along the river bank beside the bridge (Figure 2‐3B) (unless this overlaps a restoration site, in which case the 300 feet may be reduced), and

Observation points or "windows" through the riparian fringe vegetation of no more than 100 feet, at intervals no more frequent than every 800 feet.

Figure 2‐3. A) Left ‐ Riparian fringe No‐Mow Zone upstream of Vinton Bridge, and B) Right ‐ mowing within 300 feet of Vinton Bridge (right)

2.3.8 Saltcedar Management in No-Mow Zones

USIBWC and its partners will manage and remove saltcedar growth in the No‐Mow Zones. USFWS San

Andres National Wildlife Refuge (SANWR) staff and USIBWC EMD staff conducted the first saltcedar removal training for USIBWC Las Cruces and American Dam field office staff on October 2, 2012.

Methods are discussed in Section 2.4.

2‐9

2.3.9 Marking of No Mow Zones

No Mow Zones will be marked in one of three ways:

1. Temporary USIBWC Environmental Zone Flags (Figure 2‐4).

Figure 2‐4. Temporary USIBWC Environmental Zone Flags marking a No‐Mow Zone

2. Semi‐permanent Environmental Restoration Orange Markers made of high‐impact flexible plastic

(also called Delineator Posts) (Figure 2‐5A) and larger steel white Restoration Signs (Figure 2‐5B)

Figure 2‐5. A) Left ‐ Orange Delineator Posts, and B) Right ‐ steel Restoration Signs

3. Using landmarks such as culverts, arroyos, and bridges as the end of each No‐Mow Zone. These are delineated on No‐Mow Zone Map Book in Part 6 of this RMP.

2.3.10 No-Mow Zone Calculations Methodology

The USIBWC EMD staff delineated the No‐Mow Zones and calculated acreages using the following methodology.

Created a 100‐foot buffer around Restoration sites. Original 2009 restoration sites polygon from

USACE was modified to include optional areas and revised restoration sites in 2012.

2‐10

Created a 0.25 mile buffer around southwestern willow flycatcher detections in 2010, 2011, and

2012.

Overlapping buffers were unioned then dissolved to make one polygon.

Buffers were clipped to USIBWC ROW polygon. (Note: this removes property outside ROW such as restoration sites to include Bailey Point Bar.)

Subtracted river polygon from buffers. River polygon was manually digitized at 1:5000 scale using Bing 2012 imagery.

Clipped restoration buffer and flycatcher buffer to levee buffer. Levee centerline buffered 50 feet to represent: levee top width of 16 feet with base of at least 20 feet, and 20‐foot area from levee toe for maintenance, plus 10 feet just to make sure levee footprint is included. Levees may be up to 80 feet wide but 40 feet is used as the minimum. Subtracted levee buffer from no mow zones polygons.

Added flycatcher buffer and restoration buffer. Used intersect to find overlapping areas with the two buffers.

Green zones digitized. River polygon buffer of 35 feet to get riparian vegetation next to river.

Areas inaccessible in between two no‐mow zones were digitized as miscellaneous no‐mow zone, for connectivity between no‐mow polygons.

All no‐mow zones merged to remove sensitivity to flycatcher territories.

2.3.11 Hydraulic Analysis of No-Mow Zones

USIBWC ESD staff will analyze all No‐Mow Zones for hydrologic and hydraulic impacts prior to their finalization. The establishment of No‐Mow Zones will increase vegetation density, thereby increasing the roughness coefficients. The resulting increase in water surface elevations compared to the existing condition can potentially decrease levee freeboard and/or cause adverse impacts to life and property at certain locations. The location and magnitude of such hydraulic impacts resulting from both the No‐

Mow Zones and the pre‐ROD restoration areas will be evaluated using FLO‐2D software. The No‐Mow

Zones and restoration areas will be overlayed on the FLO‐2D grid, and the roughness coefficients increased for grid elements with changes. The FLO‐2D model will also be updated for any new structures and levee segments that have been built since the date of the previous model that was used to establish minimum top of levee elevations. Rating curves for new structures will be developed using HEC‐RAS models. The FLO‐2D model will be run and the resulting water surface elevations will be compared to those in the existing condition model for each grid element. This will yield the magnitude and location of the hydraulic impacts. Engineering analysis will evaluate a worst‐case scenario by assuming reasonable maximum roughness coefficients for managed grasslands, riparian fringe, and restoration sites.

2‐11

2.4 Invasive Species Management

USIBWC will help ensure the long‐term persistence of riparian habitats and associated species by removing and controlling invasive species, primarily saltcedar, in the No‐Mow Zones. USIBWC will employ validated chemical and mechanical methods, listed below. USIBWC may also address woody debris left from impacts caused by the saltcedar beetle, which is moving into the RGCP.

In No‐Mow Zones, the USIBWC will remove invasive species, such as saltcedar, using one of 5 methods.

Three methods are chemical: 1) manual/herbicide, 2) mechanical/herbicide, and 3) herbicide only. The last two methods are mechanical: 4) excavation, and 5) mastication. Saltcedar is the main target species and the information below is geared to saltcedar removal, but methods can be employed for other non‐ native species.

2.4.1 Chemical Methods

1. Manual/ Cut‐Stump treatment method

Manual treatment, also called Manual Cut‐Stump treatment, methods are prescribed for small monotypic stands of invasive trees/shrubs (e.g., saltcedar) and some stands with mixed native shrubs, or isolated large shrubs. Manual treatment involves manual cutting with a chainsaw (Figure 2‐6A) and must be immediately followed by cut‐stump herbicidal treatment to kill the root system (USIBWC 2009). Cut‐ stump herbicidal treatment is performed by applying the herbicide directly on the stump (Figure 2‐6B) within 15 minutes of the cutting operation. The herbicide is absorbed by the plant and is translocated to the entire root system, which it kills.

Safety precautions include wearing kevlar chaps, helmet, safety goggles, and ear protection. A strong chainsaw with at least a 22" blade is recommended.

Figure 2‐6. A) Left ‐ Manual treatment method involving cutting with chainsaw, and (B) Right ‐ immediate herbicide application on cut stumps.

2. Mechanical and Herbicide/ Mechanical Cut‐Stump Treatment

Mechanical and Herbicide treatment, also called Mechanical Cut‐Stump Treatment, methods are also prescribed for small monotypic stands and some stands with mixed native shrubs. This method involves cutting or mulching the saltcedar with small equipment such as a skid steer loader with a forestry

2‐12 attachment, and a second team member immediately applying herbicide (Figure 2‐7). Box 2‐1 discusses

USIBWC herbicide requirements.

Figure 2‐7. Mechanical and Herbicide Treatment method. A) Top left ‐ example attachment on skid steer loader.

B) Top right ‐ equipment mulching large saltcedar. C) Bottom left ‐ herbicide application on cut saltcedar stems.

D) Bottom right ‐ after herbicide.

3. Herbicide Only (Basal Bark Method)

Herbicide Only, also referred to as Basal Bark, treatment methods are prescribed for isolated small shrubs of saltcedar. Basal Bark herbicidal treatment involves application of the herbicide together with an oil penetrant to the lower 30 to 45 cm (12–18 inches) of the trunk or stem (Figure 2‐8). Basal Bark and cut‐stump techniques can be done at any time of year except for the green‐up period (spring)

(SWCA 2011).

2‐13

Figure 2‐8. Herbicide Only/Basal Bark method involving herbicide application to the stem of a small plant

2.4.2 Herbicide Treatment

Box 2‐1 discusses herbicide requirements. Herbicide treatments should occur for at least two subsequent years and will continue on as needed, based on monitoring outcomes.

The following best management practices will be followed when using herbicide applications of any kind.

Water Resources Protection

Herbicide will be applied directly to targeted plants in a manner to minimize runoff to surface water. All herbicides will be licensed herbicides and will be used in conformance with labeled instructions. Herbicides will not be aerially applied over open water; instead, formulations labeled for use in or near aquatic habitats will be used.

Vegetation Protection

Herbicides will be sprayed by hand application to targeted species, whenever feasible. Herbicides will not be aerially applied on areas where sensitive riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods, willows, and screwbean mesquite are extensively intermingled with saltcedar.

Vegetation will be monitored (species, composition, abundance and distribution) before and after vegetation treatments. Saturated and ponded areas will be avoided during mechanical and chemical treatments.

Box 2‐1. HERBICIDE USE

REQUIREMENTS

Herbicide application should be under the direct supervision of an experienced herbicide applicator

Herbicides to be used consist primarily of Garlon 4 and Habitat.

Garlon 4 can be used as needed throughout most of the project sites, except within a 9‐m (30‐foot) buffer of the river channel or a seasonal pond

All herbicide products will be stored, mixed, applied, and disposed of in compliance with material safety data sheets and label instructions.

Herbicides will not be applied during windy conditions exceeding 15 miles per hour or when rain is forecast within three days.

Spray equipment will be properly maintained and calibrated to ensure accurate application according to manufacturer’s and label instructions.

For all application methods, no treatment with a non‐ aquatic label herbicide will be made within 30 feet of water to avoid the possibility of spray drift.

2‐14

Wildli fe Protection

Vegetation treatments with herbicide will occur outside the nesting season (i.e., September 1 through March 1). If treatments must occur during the migratory bird‐nesting season, surveys will be conducted and active nests will be marked and avoided.

Air Quality Protection

The amount of vapors will be minimized by dispensing herbicide in a vegetable oil solution limiting airborne particulates. Application of this treatment will not occur during high‐wind conditions.

Herbicides to be used consist of Garlon 4 and Habitat. Other herbicides can be used as long as they meet the requirements stated above and in Box 2‐1. Best management practices ensure that both Garlon 4 and Habitat will be applied in a targeted fashion (spot spraying) using low‐pressure application methods and only when there is little or no hazard of spray drift to ensure that the minimum to no amount of herbicide contacts non‐target vegetation, soil, or water. Garlon 4, to the extent that it comes into contact with soil, adheres tightly to soil particles; the potential to leach from soil into groundwater is minimal.

Herbicide treatment requirements are listed Box 2‐1 (SWCA 2011).

A. Garlon 4/Triclopyr

Garlon 4 is a formulation of triclopyr. Garlon 4 will be used as needed throughout most of the project sites, except within a 9‐m (30‐foot) buffer of the river channel and seasonal ponds. Triclopyr is the preferred herbicide for control of saltcedar, as it is effective year‐round outside the green‐up period

(time period when saltcedar emerges from winter dormancy until after first flower), affects only woody broad‐leaved plants (not grasses), and has limited mobility in soil (SWCA 2011).

Garlon 4 should be diluted at a ratio of 1 to 3 with vegetable oil (25% Garlon 4, 75% vegetable oil or biofuel). Six to 8 ounces of blue dye can be added to ensure that applicators know where herbicide has been applied.

B. Habitat/Imazapyr

Habitat is an isopropylamine salt of Imazapyr. Habitat is approved for aquatic use and can be applied within this buffer area where needed.

Imazapyr is a non‐selective herbicide used for the control of a broad range of weeds, including terrestrial annual and perennial grasses and broadleaved herbs, woody species, and riparian and emergent aquatic species.

Habitat should be mixed with water at a ratio of 1 to 10 (10% habitat, 90% water). As with Garlon‐4, 6‐8 ounces of blue dye can be added.

2‐15

2.4.3 Herbicide Treatment Safety and Training

At least one person on each crew of herbicide applicators should have at least 3 years of experience with chemical application. The Upper Rio Grande Project Facility Supervisors should be trained and, if possible, licensed or State‐certified in herbicide application. Reference materials on pesticide application should be available for the staff if questions arise. Part 5 includes a field guide so that the field crew can identify common native and exotic plant species.

Herbicide applicators should follow Safety Data Sheets (SDS) (previously Material Safety Data Sheets

(MSDS)) and have Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including gloves, goggles, and breathing mask, if necessary. USIBWC staff should refer to safety guidelines established by USIBWC Safety and Security

Office through the hazard communication program, specifically Appendix N to the USIBWC Safety

Manual.

2.4.4 Mechanical Treatment

Mechanical invasive species treatment may consist of extraction or mastication. Typically, mechanical extraction methods will only be utilized within the first year, with foliar, basil, or cut stump herbicide follow‐up treatments, as described above, in subsequent years.

Mechanical treatment should follow the best management practices listed below.

Water Resources Protection

Manual, rather than mechanical, removal of saltcedar will be used during maintenance on the river margin. Woody debris as a result of saltcedar reduction will be mulched, burned, or removed from the floodway.

Soil Protection

Heavy equipment used for brush reduction will minimize impacts to native brush. Crews will evaluate the least invasive equipment available to be used for each activity. Heavy equipment can be tracked, not wheeled, for less brush impact. Heavy equipment that is wheeled and not tracked may leave ruts when turning, but may also compact the soil less.

Mechanical treatment will be conducted in weather conditions that provide for dryer soil conditions to avoid creating ruts and compacting soil.

4. Mechanical Excavation Treatment Method

Mechanical Excavation treatment methods are prescribed for large monotypic stands; for example, a plot of 20 acres with only saltcedar is a prime candidate to employ this method (Figure 2‐9A). This method involves using an excavator to completely remove the entire shrub along with its root ball.

Extraction is performed with a clasping thumb attachment fitted on an excavator, front‐end loader, or…