New Mexico Non-Native Phreatophyte/Watershed Management Plan
description
Transcript of New Mexico Non-Native Phreatophyte/Watershed Management Plan
New Mexico Non-Native Phreatophyte/Watershed Management Plan Development of plan led by New Mexico Department of Agriculture in
collaboration with New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources, New Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico Indian Affairs Department, Office of the State Engineer, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, with input from the public and diverse stakeholders.
Plan submitted to Governor Richardson in September 2005
The plan provides a consensus document, publically vetted to guide development of future program elements.
Plan contains guiding principles including:
Ecological – consideration of scale (landscape and statewide in nature); ecological capacity; adaptive management
Social-Cultural – collaboration; respect for diverse social and cultural values; a commitment to education and communication
Economic – natural resource use and capacity; role of the private sector; local economies
Plan Recommendations:
New Mexico Department of Agriculture manages the program at the state level
Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts or other qualified entities manage individual local projects
Broad based technical oversight panel provides independent scientific review of projects:1. provide input to processes for watershed planning, monitoring, performance evaluation, and identification of critical research needs.
2. review inventory of non-native infestations on watershed scale and determine geographic information system to provide a statewide landscape scale resource review.
3. review best management practices for control/rehabilitation.
4. review projects for achievement of performance objectives and milestones.
5. evaluate and update plan templates and protocols as necessary to achieve objectives.
NM Leg.
NMDA Water Trust Board
SWCD NMACD
Fiscal Agts.
Steering Cmt.
Proj.Mgr
Contractor Contractor Contractor
SWCD SWCD SWCD
NMFA
Ute CreekLocalCoord
Supervisory
Co
ntra
ctua
l
Leg. Appr.
ENMRD
SWCD SWCD
Le
g.
Au
th.
CWA319
RER
NMED
SWCDsEt al
ACE1135
WRDA
Contractors
EPA
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
Pecos River Lower Rio Grande Upper Rio Grande Canadian River
Ex
pen
dit
ure
s, 5
/03-
6/0
6
$8.175 M
Current StatusMajor Workgroup Tasks Compilation of information on existing phreatophyte removal projects;
Compilation of available GIS and remote sensing data on phreatophytic vegetation classification for 4 sub-basins;
Exploration of available hydrologic data to explore outcomes of removal projects;
Compilation of relevant hydrologic data, including surface water flows, depth to groundwater, and measured evapotranspiration (ET) of different groups of riparian vegetation;
Compilation of relevant metadata, including terms and attributes used in this work; and
Providing access to data and metadata through Web portal
Serving Geo-spatial Data Project Web portal was developed at NMSU Spatial
Applications Research Center (http://www.nmsu.edu/%7Egeoweb/sparc/swcctap.htm)
Goal was to provide access to maps and “raw” data for each sub-regionPortal provided pre-created maps of spatial data for
each sub-regionESRI’s geodatabase file structure was employed as
“container” for geo-spatial data for each sub-region
Ongoing EffortsTo date, we have compiled data on land use/land
cover, imagery, and treatment/infestation extent for the 4 sub-regions.
We are finishing up work to compile data in several areas: Data from the NM OSE/ISC on groundwater & land
use,ET tower data from numerous researchers, andHydro modeling and ET tower data from the
Arizona Hydrological Institute and SAHRA.
Lessons learned of Current Status Work
Current status work revealed much variability of data in the 4 areas studied:Data layers available varied from region to region.Quality of data also varied, with considerable
problems with corrupted datasets in some regions.SWCD staff involved in eradication efforts have not
focused on geo-spatial data capture. Future eradication efforts should also include funds
and support needed to capture higher quality spatial data.
Follow-up Practices: Significant Findings
Natural regeneration is highly desirable
Time horizon is an important consideration – patience
Mechanical (excavator) control should be considered as a secondary procedure
Follow-up Practices: Significant Findings
Natural regeneration is highly desirable
Time horizon is an important consideration – patience
Mechanical (excavator) control should be considered as a secondary procedure
Follow-up Practices: Significant Findings
Natural regeneration is highly desirable
Time horizon is an important consideration – patience
Mechanical (excavator) control should be considered as a secondary procedure
Time frame for preparation of plan – completed fall 2005
Purpose of plan – guide non-native phreatophyte/watershed management and restoration
Guiding principles – included in planGeographic coverage - statewidePrimary partners in planning and implementation
include local, state, tribal, federal, private, and NGOs. Funding sources and constraints (no state
appropriation for overall program in FY08; $500,000 in FY07)
Conservation and management of water and watersheds
Plan updates - dependent upon funding availability and called for in the plan
You can find the New Mexico Non-Native Phreatophyte/Watershed Plan on the New Mexico Department of Agriculture Web Site at:
http://www.nmda.nmsu.edu/animal-and-plant-protection/tamarisk-salt-cedar