New Mexico Non-Native Phreatophyte/Watershed Management Plan

1. 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

2. 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.

3. Fiscal Agts. SWCD NMACD General Flowchart NM Leg. EPA Leg. Appr. NMDA Water Trust Board NMED CWA 319 RER Leg. Auth. Proj. Mgr SWCDs Et al NMFA ENMRD Local Coord Steering Cmt. Ute Creek ACE 1135 WRDA Contractual Supervisory SWCD SWCD SWCD SWCD SWCD Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractors

4. Expenditures by Basin, 10/02 – 11/07 $8.175 M

5. 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

7. 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-region • Portal provided pre-created maps of spatial data for each sub-region • ESRI’s geodatabase file structure was employed as “container” for geo-spatial data for each sub-region

10. Ongoing Efforts • To 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, and • Hydro modeling and ET tower data from the Arizona Hydrological Institute and SAHRA.

11. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

20. Time frame for preparation of plan – completed fall 2005 • Purpose of plan – guide non-native phreatophyte/watershed management and restoration • Guiding principles – included in plan • Geographic coverage - statewide • Primary 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

21. 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