u.s. fish & wildlife service valle de oro national ...€¦ · u.s. fish & wildlife service...

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Restoration, Activities, and Site Plan Environmental Assessment Bernalillo County, New Mexico

August 2017

This page intentionally left blank.

Restoration, Activities, and Site Plan Draft Environmental Assessment

for Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Bernalillo County, New Mexico

August 30, 2017

Prepared by

Refuge Staff

Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge

National Wildlife Refuge System

Southwest Region

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment 2

This Environmental Assessment does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition or projects.


Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................... 7

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Location ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Purpose of Action ................................................................................................................ 13 1.5 Need for Action ................................................................................................................... 13 1.6 Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................ 13 1.7 Regulatory Compliance ....................................................................................................... 14 1.8 Scoping/Public and Stakeholder Involvement and Issues Identified .................................. 14

1.8.1 Issues ............................................................................................................................ 16 1.8.1.1 Historic Habitat Loss and Need for Restoration .................................................... 16 1.8.1.2 Public Use/Access .................................................................................................. 18 1.8.1.3 Need for Inventory, Monitoring, and Research ..................................................... 19 1.8.1.4 Stormwater and Drainage Management ................................................................. 20 1.8.1.5 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................................ 23 1.8.1.6 Other Issues Identified ........................................................................................... 25

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................. 25 2.1 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed .............................................................................. 26 2.2 Alternative A—Current Management ................................................................................. 27

2.2.1 Habitat Restoration and Management .......................................................................... 27 2.2.2 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 29 2.2.3 Facilities........................................................................................................................ 32 2.2.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research ........................................................................... 34 2.2.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management ....................................................................... 34 2.2.6 Public Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 34

2.3 Alternative B—Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................... 36 2.3.1 Habitat Restoration and Management .......................................................................... 36 2.3.2 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 41 2.3.3 Facilities........................................................................................................................ 44 2.3.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research ........................................................................... 46 2.3.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management ....................................................................... 47 2.3.6 Public Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 51

2.4 Alternative C ....................................................................................................................... 53 2.4.1 Habitat Restoration and Management .......................................................................... 53 2.4.2 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 53 2.4.3 Facilities........................................................................................................................ 55 2.4.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research ........................................................................... 56 2.4.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management ....................................................................... 56 2.4.6 Public Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 56

2.5 Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 57 2.5.1 Habitat Restoration and Management .......................................................................... 57 2.5.2 Visitor Services ............................................................................................................. 57 2.5.3 Facilities........................................................................................................................ 59 2.5.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research ........................................................................... 60 2.5.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management ....................................................................... 60


2.5.6 Public Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 60 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 61

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 65 3.1 Physical Environment ......................................................................................................... 65

3.1.1 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 68 3.1.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 69 3.1.3 Soils and Topography ................................................................................................... 70 3.1.4 Surface and Ground Water Quality .............................................................................. 73 3.1.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management ....................................................................... 77

3.2 Biological Environment ...................................................................................................... 77 3.2.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 77 3.2.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 81 3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species....................... 81

3.3 Human Environment ........................................................................................................... 84 3.3.1 Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources ................................................................ 84 3.3.2 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................ 84 3.3.3 Visitor Services/Public Access ..................................................................................... 86 3.3.4 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ................................................................................... 86 3.3.5 Public Health and Safety .............................................................................................. 86

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................... 91 4.1 Physical Environment ......................................................................................................... 93

4.1.1 Climate Change ............................................................................................................ 93 4.1.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 94 4.1.3 Soils and Topography ................................................................................................... 97 4.1.4 Surface and Ground Water Quality ............................................................................ 100 4.1.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management ..................................................................... 103

4.2 Biological Environment .................................................................................................... 105 4.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 105 4.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................... 108 4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species..................... 110

4.3 Human Environment ......................................................................................................... 111 4.3.1 Cultural/Archaeological/Historical Resources ........................................................... 111 4.3.2 Socioeconomics Resources ......................................................................................... 112 4.3.3 Visitor Services/Public Access ................................................................................... 114 4.3.4 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ................................................................................. 116 4.3.5 Public Health and Safety ............................................................................................ 117

4.4 Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................... 120 4.5 Impacts from Herbicide Use for All Alternatives ............................................................. 126 4.6 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................... 129

4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts on Physical Resources ............................................................... 132 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 132 Soils and Topography ...................................................................................................... 132 Surface and Ground Water Quality .................................................................................. 133 Stormwater and Drainage Management ........................................................................... 133

4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources ............................................................ 133


Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 133 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 133 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................... 134

4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts on the Human Environment ...................................................... 134 Cultural/Archaeological/Historical Resources ................................................................. 134 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 134 Visitor Services and Public Access .................................................................................. 134 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ....................................................................................... 135 Public Health and Safety .................................................................................................. 135

4.7 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 135 4.8 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................................................ 136 4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............................................................................................ 136 4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 137

5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION .......... 138 5.1 Agencies and organizations consulted in the preparation of this document include ......... 138 5.2 References and Bibliography ............................................................................................ 140

6.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .............................................................. 143 7.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................................... 151 8.0 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 152

Figures Figure 1. Location map of Valle de Oro NWR near Albuquerque, New Mexico (Rodriguez-

McGill 2014) .................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2. Valle de Oro NWR boundaries (570 acres total) (Rodriguez-McGill 2014) ................ 10 Figure 3. Map featuring AMAFCA’s initial proposed storm water drainage location at Valle de

Oro NWR as part of their Southeast Valley Drainage and Water Quality Management Plan. Adapted from http://www.amafca.org/projects/valledeoro.html ........................ 22

Figure 4. Valle de Oro NWR’s proximity to the Sunport and KAFB ......................................... 24 Figure 5. Map of Alternative A—Current Management .............................................................. 28 Figure 6. Legend for refuge concept maps .................................................................................. 29 Figure 7. Legend for refuge concept maps .................................................................................. 36 Figure 8. Map of Alternative B—Proposed Action. .................................................................... 37 Figure 9. A 30 percent concept of proposed wetland units and wells in correlation to the

AMAFCA swale. Adapted from the Ducks Unlimited Wetland Review Concepts (2015) ........................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 10. Draft concept of the AMAFCA swale on Valle de Oro NWR (Wilson & Company 2015) ............................................................................................................................ 49

Figure 11. Existing AMAFCA pond system in the bosque west of Valle de Oro NWR ............. 50 Figure 12. Alternative C concept maps ........................................................................................ 54 Figure 13. Legend for refuge concept maps ................................................................................ 55 Figure 14. Alternative D—Elimination of Wetlands ................................................................... 58 Figure 15. Legend for refuge concept maps ................................................................................ 59 Figure 16. 1935 Geomorphology and landform map for Valle de Oro NWR ............................. 66 Figure 17. Habitats mapped in 1918 with the Rio Grande Drainage Survey for Valle de Oro

NWR (key in Table 3; Tashjian 2013) ......................................................................... 67

http://www.amafca.org/projects/valledeoro.html


Figure 18. NRCS Soil Survey of Valle de Oro NWR, May 2014 (NCRS 2016)......................... 71 Figure 19. Key to NRCS Soil Survey of Valle de Oro NWR (Figure 15; NRCS 2016) ............. 72 Figure 20. November 2011 depth to groundwater at Valle de Oro NWR (Tashjian 2013) ......... 76 Figure 21. Location of the most prevalent invasive species at Valle de Oro NWR .................... 80 Figure 22. Wildlife Hazard Assessment survey points from the SWCA 2012 Sunport WHA

(map modified to show refuge boundary) .................................................................... 88 Figure 23. Rocky Mountain Population of sandhill crane use of the Middle Rio Grande Valley

Corridor from Albuquerque to Belen. .......................................................................... 89

Tables Table 1. Valle de Oro NWR Scoping Meetings from November 2013 to February 2015. .......... 15 Table 2. Comparison of alternatives ............................................................................................. 61 Table 3. Key to habitat map (Figure 17) ...................................................................................... 68 Table 4. Map unit legend for the NRCS Soil Survey at Valle de Oro NWR (NRCS 2016*) ...... 73 Table 5. List of non-native plant species at Valle de Oro NWR from May 2015. ....................... 78 Table 6. Current herbicides used on Valle de Oro NWR ............................................................. 79 Table 7. Comparison of selected socioeconomic characteristics by Place Designation .............. 85 Table 8. Winter waterbird numbers on Valle de Oro NWR (November to February) ................. 90 Table 9. Environmental consequence for each alternative per resource .................................... 120 Table 10. Actions considered for cumulative impacts analysis ................................................. 130 Table 11. List of Preparers involved in the EA………………………………………………..138 Appendices

Appendix I. USFWS/NWR System: Urban Wildlife Refuge Standards of Excellence 2014. Appendix II. Wilson & Company/Sites Southwest: Valle de Oro NWR Conceptual Site Plan

Report 2015. Appendix III. Great Outdoor Consultants: Valle de Oro NWR Interpretive Framework and Site

Plan 2015. Appendix IV. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Wetland Designs for Valle de Oro NWR. Appendix V. U.S. National Park Service: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic

Trail Development Concept Plan for Valle de Oro NWR. Appendix VI. Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Public Use at Valle de Oro NWR. Appendix VII. USFWS Preparing for Climate Change and Innovative Regional Partnership

Factsheets for Valle de Oro NWR. Appendix VIII. New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office Letter about

Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources on Valle de Oro NWR. Appendix IX. Service Response to Public Review Comments. Appendix X. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form. Appendix XI. Signed Decisions Documents.


1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE

1.1 Introduction The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to conduct restoration, development, and management activities on Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) in Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects of proposed habitat restoration, facility development, management activities, public access and uses, and implementation of the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA) stormwater drainage plan on the refuge. This document complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509), the Department of the Interior (516 DM 8), and Service (550 FW 3) policies.

In the following sections, four alternatives are presented for future management of the refuge. For each alternative, the environmental consequences and desired proposed management direction are provided. Each alternative was designed to include a reasonable combination of wildlife habitat management actions, recreational and educational opportunities, and support community and partners’ goals that are consistent with refuge purposes.

Due to the broad range of projects and partnerships considered in the refuge design, eight cooperating agencies have been invited to participate in the drafting of this EA: Bernalillo County, AMAFCA, the New Mexico State Land Office (NMSLO), the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Albuquerque Open Space (AOS), Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). All of these formal cooperating agencies have contributed project proposals, staff time, research and information, and review of all documents prior to the release of the EA for public comment.

NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environments. The following sections and appendices present the components and environmental impacts of the site plan alternatives as developed by the Service and its contractors, cooperating agencies, and the public.

This EA addresses:

• Configuration, construction, restoration, and management of refuge habitat; • Design and construction of visitor services facilities including a visitor center, parking

areas, trails, and roads; • Recreational opportunities; • Vegetation and wildlife management; • Construction and management of AMAFCA’s stormwater drainage facilities, including a

swale and water quality structures as part of their Southeast Valley Drainage and Water Quality Management Plan (Drainage Management Plan);

• Partnership with MRGCD on the alignment of the Barr Interior Drain that meets both the needs of MRGCD and the refuge; and



• Concerns related to bird aircraft strike hazards (BASH) due to the proximity of the Albuquerque International Sunport (Sunport) and KAFB to the refuge.

This EA is designed to address NEPA compliance for the environmental effects of many possible future management actions associated with restoration and infrastructure projects on the refuge. However, some future actions that are not described site-specifically or in sufficient detail may require further NEPA documentation. Specifically, future management activities for the 4 acre parcel on Bates Street SE and further details about the partnership between Bernalillo County and the refuge in regards to a native plant nursery and a community garden on the refuge are not considered in this EA and will require further NEPA analysis.

1.2 Location Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), formerly Price’s Dairy and Valley Gold Farms, is about 7 miles south of downtown Albuquerque, within the Mountain View neighborhood. The refuge is located adjacent to the Rio Grande bosque (riparian/river forest), which is designated as the Rio Grande Valley State Park with properties owned and managed by the USBR, MRGCD, NMSLO, and AOS. Homes in the Mountain View neighborhood border the refuge to the north, south, and west. An industrialized district of Bernalillo County is situated parallel to the refuge along Broadway Boulevard SE/South Highway 47 and along 2nd Street SW, Interstate 25, and a railroad serving the New Mexico Rail Runner, AMTRAC, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, and other freight transportation to the east. The Sunport and KAFB are located about 3.5 miles northeast of the refuge; aviation runway access includes arrival and departure flight paths over the refuge and surrounding neighborhood. Isleta Pueblo is located about 1.5 miles south of the refuge boundary and is connected to the refuge via wildlife corridors along the river and in the bosque (see Figure 1).

Valle de Oro NWR is comprised of 570 acres located primarily between 2nd Street SW and the Rio Grande in Albuquerque’s South Valley in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The main refuge (566 acres) is bisected by the MRGCD-managed Barr Interior Drain. The refuge also owns 4 acres of land on the east side of 2nd Street SW, across the railroad tracks and accessed from Bates Road SE (see Figure 2).


Figure 1. Location map of Valle de Oro NWR near Albuquerque, New Mexico (Rodriguez- McGill 2014).


Figure 2. Valle de Oro NWR boundaries (570 acres) (Rodriguez-McGill 2014).


1.3 Background The Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 150 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR System) which encompasses more than 565 National Wildlife Refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 64 Fishery resource offices, and 78 Ecological Services field stations. The Service enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that people pay on fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies.

Establishment of Valle de Oro NWR Valle de Oro NWR was established on September 27, 2012, the 559th refuge within the NWR System. The refuge is the first Urban NWR in the Service’s Southwest Region (New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona) and the first developed under the Service’s Standards of Excellence for Urban NWR, which aim to build an urban conservation constituency that ultimately benefits the entire NWR System and the broader conservation community by nurturing increased support among urban residents. As a former dairy farm just a few miles south of New Mexico’s largest metropolitan area, the refuge fulfills the goals of the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative (a White House strategy established under President Barack Obama and adapted by the Service in Conserving the Future National Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation) to work with community partners to establish a 21st Century conservation ethic and reconnect people, especially young people, to the natural world. The refuge serves as an urban oasis that offers unique environmental education and recreation opportunities in a highly populated area while promoting a wildlife conservation message.

The Environmental Assessment, Land Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan for the Middle Rio Grande NWR (later named Valle de Oro NWR) was prepared to support acquisition of the former Price’s Dairy and Valley Gold Farms as a site for an Urban NWR (USFWS 2011). The primary goal for the acquisition was “to protect the land and water needed to provide refuge visitors from a large urban area with an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources through environmental education and interpretation and through wildlife-dependent recreational experiences and to improve the ecological integrity of the Middle Rio Grande ecosystem.”

More specifically, the goals of establishing the refuge as an Urban NWR include:

• Foster environmental awareness through environmental educational opportunities and outreach programs;

• Expose an urban population to the larger NWR System;

1 The standards are to: know and relate to the community; connect urban people with nature via stepping stones of engagement; build partnerships; be a community asset; ensure adequate long-term resources; provide equitable access; ensure visitors feel safe and welcome; and model sustainability.


• Develop an informed and involved citizenry that will support fish and wildlife conservation;

• Expand outdoor recreational opportunities in proximity to the trail system in the Rio Grande bosque;

• Conserve and enhance the natural resource values that may have been degraded or lost through conversion of the site to other uses, including the protection of senior water rights associated with the site; and

• Capitalize on the Service’s partnerships with Bernalillo County, AMAFCA, NMSLO, MRGCD, and USBR to achieve shared goals.

As summarized in USFWS 2011, Bernalillo County’s population growth is a major contributor to pressures on natural resources, especially water, in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. The refuge’s size, the senior water rights that accompanied its purchase, and its proximity to both the Rio Grande and the surrounding urban community provide a variety of opportunities for the Service and its partners. These opportunities include alleviating local environmental stresses, enhancing the biological integrity of the river corridor, engaging urban audiences, especially youth, in sustainable environmental practices, and educating the public about the necessity of conserving and preserving their natural resources.

After the completion of the Acquisition EA (USFWS 2011) to establish the refuge, land acquisition began. With the help of funding partners and advocates such as Bernalillo County, AMAFCA, USBR, the State of New Mexico, Friends of Valle de Oro NWR, Trust for Public Land (TPL), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (through grants from Wal-Mart and Wells Fargo Bank), and the North American Wetlands Conservation Council (with various partners), the refuge was purchased in increments with Land and Water Conservation Act funds. Land acquisition was completed in July 2014 and full water rights were acquired in May 2015. Valle de Oro NWR’s first manager was hired in May 2013, a wildlife biologist and an environmental education specialist in 2015, a maintenance worker and an administrative officer in 2016, and a deputy refuge manager and a partnership and youth/volunteer coordinator in 2017. Partnerships continued to form to meet the mission, goals, and needs of the newly-established Urban NWR, its administrators, and the surrounding urban community.

Partnership with AMAFCA AMAFCA and its partners are addressing management of stormwater passing through the refuge for the benefit of the bosque and aquatic habitat of the Rio Grande and to ensure flood protection for the Mountain View neighborhood. AMAFCA assisted with acquisition of the refuge and, in return, was granted temporary construction and permanent drainage easements on the refuge to pursue objectives of its Drainage Management Plan. The refuge is working with AMAFCA to address design and management of the easements so they complement refuge resources and planning while upholding the mission of the NWR System and purposes of the refuge.

Partnership with Bernalillo County Bernalillo County has a conservation easement on the refuge. Bernalillo County and the refuge recognize the importance of the natural, scenic, historical, wildlife, and open space values associated with the refuge and would continue to work collaboratively on wildlife conservation,



recreation, visitor support services, and stormwater drainage infrastructure per the terms of the easement.

1.4 Purpose of Action The purpose of the proposed action is to address management direction of the refuge. The proposed management direction is designed to meet refuge goals, as described above, and would address refuge infrastructure, habitat restoration, public use activities, and AMAFCA’s stormwater drainage facilities. The purpose of this EA is to evaluate the current and desired actions necessary to achieve habitat restoration and management, promote research, delineate appropriate public use activities, and pursue site development on the refuge that would support the purposes for which the refuge was established and to analyze the impacts of such actions.

1.5 Need for Action There is a need to establish a management direction that better fulfills the goals and purposes of the NWR System, including the Urban Wildlife Conservation Program (Urban Program).

Specifically this EA is needed to:

• Transition land from primarily agricultural production to healthy and sustainable riparian areas, wetlands, upland habitats, and grasslands in an effort to enhance the human, biological, and physical environments;

• Promote healthy habitats by improving native plant species diversity in appropriate areas for existing wildlife;

• Support a variety of recreational opportunities across the refuge; • Create visitor service facilities, including a visitor center, trails, and roads; • Aid in the conveyance and treatment of stormwater, flood, and surface waters prior to

discharge into the existing AMAFCA pond system in the bosque west of the refuge; and • Address concerns related to bird aircraft strike hazards due to proximity to the Sunport

and KAFB. There is a need to evaluate the impacts of the proposed actions in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of the refuge and current laws, regulations, and policies, and determine if the proposed actions incorporate the best management practices (BMP) for meeting refuge wildlife management and public use objectives.

1.6 Decision to be Made This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of four alternatives. After completing the analysis in this EA, the Regional Director of the Southwest Region is authorized (341 FW 1) to finalize this EA and identify which alternative to implement and whether any actions from other alternatives should be addressed. The Regional Director will also determine if there would be any significant impacts associated with the selected alternative that would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or whether the proposed action may proceed. If no significant impacts are identified, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be prepared.

http://www.fws.gov/urban/index.php


1.7 Regulatory Compliance National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the NWR System, the purpose(s) of the individual refuges, Service policies and laws, and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the NWR System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the NWR System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Service’s Manual.

The mission of the NWR System is:

“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (NWR System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57).

Valle de Oro NWR is administered as part of the NWR System in accordance with the NWR System Administration Act of 1966 and other relevant legislation, executive orders, regulations, and policies. The refuge was established under the Refuge Recreation Act of September 28, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), as amended.

The Urban Program Policy (110 FW 1) was established as a means to encourage engagement with urban communities in fish and wildlife conservation. It enumerates designation criteria for Urban NWR System, Urban Partnerships, and Urban Bird Treaty Cities, and describes how the Standards of Excellence for the Urban NWR System apply to Urban NWRs and other Urban Program activities (see Appendix I).

As defined in the 2011 Acquisition EA, this document was prepared by the Service in compliance with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and other legal requirements. Furthermore, this EA is in compliance with applicable State of New Mexico and local regulations, statutes, policies, and standards for conserving the environment and environmental resources such as water and air quality, endangered plants and animals, and cultural resources.

1.8 Scoping/Public and Stakeholder Involvement and Issues Identified In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA requirements, public involvement has been a crucial component of the draft site planning presented in this EA. The Service and its partners have put a strong emphasis on community engagement and participation during the planning process with numerous events involving hundreds of community members over three years.

The planning process began with the first major public event on the refuge for National Public Lands Day on September 28, 2013. This event co-hosted by Valle de Oro NWR, the U.S. Forest Service, and the New Mexico Outdoors Coalition brought over 300 people to the refuge to lay the foundation for the planning process and the initial visioning for refuge facilities.

The formal scoping period (November 2013 to March 2017) included a thorough assessment of issues, concerns, opinions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, and visions for the refuge identified by key


stakeholders and the public through multiple meetings and workshops. Table 1 summarizes the stakeholder and public meetings that occurred during the scoping period. Stakeholder meetings involved most cooperating agencies and partners and public meetings were publicized through various outlets and open to all.

Table 1. Valle de Oro NWR Scoping Meetings from November 2013 to February 2015.

Public Scoping Meeting November 2013 to February 2015

Date Location Style Public Stakeholders For details see: November 14- 15, 2013

Wilson & Co. Offices

Preliminary Design charrette by Wilson & Co./Sites Southwest

✓ Appendix II

January 9, 2014

Mountain View Community Center

Public Meeting: presentations; interactive response stations

✓ Appendix II

April 14, 2014 Service Region 2 Offices

Stakeholder review of public comments and draft design

✓ Appendix II

April 22, 2014 Rio Grande Nature Center

Visitor Service facility consultation meetings by Great Outdoors Consultants

✓ Appendix III

April 25, 2014 Gutierrez- Hubbell House

Interpretive Messaging Workshop by Great Outdoors Consultants/PUP Global Heritage Consortium

✓ Appendix III

June 17, 2014 Mountain View Community Center

Public meeting: presentations; interactive response stations

✓ Appendix II

July 15, 2014 South Valley Academy

Interpretive Messaging Workshop by Great Outdoors Consultants/PUP Global Heritage Consortium

✓ Appendix III

September 2- 3, 2014

Service Region 2 Offices

Wetland Design charrette by Ducks Unlimited

✓ Appendix IV

February 10, 2015

Valle de Oro NWR

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro design charrette by National Park Service (NPS)

✓ Appendix V

February 18, 2015

Mountain View Community Center

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro public presentation by NPS

✓ Appendix V

Cooperating Agency Input: November 1 - December 22, 2016 Most cooperating agencies have been involved in the planning process from the beginning, attending public and stakeholder meetings and receiving updates from the Service throughout the process. Cooperating agencies were provided an opportunity to review an early draft of the EA.


Comments and recommendations were considered and revisions were made, including the addition of Alternative D.

Tribal and State Consultation January 19 - March 3, 2017 Letters to Tribal entities, including 19 Pueblos and 4 Tribal Nations, were mailed on January 19,2017. Tribal governments were invited to request meetings with the planning staff and submit comments on the draft EA with comments due March 3, 2017. Identical letters were sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Southwest Regional office and Service Tribal Liaison to solicit input.

State of New Mexico agencies including New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)and New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department's State Parks division were also given a copy of the draft EA and invited to comment within this same time frame as Tribal entities.

Environmental Assessment Public Comment Period: July18, 2017 – August 18, 2017 The EA was released for a 32-day public comment period from July 18, 2017 to August 18, 2017. Public outreach included media announcements, public notices posted throughout local communities, and a public meeting held on August 2, 2017 at Mountain View Elementary School. Comments were accepted in person, by email, mail, and telephone during this time period. All comments have been considered. Public and cooperating agency/partner comments and the Service response can be found in Appendix IX.

1.8.1 Issues Based on internal and external scoping, the following issues were identified and considered in the development of alternatives in Section 2.0 of this EA.

1.8.1.1 Historic Habitat Loss and Need for Restoration Historic Loss of Riparian/Wetland Habitat Riparian areas along the Rio Grande are essential and valuable resources for wildlife and plants living in the arid Southwest. Heavily altered by human development and other activities, ripariaareas are constantly being lost and degraded, impacting plants and animals that live in and around these areas (Morris et. al 2003).

Along with riparian areas, wetlands have become imperiled habitats in the Southwest. Historically, wetlands were very common in the floodplains of the Middle Rio Grande Valley; however, from the mid-1930s to the mid-1990s, approximately 85 percent of wetlands were lost,mostly due to historic flood control, drainage, and leveling land for agriculture (Linderoth 1999)Ultimately, this practice has greatly altered historic vegetation, wildlife, and overall ecosystems that were once present within the Middle Rio Grande Valley.

The refuge offers the opportunity to recover the historical, cultural, ecological, and aesthetic values of the riparian forest and associated wetlands to the Middle Rio Grande Valley in Albuquerque’s South Valley. Restoration of ecosystems and hydrological processes that are similar to the functions of a pre-1935 Rio Grande floodplain would include restoring historic river and monsoon/stormwater flooding regimes to the refuge. Wetlands would have naturally been created on the refuge as a result of the presence of a Rio Grande avulsed channel, a

n

.


landform which historically dominated the site after the Rio Grande shifted westward sometime in the 19th Century. This historic channel was a low spot in the Rio Grande floodplain and would have been a location of naturally occurring wetlands. These wetlands were fed by flood water and groundwater from the Rio Grande, especially during spring run-off. The area also acted as a natural spot for stormwater drainage and filtration from the Tijeras Arroyo, a historically large tributary that discharged stormwater from the Sandia Mountains into the river just north of and through the refuge. The Tijeras Arroyo would have contributed water to the avulsed channel during summer and fall monsoonal events (Tashjian 2013; see Section 3.1.1).

Overall, the conversion of historic ecosystems on the site to a dairy farm and hay production facility, as well as regional flood control practices, have since eliminated these natural hydrological processes and impacted riparian forest and wetland habitats. Because the refuge proposes to restore riparian and wetland areas, a common concern with restoring wetlands near urban communities is the potential for increased mosquito populations (see Section 1.8.1.5).

Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas on the refuge supports one of the primary goals of the refuge, which is “to protect the land and water needed to provide refuge visitors from a large urban area with an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources through environmental education and interpretation and through wildlife-dependent recreational experiences and to improve the ecological integrity of the Middle Rio Grande ecosystem” (USFWS 2011, pg. 3).

Historic Loss of Great Basin and Chihuahuan Desert Upland Habitat Upland areas are associated with high lands, such as a plateau, at some distance from a large waterbody, and on grounds that are elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hills. Upland areas have a critical role in watershed function and affect riparian and aquatic areas, particularly in drier, low-elevation sites, such as those located in the Southwest. Upland areas are critical buffers around wetlands that capture silt and chemical pollutants before they reach the wetlands, which is effective for protecting water resources. Upland areas also “provide essential habitat for a variety of wildlife species” (Trenham and Shaffer 2005). In New Mexico, these upland areas have been threatened and degraded by the introduction of invasive species such as Russian thistle, through climate change, and the mismanagement of livestock and grazing, leading to dramatic shifts in dominant plant species and vegetative structure once common in these ecosystems (Dick-Peddie 1993).

Health and sustainability of the riparian areas are intertwined with the health of the upland areas associated with them. Historically, the upland areas associated with refuge lands were desert grasslands represented by saltbush, creosote bush, and other transitional semi-arid vegetation such as black grama. These grasslands were often linked with arroyo riparian floodplains within the Great Basin shrub-steppe and the Chihuahuan Desert (Dick-Peddie 1993). Common goals for upland restoration include increasing the soil moisture and water yield, reducing erosion, protecting water quality, and the increasing the overall ecosystem biodiversity (Smith and Rich 2009).

Just as seen in the riparian and wetland habitats, the transformation of historic ecosystems on the refuge to a dairy farm and hay production facility have limited or eliminated important upland


habitats. Leveling of the land to accommodate flood irrigation farming has removed elevations and micro-topographies typical for the upland habitat still evident east of 2nd Street SW. Restoration of upland and desert habitats are considered in most of the alternatives.

Non-native Plant Species Non-native species are prevalent in and around the refuge (see a list in Section 3.2.1). Invasive and noxious weeds are encroaching from lands adjacent to the refuge. Noxious weeds and non- native plant species could out-compete native species once cultivation of the fields ceases. There is a need to address the management of invasive plant species at the refuge in order to prevent and control their spread into restored areas.

The refuge currently has a Cooperative Land Management Agreement to allow for the continued commercial production of alfalfa and grasses for hay. Maintaining the refuge in agricultural production while restoration planning is in process provides for three main benefits: some habitat for wildlife, reduction of available area for invasive plant species, and security and maintenance for the refuge due to limited staff capacity and resources.

1.8.1.2 Public Use/Access Prior to the refuge’s establishment, the private landowner allowed a variety of public uses on his property, including horseback riding, cycling and racing, off-leash access for dogs, falconry, and river and drain access. These historic activities have set expectations for both access to and use of the newly established refuge. Throughout the scoping process, the public has expressed the desire to see the uses allowed by the previous landowner continue under refuge management.

Although the refuge is fenced, there is access through several perimeter gates left open for hay production and through the Barr Interior Drain that runs north-south, roughly through the center of the refuge and the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, there is a need to consider possible impacts on refuge resources and habitats caused by continued unrestricted public uses. Since 2012, unregulated access to and activities allowed on the refuge have included:

• Horseback riding; • Cycling; • Access for on- and off-leash dogs; • Falconry; • Commercial activities (e.g., filming and photography, bird tours, and food trucks); • River and drain access for anglers; • River access for paddlers (e.g., kayaks and canoes); • Parties and events, both private and refuge-related; • Off-highway vehicles; • Archery; • Picnicking; • Kites flying; and • Remote controlled vehicles (e.g., planes) and drones.


Other comments received during the public scoping period suggested that the refuge preserve on- site agriculture in the form of a community food garden.

The refuge is a prime location to provide environmental education and interpretation of natural resources for Albuquerque residents and visitors due to its proximity to the Rio Grande and its bosque. For those in the South Valley, the closest site offering extensive environmental education in a relatively natural setting is the Rio Grande Nature Center, about 12 miles north of Valle de Oro NWR. However, the Rio Grande Nature Center has indicated that they are often at their maximum supportable level of public visitation. Although there are several nearby open spaces preserved by Bernalillo County as agricultural, historic, or cultural demonstration areas, or for growing crops (in part to feed wildlife), they do not share the specific goal to connect people with conservation and the NWR System. As an Urban NWR, there is a need to provide environmental education resources at the refuge and across Albuquerque to promote environmental stewardship and awareness to garner support for the missions of the NWR System and the Service.

In conjunction with this EA, historic and proposed new uses have been examined for their appropriateness and compatibility with the refuge’s mission and goals. The refuge has developed draft compatibility determinations (Appendix VI) for the following uses:

• Commercial Arts; • Commercial Hay and Alfalfa Agriculture – Cooperative Farming/Land Management

Activities; • Construction of a Visitor Center; • Cycling; • Environmental Education; • Horseback Riding ; • Interpretation; • Jogging and Walking; • Picnicking; • Research by non-Service Staff, including Citizen Scientists; • Special Events (e.g., birding festivals, clean-up events); • Wildlife Observation; and • Wildlife Photography.

These compatibility determinations are being made available for public review and comment concurrent with this draft EA.

1.8.1.3 Need for Inventory, Monitoring, and Research The Middle Rio Grande Valley ecosystem has been heavily degraded and altered by human activities. There is a need to inventory, monitor, and conduct research on the biotic (e.g., wildlife, plants, habitats, and ecological communities) and abiotic (e.g., soil types and water quality) aspects of the refuge. Only by understanding species abundance, distributions, habitat choices, and the ecological interactions of vertebrates and invertebrates to other biotic and abiotic resources can habitat management be geared toward restoring, protecting, and conserving this imperiled system.


Inventory and monitoring surveys would allow the refuge to assess the status and trends of its lands, water, plants, and wildlife, as well as their responses to management activities. Inventory and monitoring surveys would provide crucial information for evaluating restoration efforts as the current agricultural fields are transitioned into native riparian and upland habitats. There is a need for guidance in determining the scope of an appropriate Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) for the refuge. Creating a prioritized biological needs list of refuge IMP projects, along with a handbook for evaluating research projects, would lead to more efficient and effective partnerships and citizen science projects.

Citizen science projects are conducted by average citizens – people who may not be professional scientists but have a passion for, or interest in, some aspect of scientific inquiry. Citizen science projects range from long-standing, large-scale projects, like Nature’s Notebook which tracks changes in plants and animals as the seasons change (phenology) across the nation, to the more individualized research experiences offered by universities (Dickinson et al. 2012), or partner groups like a regular group of volunteers who conduct bird surveys at a refuge. Having citizen scientists conduct research, monitoring, or inventory surveys would expand the refuge’s knowledge base, provide opportunities for public engagement and encourage and further the public’s understanding of science and the refuge.

1.8.1.4 Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan One relationship instrumental to the transformation of the refuge is the partnership with AMAFCA, the regional flood control agency charged with the protection of life and property from the effects of storm runoff. Through the Drainage Management Plan (Figure 3) project, AMAFCA and its partners are addressing stormwater quality and runoff issues for the benefit of the bosque and aquatic habitat of the Rio Grande and the benefit of the Mountain View neighborhood. The focal area for this project is Valle de Oro NWR.

In the South Valley, stormwater runoff is the most common cause of surface water pollution to the Rio Grande. Unlike pollution from sewage treatment facilities, where there are known points of discharge into the system, stormwater pollution is caused by the daily activities of people everywhere. Rainwater and snowmelt flow over streets, lawns, farms, and construction and industrial sites and pick up pet waste, fertilizers, dirt, pesticides, oil, grease, and other pollutants on the way to the river. Most local stormwater pollution has been traced to avian and dog feces. Unlike sewage, stormwater does not flow through a treatment plant before it is released into rivers or streams.

The partnership between AMAFCA and the refuge highlights a unique opportunity for a NWR to serve its community. Historically, the site of the refuge contained topographic drainage features that naturally dampened storm runoff from surrounding uplands and allowed for sediment to drop-out on the site before entering the Rio Grande. This mosaic of wetland and riparian habitats would be restored on the refuge as part of a low impact, engineered stormwater detention project. A drainage outfall through the refuge would provide flood relief and drainage management and improve the quality of stormwater as it passes through detention basins north of the refuge and into the 90 acre AMAFCA/refuge stormwater swale system. Stormwater would pass through the swale and into the existing AMAFCA pond system in the bosque west of the refuge within 96-


hours (per Bernalillo County regulations). From there, filtered stormwater would seep into the groundwater and improve habitat conditions within the bosque.

Both agencies are working collaboratively to achieve the established goals and see that the mission of the refuge and that the needs of the wildlife and visitors are kept in focus throughout project construction and maintenance. The stormwater and drainage management controls and water quality features needed to accomplish AMAFCA’s mission are being directly incorporated to benefit habitats including riparian forest, wetlands, and mesic grassland meadows for the benefit of wildlife and to further environmental education and interpretation efforts.

Barr Interior Drain Historically, the Barr Interior Drain has been managed by MRGCD and functioned without resolution of property titles. The MRGCD’s interest in the drain right-of-way within the refuge boundaries is a mix of fee simple estate ownership, granted easement and prescriptive easement. Although the drain currently lies outside the boundary of the refuge, it impacts refuge resources and habitats because of continued unrestricted use\associated with its maintenance roads. This impact needs to be addressed. The Service intends to work closely with MRGCD regarding future access, management, and the potential reconfiguration, or realignment, of the Barr Interior Drain to ensure the drain continues to function as designed.

N

Figure 3. Map featuring AMAFCA’s initial proposed storm water drainage location at Valle de Oro NWR as part of their Southeast Valley Drainage and Water Quality Management Plan. Adapted from http://www.amafca.org/projects/valledeoro.html.



1.8.1.5 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Due to the Sunport and KAFB’s proximity to the Rio Grande, there is a historic potential bird aircraft strike hazard that will continue to exist regardless of the selected alternative for the management at Valle de Oro NWR. The agricultural practices in the area and the Rio Grande provide favorable habitat and are situated within the Central Flyway for many migrating bird species.

Valle de Oro NWR is within the 5 mile radius of the Sunport and KAFB’s airport operations area (AOA). Safety concerns were raised about the number and population densities of large-bodied and flocking birds and the potential for bird aircraft strikes based on the location of the refuge and runways, such as Runway 03-21 (see Figure 4). These runways support approaching and departing aircraft as well as military training operations where aircraft may fly at altitudes of 1,400 feet above the refuge. Additionally, there is the KAFB Isleta Drop Zone which also supports military operations, about 1 mile south of the refuge.

Due to this concern, the refuge intends to work in partnership with the Sunport, FAA/Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), and KAFB regarding large-bodied and flocking birds and aircraft flight paths. The refuge currently attends bird hazard working group and BASH team meetings. These types of birds could easily attain aircraft flight path heights. This concern was brought up during the Acquisition EA (USFWS 2011) for the refuge, in which the Service made contact with officials at the Sunport about this issue since the Sunport is ultimately the responsible party for documenting and addressing management actions on any land uses that could potentially increase wildlife attractant/hazards as stated by the FAA.


Figure 4. Valle de Oro NWR’s proximity to the Sunport and KAFB.



Mosquito Population on Valle de Oro NWR There was a common concern about restoring wetlands near urban communities and the potential increase of the mosquito population as a result. The area along the Rio Grande typically sees an increase in mosquito population during summer due to warmer weather, increased rain, standing water, and flood irrigation. There is a need to determine and address how refuge management will affect mosquito populations in the area.

1.8.1.6 Other Issues Identified Community Concerns The neighborhood surrounding the refuge is made up of a mixture of industrial, agricultural, and residential properties. The public has identified concerns about environmental justice, especially industrial and agricultural operations which could affect river and groundwater quality or impact air quality, cause noise and light pollution, and ultimately, affect community health, plants, wildlife, their habitat, and refuge visitors. Safety of the community and establishment of proper evacuation routes from the neighborhood are also concerns expressed by the community.

Concerns were also identified by the surrounding neighborhood that the refuge’s establishment could affect property values that may lead to increases in property taxes and gentrification of the area. The Friends of Valle de Oro NWR have incorporated many of these concerns into their organization strategic plan and are working with community members and leaders to address these issues.

Community groups within the South Valley including the Mountain View Neighborhood Association frequently express complaints about poor air quality to local authorities, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently looking into these issues within the South Valley.

Concerns that do not fall within the authority of the Service to address are outside of the scope of this EA. These concerns have been passed on to other organizations and agencies that have jurisdiction over these issues.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management actions to achieve a refuge’s purpose and vision, the goals identified in this EA, and the missions of the NWR System and Service. NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Based on the issues, concerns, and opportunities heard during scoping, four alternatives were identified and are analyzed in detail in this EA. A number of suggestions were considered but dismissed (Section 2.1). Alternatives described in Section 2.2 through 2.5 represent feasible approaches to accomplishing habitat restoration and site planning goals on the refuge. A comparison of all alternatives can be found in Table 2 in Section 2.6. All refuge and habitat acreage and trail lengths are approximate and will vary slightly based on design and construction requirements.


2.1 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed All suggestions and comments were thoroughly reviewed and considered. The following activities were determined to be inconsistent with the establishing purpose of the refuge, were outside of the jurisdiction and authority of the Service, or prohibited under refuge and Bernalillo County rules and regulations. A majority of these suggestions and comments came early in the public scoping process and were potentially attributable to a lack of clarity about the purpose of a NWR. Some suggestions included:

• Swimming pools; • Paintball courses; • Skate parks; • Off-highway vehicle access and courses; • Recreational sports fields (e.g., baseball and soccer); • Pets off-leash access; • Falconry; • Operation of unmanned aircraft systems (drones); • Operation of remote controlled aircraft or vehicles including launching and landing; • Kite flying; • Cycle racing; • Public camping; and • Neighborhood evacuation plan.

These suggestions were passed on to partner agencies with appropriate facilities and jurisdiction (primarily Bernalillo County). To find areas that allow these activities, interested parties should visit the City of Albuquerque or Bernalillo County websites. A full list of refuge rules and regulations are posted on the refuge’s website. In addition the refuge rules and regulation are posted in a refuge informational kiosk and are also available upon request. Posted rules and regulations reflect Service policy and the best professional judgment of the refuge staff who are charged with protecting visitors, plants and wildlife, and other refuge resources. Construction and other projects over the course of the restoration period might require additional restrictions so the rules and regulations will be updated regularly.

Due to county regulations, the refuge’s proximity to housing and businesses, the small size of the refuge and lack of wildlife populations sufficient to support hunting, the refuge would not permit hunting. The refuge would also put up no hunting signs along its boundary fences and other appropriate areas. However, the refuge would work with partners such as NMDGF to offer hunter safety and education programs. Since there are no fishable waters on the refuge, fishing would not be offered. However, the refuge provides access to fishable drains and the Rio Grande on the western boundary, which is regulated by AOS and the MRGCD. The refuge would work with partners to offer angler safety and education programs.

To address the creation of a Mountain View neighborhood evacuation plan, the refuge plans to coordinate with Bernalillo County Fire Department, where appropriate, to assist with the incorporation of a larger neighborhood evacuation plan that serves the community and the refuge.

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Valle_de_Oro/visit/rules_and_regulations.html


2.2 Alternative A—Current Management Under this alternative, current management and activities on the refuge would continue. All refuge and habitat acreage and trail lengths are approximate and will vary slightly based on design and construction requirements.

2.2.1 Habitat Restoration and Management Under Alternative A, current management of the refuge would continue, and AMAFCA would construct and revegetate a 90-acre stormwater drainage structure. The refuge would remain in commercial agricultural alfalfa and hay production (420 acres) through a Cooperative Land Management Agreement to prevent the spread of non-native species on the refuge and provide some habitat for migratory and resident wildlife. The cooperative land manager would continue to flood irrigate during the irrigation season (March 1 to October 1). Pollinator habitat garden projects would be limited to demonstration garden boxes and a greenhouse situated near existing buildings on the refuge, which are within the disturbed area of 60 acres (e.g., demolished housing sites, roads, milk barn, and farm equipment storage areas). The Barr Interior Drain would remain in its existing straight alignment (Map in Figure 5; legend in Figure 6). Agricultural fields would continue to support limited numbers of generalist and opportunistic species such as sandhill cranes, geese species, coyotes, western meadowlarks, and American kestrels. Working with the Service’s Migratory Bird office at the Albuquerque Regional Office, it was estimated that the current seasonally flooded alfalfa fields support up to a total of 150 duck-use days. Total DUDs represent the number of ducks, typically mallard-sized, which could be supported for one day by one acre of the habitat type; in this case, the flooded alfalfa fields (Nelms 2007). Agricultural fields on the refuge are only flooded during the irrigation season (March 1 to October 1) with week of active watering and about another week of drawdown.

Non-native Plant Species Under this alternative, the Cooperative Land Management Agreement includes limited herbicide use to prevent the spread of non-native, or exotic, plant species on agricultural fields. Currently, the cooperative farmer broadcasts Ranger Pro (glyphosate) at a rate of 1.0 quarts per acre using a boom sprayer about four times during the period of May to October. During the two weeks when the cooperative farmer can irrigate the fields, no herbicides are used. Refuge staff has done some selective Siberian elm control through hand pulling around sensitive areas such as the existing farm managers house and cut and stump application with Garlon Ultra 4 and adjuvant at 1.0 ounce per tree in other areas of the refuge three times from August to October 2016. Application of herbicides by the cooperative farmer and refuge staff are according to the Service’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy and Pesticide Use Proposal System (PUPS) process, which includes a Service preapproval process for any herbicide application on the refuge. Anyone permitted to apply herbicides on the refuge has the appropriate pesticide license as issued by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture. Control procedures for invasive plants also include mechanical means (e.g., hand pulling and cutting).

Fire Management Currently, prescribed fire is not used on the refuge; however, wood piles created after invasive plant species removal may be burned. Prescribed fire may be considered as a management tool following the incorporation of the refuge into the New Mexico Spatial Fire Management Plan and subsequent NEPA analysis of this plan.

https://www.fws.gov/policy/569fw1.html

https://www.fws.gov/policy/569fw1.html


Figure 5. Map of Alternative A—Current Management.


2.2.2 Visitor Services Unless otherwise noted, activities listed below are allowed year-round, every day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pets are allowed on all refuge roads when physically restrained by a leash no longer than six feet in length. Pet owners are required to bring their own waste bags, clean up after their pets and dispose of waste appropriately in refuge provided trash receptacles.

Access for Historical Recreational Water Activities Visitors would still have access to the fishable drains outside the western boundary of the refuge. This includes access for canoeing/kayaking in the river.

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography The refuge provides year-round opportunities for wildlife photography and observation in the refuge agricultural fields. Additionally, the public enjoys the adjacent partner-managed bosque. Currently, about 6,300 people annually participate in wildlife observation and photography on the refuge. Most people visiting the refuge are bird watching, especially in the spring and fall when the refuge and adjacent natural areas are ideal for viewing wintering and migrating bird species, such as sandhill cranes, in the agricultural fields and neo-tropical songbirds in the adjacent bosque. There are many interesting bird species at the refuge in the summer as well, but the presence of mosquitoes and lack of shade deters many people from visiting at that time. Mammals such as desert cottontails, black-tailed jackrabbits, coyotes, rock squirrels, and the North American porcupine are observed on a fairly regular basis. The quality and number of opportunities are limited due to lack of habitat and wildlife diversity, and lack of trails and facilities (e.g., shade, water, and restrooms) to support prolonged visitation. However, under Alternative A, wildlife observation and photography would continue to be allowed.

Symbol Key for Alternative A

Figure 6. Legend for refuge concept maps.


Environmental Education Education programs typically involve groups of students of varying ages participating in on- or off-site activities led by teachers, volunteers, partners, or refuge educators. Currently, around 5,000 students are served by refuge environmental education programs annually. The refuge’s curricula include: Birds of a Feather, an Audubon program; Wild Friends, a wildlife conservation and civics program from the University of New Mexico School of Law; and Life Along the Rio Grande, a joint program between the refuge and the Gutierrez-Hubbell House. Other programs are developed and delivered by partners and citizen science groups with refuge staff serving as council. The refuge, its Friends group and other partners provide the equipment and supplies (e.g., seines, waders, and binoculars) required for a quality field experience and for classroom visits.

Programs developed by the refuge’s environmental education specialist meet National and State of New Mexico education standards and provide professional development opportunities for teachers. They also provide community-based service organization programs to help meet youth merit badge requirements and instill a sense of stewardship and understanding of conservation issues.

Under this alternative, current environmental education programs would continue, including field trips to the refuge’s and partners’ outdoor classrooms. Due to lack of on-site facilities (e.g., shade structures, restrooms, and water) and limited diversity in habitat and wildlife, it is unlikely that the refuge’s capacity to provide on-site education programs would increase.

Interpretation Interpretive opportunities are currently limited to open houses, guided talks and tours, and a kiosk. Currently, about 4,000 people visit the refuge annually for interpretation opportunities. Under this alternative, interpretation opportunities would be limited because of the lack of on- site facilities (e.g., visitor center, trails, shade structures, restrooms, and water) and limited diversity in habitat and wildlife. A Visitor Interpretive Experience and Opportunities Plan is being drafted for the refuge that would use desired audience experiences as the structures for determining the interpretive, outreach, orientation, wayfinding, and trip planning opportunities and actions to facilitate those experiences and to attract, hold, and communicate effectively with refuge target audiences.

Special Events and Outreach Outreach efforts consist of staff and volunteers participating in community activities throughout the area, refuge events, and refuge social media activities and printed informational materials. Refuge staff attends community leader meetings and serves on conservation committees. The Friends group and the refuge have also put on special events, such as refuge birthday parties in September, for crowds up to about 600 people. In addition, the refuge held monthly open houses and small scale events that brought in anywhere from 10 to 30 community members throughout 2014 and 2015. The refuge also provides outreach programs on a per-request basis to interested local conservation and civic groups. Currently, the refuge permits non-Service educational archery activities with an approved Special Use Permit (SUP).


The refuge is developing outreach materials such as fact sheets and brochures, available at the refuge upon request, on the website, and for distribution at events. About ten percent of visitors acquire these materials. The refuge’s social media initiative includes an active Facebook page that includes near-daily postings and weekly Wildlife Wednesday and Stewardship Saturday posts, among others. The page has around 2,500 followers and reaches up to about 30 readers a day.

Additionally, there are native garden boxes surrounding the main building on the refuge and a greenhouse used for vegetation projects. The refuge would continue to support partners that maintain other community and pollinator habitat gardens located nearby such as at the Mountain View Community Center, the Mountain View Community Garden at the Albuquerque Wastewater Utility Southside Reclamation Plant located along 2nd Street SW, and the First Choice Community Health Campus off Isleta Boulevard SW.

Under this alternative, outreach to the local community would continue, along with tours and events held in fields and through social media.

Community Food Garden and Native Plant Nursery Currently, there is no community food garden or native plant nursery on the refuge.

Horseback Riding Horseback riding would continue to be allowed on the 6 miles of unpaved refuge roads. The southwesternmost road provides access to planned U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) installed trails in the adjacent Rio Grande Valley State Park bosque, which is regulated by AOS by way of an AMAFCA built bridge located at the southwest corner of the refuge. Horseback riders must follow the refuge’s pet policy regarding leashes and waste removal.

Cycling Cycling (non-motorized) would continue to be allowed on the same roads as defined under horseback riding. Cyclists but must follow the refuge’s pet policy regarding leashes and waste removal.

Transportation Vehicular and alternative transportation access would continue to be allowed on all 6 miles of roads within the refuge. There are no bus or rail services to the refuge. The closest bus service is about 3 miles north on 2nd Street SW at Prosperity Avenue SE, and the closest New Mexico Rail Runner stop is about 4 miles north on 2nd Street SW, north of Rio Bravo Boulevard SE. During large special events, a refuge shuttle is provided from bus and train stops to the refuge.

Commercial Activities Commercial activities are reviewed and permitted on a case by case basis. Some activities that have been permitted in the past include bird tours, food trucks or concessionaire services, commercial filming/photography, and alfalfa and hay farming. All requests for commercial activities are reviewed by the refuge manager to ensure compliance with applicable Service policies. Any request for a commercial activity would be considered through the appropriate use and compatibility process as defined by Service policy. If approved, a SUP would be required.


Currently, 437 acres of the refuge are in commercial alfalfa/grass hay production and managed by a cooperative farmer (see the Draft Commercial Hay and Alfalfa Agriculture compatibility determination in Appendix VI). Under this alternative, commercial alfalfa/grass hay agriculture would continue until the construction of the 90-acre AMAFCA swale, leaving the remaining 347 acres in commercial alfalfa/grass hay production.

Canoe/Kayaking Access Although the refuge boundaries do not extend to the Rio Grande, refuge roads have historically been used to facilitate access to the river. Launch sites are available at the nearby Tingley Beach; others can be located by contacting AOS.

Walking/Jogging Jogging and walking occur throughout the refuge but mainly on the 6 miles of unpaved refuge roads. Users are allowed to bring pets but must follow the refuge’s pet policy regarding leashes and waste removal.

Off-highway Vehicles Off-highway vehicles are not allowed on the refuge. These include but are not limited to dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles.

2.2.3 Facilities Infrastructure The refuge is in the process of removing some of the existing infrastructure that was present on the dairy farm prior to refuge acquisition. Two phases of demolition have occurred, removing unrepairable, unusable facilities including the old scale house, two old farm rental and staff homes, and associated storage buildings. These buildings and their foundations were demolished in 2016 under a Categorical Exclusion based on the Acquisition EA (USFWS 2011). In Alternative A, the milk barn would remain on-site but would not be refurbished. The barn would continue to be used on a limited basis for maintenance storage but would not be available for other refuge activities due to safety concerns.

Roads Public Roads: Currently, the public can drive, walk, bike, or ride horses on about 6 miles of refuge roads. These roads are also used by refuge staff and partners to support management and education objectives of the refuge.

Administrative Roads: There are no roads used exclusively for administrative access.

Visitor Facilities The refuge does not currently have a visitor center. The existing farm house on the refuge (former farm manager’s home) is used for some activities such as staff meetings, Friends of Valle de Oro NWR meetings, welcome center, and volunteer trainings. Behind the existing farm house are temporary buildings for administration and partner needs as well as classroom space. Existing facilities would continue to be used and managed to accommodate limited visitor and staff needs.


Parking Parking is available at the southwest corner outdoor classroom, the milk barn, near the existing farm house, and near the refuge entrance information kiosk, where parking spaces are designated by downed logs. During special events, parking is allowed in designated fields.

Restrooms Currently, public restrooms on the refuge are limited to: two sets of portable toilets (one is Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible) at the southwest corner of the refuge, one portable toilet near the milk barn, one bathroom in the welcome center (existing refuge house), and two ADA accessible restrooms in the temporary portable classroom space.

Outdoor Classrooms, Amphitheater, and Nature Explore Classroom Currently, the refuge maintains one outdoor classroom on the southwest corner of the refuge; the area consists of stumps for seating, shade structures, and two portable toilets. Through its partners, the refuge also has access to outdoor classroom space near the Rio Grande by an AMAFCA built bridge that leads into the adjacent bosque from the southwest corner of the refuge. There is no amphitheater, nature explore classroom or equivalent structures on the refuge.

Trail System The refuge currently maintains about 6 miles of unpaved roads that double as public trails. The Service works with partners to provide access to the partner outdoor classroom and existing USACE built trails in the Rio Grande Valley State Park bosque via the AMAFCA bridge at the southwest corner of the refuge.

Administrative Facilities Current offices of staff and volunteers are located in the existing farm house, temporary buildings behind the existing farm house, and the Service’s Southwest Regional Office located at 500 Gold Avenue SW in downtown Albuquerque.

Maintenance facilities Currently, the refuge does not have maintenance facilities but has limited use of the milk barn and a temporary storage container for maintenance supplies.

Utilities Currently, above and below ground utilities (e.g., gas, electricity, and water) stem off from 2nd

Street SW and are connected to the existing farm house and to the temporary buildings behind the existing farm house in the northeast section of the refuge.

The refuge has a 2,500 gallon septic tank and an about 540 square foot leach field system. The septic system is behind the existing farm house and is serviced and pumped periodically depending on capacity.

Boundary Fence Currently, barbed wire and chain-link fence identify the refuge boundary. Signs are placed intermittently along these fences to further designate the refuge’s boundary. Wildlife friendly wooden fencing is being installed to mark the Refuge boundary. This was approved under a Categorical Exclusion based on the Acquisition EA (USFWS 2011).


2.2.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Current biological priorities of the refuge are limited to invasive species and water quality monitoring. The refuge is working on identifying additional biological priorities. The refuge is developing a Valle de Oro NWR Research Handbook to lay out the requirements and expectations for research conducted on the refuge. This would allow Service staff and partners to better organize, incorporate, evaluate, and report on refuge-related research projects.

Current inventory, monitoring, and research on the refuge include invasive plant surveys, winter waterbird monitoring, ground water testing, and soil texture analysis. Most of the projects done on the refuge are conducted by citizen science groups, such as the Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program (BEMP), Nature’s Notebook, and Amigos Bravos. These projects include students and/or volunteers collecting data on multiple ecosystem factors (e.g., weather, leaf litter accumulation, and invertebrate diversity), phenological events (seasonal changes) of trees and migratory birds, and water quality testing for pharmaceuticals and other pollutants in drains near the refuge and wells on the refuge. Since its establishment, visitors have also reported their sighting of over 200 bird species on eBird for the refuge. Formal bird surveys have not been established for the refuge yet besides the winter waterbird monitoring. Under this alternative, the current limited number of citizen science groups and individuals conducting inventory, monitoring, and research projects within of the refuge’s boundaries under SUPs or Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) would not increase.

The refuge would continue to prioritize current and future Service inventory (e.g., a formal monthly bird survey) and monitoring projects through an IMP but would not allow for new non-Service projects to be conducted until biological priorities are set and current projects are assessed.

2.2.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan Presently, AMAFCA holds temporary construction and permanent drainage easements on the refuge. Under this Alternative, the refuge would continue to coordinate with AMAFCA on their plan to manage stormwater drainage and incorporate water quality features on the refuge. A 30 percent conceptual design plan overlaying the swale onto the refuge can be found in Appendix I. More information on overall plans for AMAFCA can be viewed at their website. The construction footprint and features of the AMAFCA facilities are fully described in Alternative B (proposed action).

Barr Interior Drain The Barr Interior Drain is not currently within the boundary of the refuge. However, the refuge is working with MRGCD on potential long-term management. Under this alternative, the drain would remain in its current location.

2.2.6 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Under Alternative A, use by flocking birds potentially would not change and may pose the highest risk to aircraft since the flood irrigated monoculture of agricultural fields that are most attractive to these species would continue to be cultivated. In 2016-2017, the refuge biologist and

http://ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L1778306?yr=all&m&rank=mrec


trained volunteers conducted surveys during the period of November to February that showed averages of 105 light geese, 1,274 dark geese, and 464 sandhill cranes on the refuge. High counts for that same time period were: 500 light geese, 2,670 dark geese and 1,400 sandhill cranes. These large-bodied birds primarily use the southwestern, southeastern, and northwestern agricultural fields along with the field surrounding the milk barn.

The refuge would continue to work closely with the Sunport and KAFB during the refuge’s development through participation in a wildlife hazard management group composed of the Service, Sunport, FAA/ATCT, USAF Safety Center, KAFB bird aircraft strike hazard teams, and other local businesses. This group would work to address potential bird strikes and other wildlife hazards to aircraft pursuant to the 2003 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Air Force (USAF), FAA, EPA, the Service, and other agencies and the recommendations of the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B. Additionally the refuge would continue to attend the bird hazard working group and BASH team regular meetings.

Currently, hazing is not a management tool used by the refuge to lessen wildlife hazards to aircraft. Hazing is a harassment tactic done to purposefully make wildlife, mainly birds, uncomfortable or fearful enough to leave a certain area. Hazing is not a feasible management technique due to limited staff capacity, the high attractiveness of the agricultural fields to large- bodied birds, and the potential for hazing to flush large flocks of birds into the direct path of aircraft.

Mosquito Population on Valle de Oro NWR During summer flood irrigation of agricultural fields, mosquitoes may be present on the refuge but not in large quantities such as those found in the bosque and near the Rio Grande.


2.3 Alternative B—Proposed Action Alternative The refuge proposes to convert 510 acres of active and inactive monoculture agricultural fields and 56 acres of previously disturbed areas of old dairy farm infrastructure into: restored riparian, wetland, and upland habitat (398 acres); the AMAFCA wetland/stormwater drainage swale (90 acres); a visitor center complex with an amphitheater, outdoor and nature explore classrooms, and maintenance facilities (60 acres); and 10 miles of trails (18 acres). All refuge and habitat acreage and trail lengths are approximate and will vary slightly based on design and construction requirements.

The proposed action (Alternative B legend Figure 7; Map in Figure 8) would further habitat management and restoration on the refuge and provide facilities and public use opportunities to meet the goals of the refuge as defined in Section 1.3.

2.3.1 Habitat Restoration and Management The refuge proposes to convert 510 acres of active and inactive monoculture agricultural fields and other farm areas into habitats benefitting a variety of native wildlife species, especially those using the Rio Grande bosque (riparian forest). Adaptive management and sound biological techniques would be used to convert the agricultural fields and others areas into native habitats including: 178 acres of riparian habitat (e.g., bosque woodlands and open savannas, including mesic meadows), 100 acres of desert uplands, and 120 acres of seasonal wetlands/ponds. Seasonal wetlands are defined as a wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water is present in the early part of the growing season but is absent by the end of the season in most years.

Symbol Key for Alternative B



Figure 8. Map of Alternative B—Proposed Action.


Restoration would occur in phases as refuge resources are available. A large amount of dirt work would need to take place for restoration. Heavy equipment would be required for digging up and breaking out drain tiles that are in place for agricultural practices. The first phase of this proposed action is to restrict agricultural production to only 330 acres west of the Barr Interior Drain. The refuge would phase out agricultural production until it is no longer needed for management purposes. This approach would allow refuge staff to focus on converting the acreage east of the Barr Interior Drain into a visitor center complex (60 acres) including a visitor center, parking lots, picnic areas, maintenance facilities, educational facilities and a permanent 0.25 acre pond. Restoration on the east side of the Barr Interior Drain includes a 14-acre playa wetland and 100 acres of uplands. The restoration would begin with the installation, refurbishment or relocation of five licensed groundwater supply wells on the refuge (see Figure 8; Appendix IV).

At this time, wetland restoration plans are 30 percent completed, but draft designs reflect how the refuge could support pre-1935 historic floodplain landforms that were lost due to urban and agricultural conversion. As part of the design process for the refuge and through easements retained by AMAFCA, a 90-acre AMAFCA stormwater drainage swale, or floodwater retention basin, would be located on the western and southern portion of the refuge. This swale would not hold water permanently: stormwater would be directed out of the system within 96 hours (per New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) regulations). Moreover, attempts will be made to move water through the system in 48 hours or less in accordance with FAA AC 150/5200- 33B. Riparian forest and grassland habitats would be used to revegetate the swale and would blend in with refuge habitats.

The refuge would begin construction on the southwestern 14-acre wetland through partnerships and assistance from other refuges and/or USBR. The AMAFCA swale and future restoration on the refuge may take 5 to 20 years to complete, depending on funding availability and staff capacity.

Wetland management on the refuge would be geared toward the benefit of amphibians, pollinators, riparian and wetland plants, and small-sized bird species such as swallows. Working off the initial baseline designs by Ducks Unlimited in Figure 9, the Service is considering five seasonal wetlands with depths from 0 to 18 inches with irregular topographical/micro- topographical differences to benefit amphibians and mimic different elevation heights for the benefit of plant diversity. In addition, the refuge would mimic the historic topography of the area, which requires building up the east side of the refuge to allow for a more natural flow and progression from the mountains to the Rio Grande bosque using spoils from the wetlands. Associated with these wetlands would be two seasonal ponds (each less than 3 acres).

Figure 9. A 30 percent concept of proposed wetland units and wells in correlation to the AMAFCA swale. Adapted from the Ducks Unlimited Wetland Review Concepts (2015).


One proposed flood/flow regime of the wetlands would be to flood during the growing season (March to October) with early summer drawdowns (May to June) to encourage species diversity with re-flooding in September to November. Slow drawdowns of two to three weeks are usually more desirable for wildlife and plants and would be coordinated to best fit the needs of desired wildlife and plants (Nelms 2007). Another proposed flood/flow regime for the wetlands would be to flood only two wetlands at any given time during the spring and summer and to potentially avoid fall/winter flooding. The exact timings of either flood regime would change due to the needs of vegetation, desired wildlife, and water availability. Wetlands would be emptied as shown from the black arrows on Figure 9; however, if water needs to be emptied in an emergency, then an emergency channel could potentially be created. Furthermore, wetlands would be created above the groundwater level.

It is currently unknown what the projected DUDs per acre would be for this proposed action since final plant species details (e.g., which plant species would be used and planting or seeding rates for those species) are ongoing; however, the refuge would continue to work with the Service’s Migratory Bird office and use habitat comparison tools once proposed habitat is established on the refuge.

The permanent 0.25-acre pond near the visitor center is in the Great Outdoors Consultants concept maps (Appendix III, pg. 45). This permanent pond would be managed to meet similar vegetation objectives as the seasonal wetlands/ponds (i.e., for amphibians, pollinators, mammals, and for environmental education and interpretation programs) and water level would be maintained at 8 inches or more. As referenced in the visitor services Section 1.4.3, refuge waters would not be fishable; however, mosquitofish would be stocked to potentially control the mosquito population.

Upland habitat restoration would continue to connect the historic floodplain of the refuge to the upland habitats still in existence to the east of the refuge, restoring habitat that has been lost in the Middle Rio Grande Valley for decades. Vegetation of the upland areas would include a wide spectrum of native New Mexican species, including but not limited to various native bunch grasses, prickly pear cactus, various asters, and various woody species. Herbaceous vegetation heights would be maintained at 6 to 12 inches or higher to increase biodiversity. Additionally, topographical changes using fill material from wetland creation may be used to restore elevation and dimension to the upland areas.

Under this alternative, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) would be developed to further identify specific management of habitat on the refuge that meet specific wildlife or habitat management goals and objectives to ensure biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. In both the HMP and IMP, the monitoring of bird species on the refuge, especially in the wetlands, would be conducted either bimonthly or weekly depending on refuge management goals and objectives.

Non-native Plant Species As agricultural practices are phased out, the number of applications of herbicide by the cooperative farmer would decease as per Service PUPS and IPM policies. Once agricultural hay production ceases, it would be the sole duty of the refuge to control non-native species, as


needed. It is anticipated that the refuge would have to control some noxious weeds and non- native species once restored. Once native vegetation is established, the level of noxious weed and non-native species control efforts would likely decrease further, but some control would always be necessary, such as inventory and monitoring of new or prolific invasives. Additionally, herbicides would be used along maintenance access roads and trails for upkeep and safe access. Under this alternative, herbicides, hand pulling, fire, and mechanical treatments would be utilized to control invasive species.

Fire Management Under this alternative, the Service would conduct training with the New Mexico NWR Fire District on fire management of the area to protect resources. Additionally, the refuge would be included in a Spatial Fire Management Plan to guide the use of fire as a management tool to assist with maintenance of refuge habitats once restored. Management could include burning piles of non-native species and wetland maintenance of cattails and other invasive plant species. The use of fire and other management tools (e.g., mechanical, chemical, flooding, and drying) would be utilized in wetland and upland adaptive management strategies to promote a healthy ecosystem that mimics similar natural disturbance events that would have occurred in these systems. As with any prescribed fire/burn, appropriate agencies, law enforcement and emergency contacts, nearby landowners, and visitors would be notified prior to the burn.

2.3.2 Visitor Services The refuge proposes to enhance priority public uses (e.g., wildlife observation and photography, interpretation, and environmental education) and secondary uses as described in Alternative A (e.g., horseback riding, cycling, walking/jogging, commercial photography and filming). Compatibility determinations for each of these proposed uses can be found in Appendix VI.

Under this alternative refuge activities would be available to the public from one hour before sunrise to one hour past sunset, every day, unless otherwise noted. Hours for staff-lead activities would be adjusted seasonally and based on proposed use, need, and staff availability. Activities would occur in public use areas as designated. These areas might include the visitor center complex, interior trails or the 4-mile multi-use perimeter trail (perimeter trail) as described in Section 2.3.3 Facilities. All activities would be subject to the refuge’s pet policy.

Access for Historic Recreational Water Activities Same as Alternative A.

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography Under this alternative, the refuge would enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography through habitat restoration, increased species diversity and numbers, and up to 10 miles of trails that would include observation decks, blinds, and other trail amenities. It is anticipated that annually about 75,000 people would visit the refuge for wildlife observation and photography.

Environmental Education The refuge would continue environmental education programs outlined in Alternative A; however, programs would be expanded and enhanced by the availability of a visitor center, up to


10 miles of trails, two outdoor classrooms and an amphitheater. To maintain quality and ensure curriculum alignment with New Mexico Public Education Department standards, proposed environmental education programs would be evaluated by refuge staff. It is anticipated that about 10,000 students would visit the refuge annually for environmental education programs.

Interpretation Interpretation would continue as described in Alternative A, however, those opportunities would be expanded and enhanced through trail signs, interpretive panels, exhibits, interpretive trail guides, and additional interpretative kiosks around buildings to more effectively share wildlife, habitat, and other resource values with visitors of all ages and abilities. About 35,000 people are expected to participate annually in interpretation opportunities offered by the refuge.

Special Events and Outreach Outreach efforts would continue as described in Alternative A through staff and volunteers participating in community activities throughout the area, refuge events, our website and social media activities and printed informational materials. Refuge staff would continue to attend community leader meetings and serve on conservation committees.

Under this alternative, the eventual restoration of the majority of the refuge into riparian and upland habitats would limit the location of most special events to the visitor center complex. The refuge, Friends group and other partners would continue to host large- and small-scale special events, subject to the Special Events compatibility determination in Appendix IV, which might include music events, workshops, clean up days, archery events, or other community activities. About 2,000 people would participate annually in special events at the refuge. The refuge also provides outreach programs, when requested, to interested local conservation and civic groups.

With increased visitor services and outreach capabilities available through the visitor center complex, demand would increase for outreach materials such as fact sheets and brochures, available at the refuge upon request, on the website, and for distribution at events. Construction of the visitor center and the details of habitat restoration would likely increase interest and attention to the refuge’s social media outlets including the official website and Facebook page. It is anticipated that followers and daily readership would increase.

Community Food Garden and Native Plant Nursery As a condition of the acquisition of the refuge, Bernalillo County has a conservation easement on the land. Bernalillo County has expressed that the refuge should support local food, agricultural uses, and cultural heritage preservation on the refuge that meets the goals of both the refuge and Bernalillo County. The refuge would work with Bernalillo County to find an appropriate location for a community food garden in the Mountain View neighborhood. Should it be determined that the refuge is the best site for this project, the refuge would complete necessary compliance (evaluate appropriateness and compatibility with refuge purposes and NEPA) prior to constructing a community food garden on the refuge.

Under this alternative, the refuge would work with Bernalillo County on a native plant nursery (up to 4 acres) to maintain agriculture in some form and reflect the refuge’s agricultural history. The refuge would identify a cooperator through a Cooperative Land Management Agreement



with the county and the refuge for growing and harvesting native plants with a percentage of the native plants grown by the cooperator being utilized for restoration on the refuge and in the surrounding communities. The native plant nursery on the refuge would be included in the 60- acre visitor center complex. Further development of the native plant nursery including details of infrastructure and management would require NEPA analysis.

Horseback Riding Under this alternative, horseback riding would be limited to the perimeter trail. Hitching posts would be available at the restroom facility located on the west central section of the perimeter trail. No trailer parking would be allowed or supplied. A single 18-foot wide trail would accommodate horse, pedestrian, cycling and refuge vehicle use with signage on appropriate yielding of trail users. Due to potential trail use conflict, clean up and trail maintenance costs associated with this use, it would be evaluated annually. Horseback riders must follow the refuge’s pet policy regarding leashes and waste removal. For more detail, see Horseback Riding compatibility determination in Appendix VI.

Cycling Once trails are constructed and habitat is restored, cycling (non-motorized) would be limited to the perimeter trail and paved entrance road to the refuge. Bicycle racks would be provided at the visitor center and near the restroom on the west central portion of the perimeter trail. Cyclists must follow the refuge’s pet policy regarding leashes and waste removal. For more information, see the Cycling compatibility determination in Appendix VI.

Transportation The refuge would continue to work with partners to provide alternative transportation to the refuge. Partners would include Bernalillo County, the Mid Regional Council of Governments, and the Albuquerque Ride/Rio Metro. Alternate transportation access to the refuge would include construction of a multi-use trail and neighborhood sidewalks along 2nd Street SW leading to a refuge entrance and a bus stop at the visitor center. Additionally, the refuge’s Friends group is working with partners on the extension and connection to the Paseo del Bosque Trail, which ends approximately 3 miles north of the refuge.

The Paseo del Bosque Trail is a multi-use trail that goes from the northern to southern boundaries of Albuquerque along the Albuquerque Riverside Drain levees adjacent to the Rio Grande’s bosque. If extended down to the refuge, the trail would connect to the western boundary of the refuge, allowing for alternative access to the refuge away from 2nd Street SW. Access to and from the trail could be made possible through an existing bridge installed by AMAFCA in 2013 that connects the refuge to the bosque.

Planning for the construction of a multi-use trail and neighborhood sidewalks along 2nd Street SW leading to a refuge entrance is already underway and funded through the Federal Lands Access Program. This is a collaborative project between the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway District, Bernalillo County, U.S. National Park Service (NPS), and the Service. The majority of the project falls outside the scope of this EA, but the connection from the refuge entrance and to the visitor center is covered and would facilitate safer trails for alternative transportation such as cycling to the refuge.

https://www.cabq.gov/parksandrecreation/open-space/lands/paseo-del-bosque-trail


The refuge would continue to facilitate access (i.e., for horseback riders, cyclists, and pedestrians) through the existing refuge administrative road that connects to Salida Sandia SW and to the bosque. Parking or use of Salida Sandia SW would be discouraged, and visitors would be encouraged to access the paths using the refuge perimeter trail or interior trails.

Commercial Activities Identified commercial activities would continue as described in Alternative A. The refuge would completely phase out agricultural production as restoration occurs, and it is no longer needed for management purposes.

Canoe/Kayaking Access Same as Alternative A.

Walking/Jogging Under this Alternative, jogging would be limited to the perimeter trail. Walking would be allowed on all refuge trails. Pets would be allowed on the perimeter trail and in the picnicking area, and pet owners must follow the pet policy.

Off-highway Vehicles Same as Alternative A.

2.3.3 Facilities Infrastructure Under this alternative, all existing farming infrastructure would be removed from the refuge, including the concrete milk barn. The milk barn is structurally unsound, contains asbestos, and it would be cost prohibitive for the Service to provide accessibility and ensure public safety. Some of the wells would be refurbished, and new wells would be constructed. Old farming drainage and concrete canals would be removed.

Roads Public Roads: Under this alternative, the only public drivable road would be the paved entrance road, which visitors would access from 2nd Street SW to get to the visitor center and parking. Vehicle access to the refuge would be controlled by an automatic gate that would open one hour before sunrise and close one hour after sunset. Additionally, interior gates would be installed to prevent motor vehicle access but would allow pedestrian, equestrian, and cycling access to designated trails.

Administrative Roads: Under this alternative, some interior trails would also serve as maintenance roads to provide refuge staff and authorized partner access for management purposes such as maintaining habitats and facilities on the refuge. This would include access for AMAFCA and MRGCD.

Visitor Facilities Under this Alternative, the refuge would construct a visitor center complex which would include an exhibit hall, administrative and partner offices, restroom facilities, indoor and outdoor classroom space, native plant gardens, and a 0.25-acre pond. The visitor center parking lot and


other infrastructure comprise a total area of 60 acres. All visitor center and surrounding features would be universally designed to accommodate most visitors; facilities would meet 2010 ADA, 2004 Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) accessibility guidelines, and the 2011 Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Recreation. The visitor center would also be constructed to be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified.

Restrooms Under this alternative, restroom facilities would be provided at the visitor center to allow public access from inside the visitor center and from outside the facility to accommodate visitors after the visitor center is closed. There would be a restroom inside the maintenance shop, and a self- contained composting toilet on the west central portion of the perimeter trail. The composting toilet and the outside access to the visitor center restrooms would be controlled by a time set locking device.

Outdoor Classrooms, Amphitheater, and Nature Explore Classroom Under this alternative, the refuge would construct multiple gathering areas such as an outdoor classroom, interpretive stations, and an amphitheater. Two outdoor classrooms would provide gathering areas for about 30 students each. The amphitheater would provide a venue for presentations and coordination of large-scale educational and citizen science projects for school groups, special events, or partner organizations. The amphitheater would be able to hold about 100 people. The nature explore classroom would be a dynamic, research-based, field-tested area designed for nature-based play and learning. This space would have a capacity of about 30 visitors. The proposed outdoor facilities engage participants in nature, furthering opportunities for inquiry and connection to the natural world.

Trail System Under this alternative, the refuge would construct packed dirt trails to include a 4-mile multi-use perimeter trail (perimeter trail) and interior walking trails. Established trails on the refuge would not exceed 10 miles (18 acres) and would have signage to designate which uses are allowed on specific trails. The perimeter trail would be 18 feet wide to allow for horseback riding, cycling, walking, jogging, and administrative vehicles. Interior trails include packed dirt maintenance and pedestrian trails ranging from 6 to 12 feet wide. Within the visitor center complex, interconnecting trails would be paved and 10 to 12 feet wide. The refuge would work with NPS to construct a one mile El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro trail (an interior trail) that would connect with loop trails around the refuge visitor center and to trails that would lead to interior western and eastern trails (Appendix V).

Parking Parking and bicycle racks would be located around the visitor center to allow for various user groups and vehicle types to access the refuge during regular posted hours.

Administrative Facilities Maintenance Facilities Under this alternative, the refuge would construct maintenance facilities near the visitor center in the current location of the milk barn, which would be demolished. The design of the maintenance


building would be reminiscent of the existing milk barn to reflect the agricultural history of the area. The maintenance facility would also include space for up to four volunteer recreational vehicle pads with hookups.

Utilities Under this alternative, utility right of ways would run south along 2nd Street SW. Connections to the 2nd Street SW infrastructure would be parallel to proposed refuge roads, constrained to the disturbed site for the 60 acre visitor center complex.

The refuge would be installing a 4,000 gallon septic tank and a 9,900 square foot leach field system. All septic facilities would be developed in the footprint of the visitor center complex and would be serviced and pumped periodically depending on capacity. If there is an opportunity for the refuge to connect to the City/County sewer system before the septic system is set, the refuge would connect to the City/County system.

Boundary Fence Under this alternative, the refuge would replace the existing fence with wildlife-friendly fencing options to possibly include vegetative fencing, boulders, berms, and split rail fences among others. Additionally, interior gates would be installed to prevent motor vehicle access and allow only pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle access to the surrounding community. Boundary signs would be placed along the fence line to further distinguish the refuge’s boundary. No hunting signs would also be placed along the fence line.

2.3.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research As with Alternative A, current and future refuge inventory and monitoring projects would continue and be prioritized in an IMP, which would be incorporated into the HMP. Biological priorities for the refuge are still being formulated by Service personnel.

Unlike with Alternative A, the refuge would provide research and educational opportunities as restoration and habitat management plans are implemented on the refuge. The transformation of the refuge from former dairy farm to a healthy mosaic of wetland, riparian forest, and upland environments would provide opportunities for thesis/dissertation projects for graduate students, internships for undergraduates, workshops for the community, and would introduce local middle and high school students to nature and conservation careers. These experiences would foster the goal of connecting urban youth with nature and provide them tools to become environmental stewards with connections to the refuge, other refuges within the Middle Rio Grande Valley, and the Service. A Valle de Oro NWR Research Handbook would further lay out the requirements and expectation for research conducted on the refuge.

Citizen science projects at Valle de Oro NWR are already part of a growing movement of public–professional partnerships that give individuals of all ages an opportunity to participate in scientific research and to interact with scientists in the process (Brossard et al. 2005). Currently, there are seven citizen projects on the refuge. With restoration, there is the potential for an increased number of citizen science projects on the refuge. These projects would be subject to the guidance and protocols set forth in the Research Handbook, which would be developed


within 6 months of the completion of the EA process (including the compatibility determination for non-Service research), and evaluated on a case-by-case basis through a SUP.

2.3.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan The refuge would continue to work with AMAFCA on construction and maintenance of their 90- acre stormwater drainage facilities while ensuring the goals and purposes of the refuge are met. A draft concept of the swale is shown in Figure 10. The refuge and AMAFCA have been actively partnering on the designs for the stormwater drainage plan with close attention to the meadows and swales that would also be a refuge management unit. The proposed AMAFCA projects include the following:

• A primary water quality filtration facility to remove large trash at the northeast corner of

the refuge, not to exceed 5 acres; • Use of the Barr Spur Drain, located along the northern boundary of the refuge, to

transport water from 2nd Street SW and another water quality facility that would connect to the secondary water quality structure;

• A secondary water quality structure located at the Barr Interior Drain to be soft engineered through native vegetation featuring advancing sections of rocks, grasses, and trees such as willows to slow water down and drop sediment;

• Another second primary water quality filtration facility to remove large trash at the southeast corner of the refuge, not to exceed 5 acres;

• A 660-foot wide salt grass meadow swale to connect the north section of the Barr Interior Drain and the secondary water quality structure;

• The saltgrass meadow swale would include a low flow channel in the middle surrounded by islands of riparian forest habitat;

• A series of stormwater treatment ponds to follow the southern boundary of the refuge and discharge with the primary saltgrass meadow swale into the bosque; and

• These water quality structures would then filter stormwater that would be outflow discharged from the southwest corner of the refuge and into the bosque through a culvert or other engineered facility crossing the Albuquerque Riverside Drain and Williams Lateral Irrigation Ditch to then connect with the existing AMAFCA pond system constructed on NMSLO and USBR lands in the bosque (Figure 11).

To maintain the swale and other facilities (e.g., maintenance roads), AMAFCA would regularly monitor weather conditions and inspect its facilities after storm events to determine if the they need maintenance to ensure that each facility operates as intended by design. Coordination of maintenance would occur with the refuge, unless a flood control emergency is declared, at which time AMAFCA may immediately mobilize and begin work onsite. These regular activities include repairs, improvements, and all measures taken to assure that public welfare and safety are protected. Regular maintenance would be dependent on a number of factors, the largest being the frequency and intensity of storms that hit the upstream watershed and done generally in the spring. Furthermore, AMAFCA is responsible for removal of debris, trash, and obstructions within its easements and rights-of-way. This maintenance includes the removal of woody vegetation greater than two inches in diameter on levee embankments, excavations of root balls


to be compacted and re-graded, and other vegetation that may interfere with the flood control function or become a fire hazard. Most of the manual trash removal would be accomplished through its “Manual Trash and Debris Removal Contract.” The contractor would supply labor and maintenance materials and equipment on an as needed basis. Trash materials would either be taken to an AMAFCA dumpster by the crew or are picked up by the AMAFCA crew and taken to the landfill. Larger items may be stockpiled for later pick up by the AMAFCA crew.

Other removal efforts would include the removal of excess sediment to ensure the flood control function and hydraulic efficiency of AMAFCA facilities. The lines and grades of the facilities would be restored to their original constructed condition by visual inspection (e.g., of change in materials), tying into existing structures (e.g., culverts, grade control structures, and concrete slabs), and surveying the facilities when necessary. The removed sediment would be “bucked up” into a stockpile and then loaded onto dump trucks or trailers to then be hauled to designated offsite stockpile locations. In some instances, the sediment may be stockpiled in a designated onsite area to let it dry out before it can be safely hauled offsite. The loading may be done by AMAFCA’s maintenance crew or local area contractors.

Naturalistic flood control facilities can experience erosions from storm water running down slopes or cutting around obstructions. The erosions could get deeper over time and may cause damage to adjacent facilities, which would need to be restored as well. When these erosions occur, AMAFCA would use heavy construction equipment to repair them by filling in the erosion with compacted soil or by placing large stones or boulders to control future erosions.


Figure 10. Draft concept of the AMAFCA swale on Valle de Oro NWR (Wilson & Company 2015).

Figure 11. Existing AMAFCA pond system in the bosque west of Valle de Oro NWR.



Barr Interior Drain To successfully implement this alternative, the Service is working with MRGCD to realign and curve the Barr Interior Drain to improve its slope and to create a more natural look, similar to the historic Rio Grande oxbow that would have passed through the refuge. Because the drain is outside the boundaries of the refuge, realignment would be predicated on resolution of the ownership of the drain and its acquisition by the Service or a suitable agreement between the MRGCD and the Service. The new, curved Barr Interior Drain would be built on the refuge in partnership with AMAFCA and MRGCD to ensure its functionality would not be impeded. MRCGD would need an agreement with the refuge to maintain the Barr Interior Drain. The former Barr Interior Drain footprint would be filled and vegetated as part of the refuge’s habitat restoration.

2.3.6 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Under Alternative B, habitat restoration and management would occur as described under Section 2.3.1 and hazing would not be permitted on the refuge. Restoration would eliminate large-scale agricultural production and develop a mosaic of habitats in consideration of overhead aircraft flight paths that could conflict with large-bodied birds and large groups of flocking birds’ paths as per the 2003 MOA between the Service, USAF, FAA, and other agencies. Part of this development would include deeper wetlands which are not favorable for dabbling ducks such as mallards that prefer shallow wetlands/ponds (Nelms 2007). Mallards are the most common duck species in the area that pose high risk to aircraft. To further decrease the attractiveness of these wetlands and adjacent grasslands, refuge and partners plan to use plant species (e.g., rushes, goldenrod, cattails, and willows in riparian areas and four-winged saltbush in upland areas) that have little to no value to waterfowl but have value to insects, songbirds, and mammals. Additionally, eliminating large-scale agricultural production would reduce the number of large-bodied such as cranes and geese that are attracted to the refuge during fall and winter migration.

The creation of new wetlands within the 5 mile radius of the Sunport/KAFB airport would still maintain an acreage of wetlands/water below one percent and would not result in the refuge being the largest source of water in the buffer area because of the proximity of the river (SWCA 2012), but since water can be attractive to a wide variety of wildlife, refuge wetland management would use the strategies mentioned above and other sound, adaptive management strategies to limit the attractiveness of wetlands to large-bodied and flocking birds. Additionally the refuge will engage in surveys of target species and share data on a regular basis.

If these areas do increase the number and volume of these large-bodied and flocking birds, the refuge would reevaluate wetland management strategies to better manipulate flood and disturbance regimes to achieve the desired management objective, which is to provide habitat for a variety of native wildlife species (e.g., mainly pollinators, riparian plants, small bodied neo- tropical birds, reptiles, and amphibians) that pose low hazards to aircraft while providing high quality environmental education and interpretation opportunities for visitors.

Wetlands and associated refuge ponds would not be subject to the stormwater facilities 48 hour or 96 hour rules. It would not be feasible to flood and drain wetlands within 48 hours because


some plants and wildlife would be negatively affected by rapid flooding and drawdowns. Slow drawdowns that last from two to three weeks are usually more desirable for wildlife and plants and would be timed to fit the needs of desired plants and wildlife (Nelms 2007).

It is currently unknown what the projected DUDs per acre would be for this proposed action since decisions about final plant species (e.g., which species plants would be used and planting or seeding rates of those species) are ongoing. The refuge would continue to work with the Service’s Migratory Bird office and use standard protocols for plant and wildlife monitoring once proposed habitat is established on the refuge.

The refuge would not be maintaining turf-like conditions and would not be planting crop species for waterfowl or waterbirds such as corn, wheat, or millet in restored areas as recommended in the FAA AC 150/5200-33B and consistent with refuge establishing purposes. Herbaceous vegetation heights would be maintained at round 6 inches or higher to not mimic turf-like conditions as recommended in the FAA AC 150/5200-33B and in a wildlife hazard assessment (WHA) and other wildlife management documents prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants for the Sunport.

As with Alternative A, the refuge would continue to inform the Sunport and KAFB about the progress of the refuge’s development and DUDs through participation in a wildlife hazard management group composed of the Service, Sunport, FAA/ATCT, USAF Safety Center, KAFB bird aircraft strike hazard teams, and other local businesses to help address potential bird strikes and other wildlife hazards to aircraft. In addition, the refuge could be a central location for trainings for Sunport and airline personnel who would like to learn about the hazards associated with bird strikes and identification of hazardous wildlife species.

Mosquito Population on Valle de Oro NWR To address mosquitoes, proposed wetlands would increase habitat for insectivores (e.g., bats, amphibians, dragonflies, and insect-eating birds like swallows), which would likely decrease the overall population of mosquitos on the refuge. Mosquitofish would also be introduced in the wetlands/ponds to further address this concern for public health and safety.


2.4 Alternative C To acknowledge comments received during scoping, Alternative C retains the current, straight alignment of the Barr Interior Drain (Figure 12) and has the visitor center complex located in the southeastern corner of the refuge. This alternative addresses issues raised during scoping about resolving the ownership of the property and concerns about the functionality of a curved drain. The location of the visitor center is in response to the NPS proposal to have the visitor complex coincide with their preferred designs for the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro trail. All refuge and habitat acreage and trail lengths are approximate and will vary slightly based on design and construction requirements.

2.4.1 Habitat Restoration and Management Under Alternative C, habitat restoration and management would be implemented similar to Alternative B. The Barr Interior Drain would remain in its current alignment as described in Alternative A. The AMAFCA features would be the same as Alternative B. As described in Alternative B, a HMP would be written to describe specific habitat management strategies of the refuge.

Non-native Plant Species Same as Alternative B.

Fire Management Same as Alternative B.

2.4.2 Visitor Services Access for Historic Recreational Water Activities Same as Alternative B.

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography Same as Alternative B.

Environmental Education Same as Alternative B.

Interpretation Same as Alternative B.

Special Events and Outreach Same as Alternative B.

Community Food Garden and Native Plant Nursery Same as Alternative B.

Horseback Riding Under this alternative, horseback riding would not be allowed on the refuge perimeter trail or anywhere else on the refuge.

Cycling Under this alternative, cycling would not be allowed on the perimeter trail. Cycling would only be allowed on the paved entrance road to the visitor center. Bike racks would be provided at the visitor center and at the southwest access point into the refuge from the bosque.


Figure 12. Alternative C concept maps.


Transportation Same as Alternative B, except that horse use and cycling would not be allowed on the perimeter trail. Only pedestrians would be allowed to access the refuge’s trail system from the Paseo del Bosque trail.

Commercial Activities Identified commercial activities would continue as detailed in Alternative A. The refuge would phase out agricultural production until it is no longer needed for management purposes. The only other potential commercial activity would be a native plant nursery located near the visitor center complex. This activity is pending further compliance with laws and policies and the establishment of a Cooperative Land Management Agreement between the refuge and Bernalillo County, which would all need further NEPA analysis.

Canoe/Kayaking Access Same as Alternative B.

Walking/Jogging Same as Alternative B.

Off-highway Vehicles Same as Alternative A.

2.4.3 Facilities Infrastructure Roads Public Roads: The entrance road into the refuge would be further south along 2nd Street SW with a shorter paved entrance road leading to the visitor center complex.

Administrative Roads: Administrative roads remain the same as in Alternative B.

Symbol Key for Alternative C



Visitor Facilities The visitor center complex would be developed as described under Alternative B; however, it would be on the far southeast corner of the refuge.

Parking Parking locations would be moved to the southeast area with the visitor center.

Restrooms Restroom facilities would be similar to Alternative B. There would be an additional self- contained composting toilet near the northeast end of the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro trail.

Outdoor Classroom, Amphitheater, and Nature Explore Classroom This area would move to the southeast area with the visitor center.

Trail System Opportunities would be similar to those identified under Alternative B. However, there would be a slight change in trailheads, routes, and locations as depicted in Figure 13.

Administrative Facilities Maintenance Facilities Maintenance facilities would be constructed as described under Alternative B, but would be in the southeast corner of the refuge within the visitor center complex.

Utilities Similar to Alternative B with the exception of a shorter distance to the 2nd Street SW trunk lines.

Boundary Fence Same as Alternative B. All gates would have signs to remind visitors that horseback riding would not be allowed on the refuge and that cycling would be restricted to paved entrance roads only.

2.4.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Same as Alternative B.

2.4.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan

Same as Alternative B.

Barr Interior Drain Same as Alternative A.

2.4.6 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Same as Alternative B.

Mosquito Population on Valle de Oro NWR Same as Alternative B.


2.5 Alternative D Under this alternative, habitat restoration would emphasize uplands, grasslands, and riparian areas (Figure 15). Aside from the 0.25-acre permanent pond, no wetland features would be created. Alternative D is proposed in response to concerns expressed by KAFB about the attraction of wetlands to large-bodied and flocking birds. All refuge and habitat acreage and trail lengths are approximate and will vary slightly based on design and construction requirements

2.5.1 Habitat Restoration and Management Under Alternative D, habitat restoration and management for the uplands and riparian areas would be implemented as in Alternative B. The Barr Interior Drain would be curved and AMAFCA features would be the same as Alternative B. Commercial agricultural hay and alfalfa production would cease, leaving fallow the 510 acres of farm fields. Wetlands would not be restored, except for the 0.25-acre permanent pond near the visitor center.

Non-native Plant Species Same as Alternative B.

Fire Management Same as Alternative B.

2.5.2 Visitor Services Access for Historic Recreational Water Activities Same as Alternative B.

Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography Similar to Alternative B; however, wetland related plants and wildlife would be limited to the AMAFCA swale and the area near the 0.25-acre pond.

Environmental Education Similar to Alternative B, but the aquatic environmental education programs would be limited to the pond near the visitor center and the AMAFCA swale.

Interpretation Similar to Alternative B, but interpretative programs related to aquatic habitat would be limited to the pond near the visitor center and the AMAFCA swale.

Special Events and Outreach Same as Alternative B.

Community Food Garden and Native Plant Nursery Same as Alternative B.

Horseback Riding Same as Alternative B.


Figure 14. Alternative D—Elimination of Wetlands.


Cycling Same as Alternative B.

Transportation Same as Alternative B.

Commercial Activities Same as Alternative B, with the exception that all commercial agricultural practices would cease at the end of the current Cooperative Land Management Agreement and would not be renewed.

Canoe/Kayaking Access Same as Alternative B.

Walking/Jogging Same as Alternative B.

Off-highway Vehicles Same as Alternative B.

2.5.3 Facilities Infrastructure Roads Same as Alternative B.

Visitor Facilities Same as Alternative B.

Symbol Key for Alternative D


Parking Same as Alternative B.

Restrooms Same as Alternative B.

Outdoor Classroom, Amphitheater, and Nature Explore Classroom Same as Alternative B.

Trail System Same as Alternative B.

Administrative Facilities Maintenance Facilities Same as Alternative B.

Utilities Same as Alternative B.

Boundary Fence Same as Alternative B.

2.5.4 Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Similar to Alternative B but with additional efforts directed at monitoring invasive species.

2.5.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan Same as Alternative B.

Barr Interior Drain Same as Alternative B.

2.5.6 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Under Alternative D, commercial agricultural hay production and irrigation would cease at the end of the current Cooperative Land Management Agreement and would not be renewed. Wetlands would not be restored, except for the 0.25-acre permanent pond near the visitor center. Management of the pond would be the same as Alternative B.

AMAFCA features would be the same as Alternative B.

Mosquito Population on Valle de Oro NWR Similar to Alternative B; however, standing water would be limited to the 0.25 acre permanent pond near the visitor center and during the times when water is introduced to the landscape to saturate the soil and promote the growth of vegetation in restored areas.



2.6 Comparison of Alternatives

All refuge and habitat acreage and trail lengths are approximate and will vary slightly based on design and construction requirements.

Table 2. Comparison of alternatives.

Comparison of Issues per Alternative

Issue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No Action) (Proposed Action)

Habitat Restoration and Management Restoring Riparian and Continue large-scale Phase out agricultural practices Same as Alternative B Only restore riparian areas, not Wetland Areas agricultural practices, while restoring a mosaic of including wetlands; one 0.25

restoration would not occur habitats including riparian acre pond near visitor center areas and wetlands

Barr Interior Drain Current location, straight Restoration includes curved Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative B Alignment configuration configuration

Restoring Upland Areas Continue large-scale Phase out agricultural practices Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B; more agricultural practices, while restoring a mosaic of upland restoration restoration would not occur habitats including uplands

areas Non-native Plant Species Continue large-scale Phase out agricultural Same as Alternative B Farming ceases at the end of

agricultural cultivation; use cultivation; use IPM strategies; current agreement; use IPM approved herbicides use approved herbicides strategies; use approved

herbicides Prescribed Fire as Habit No prescribed fire; may burn Burn wood piles, as needed; Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B Management Tool wood piles of non-native use prescribed fire to manage

species, as needed habitats


Issue Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Alternative C Alternative D

Visitor Services Hunting No hunting Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Fishing No fishing on the refuge; would continue to provide access to fishable drains outside the western boundary

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Maintain opportunities for about 6,000 visitors annually

Increase opportunities through restoration and visitor services facilities for about 75,000 visitors annually

Same as Alternative B Opportunities would increase from Alternative A, but have a slight decrease compared to B and C because of no wetlands

Environmental Education Maintain current programs that reach about 5,000 students annually

Increase and enhance programs through restoration and visitor services facilities for about 10,000 students annually

Same as Alternative B Increase and enhance programs from Alternative A, but have a slight decrease compared to B and C because of no wetlands

Interpretation Maintain interpretation for about 4,000 visitors annually

Increase opportunities through restoration and visitor services facilities for about 35,000 visitors annually

Same as Alternative B Opportunities would increase from Alternative A, but have a slight decrease compared to B and C because of no wetlands

Special Events and Outreach

Continue to conduct events for up to about 600 visitors per event

Enhance opportunities through public use facilities to host over 2,000 visitors annually through special events

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Community Garden and Native Plant Nursery

No community garden or native plant nursery

Work with Bernalillo County to find most feasible locations for a food garden in the community; cooperative land agreement for a native plant nursery; additional NEPA required for both


Horseback Riding Allowed on the 6 miles of roads

Allowed on the 4 mile perimeter trail

No horseback riding Same as Alternative B

Cycling Allowed on the 6 miles of roads; no bike racks

Allowed on the 4 mile perimeter trail; install bike racks

No cycling Same as Alternative B


(No Action) (Proposed Action)

Issue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Visitor Services, continued Transportation No transportation services;

refuge shuttle provided during special events

Work with partners to have a refuge rail runner and bus stop; connect to Paseo del Bosque trail

Same as Alternative B; rail runner bridge access would be further from visitor center

Same as Alternative B

Commercial Activities Would evaluate through SUP; activities that have occurred are bird tours, food trucks, commercial filming, alfalfa/grass hay production

Same as Alternative A; no more large-scale agricultural practices after current agriculture practices are phased out


Canoe/Kayak Access No opportunities or launch sites nearby


Walking/Jogging Allowed on the 6 miles of roads

Walking allowed on about10 miles of trails; jogging only on the 4 mile perimeter trail


Off-highway Vehicles No off-highway vehicles allowed


Facilities Visitor Center and Parking No visitor center; existing

farm house used as welcome center; parking not clearly designated

Construct a complex centered around visitor center with designated

Similar to Alternative B; however, visitor center complex moved to southeast corner of the refuge


Maintenance Facilities No maintenance facilities Construct maintenance facilities that are reminiscent of the milk barn

Similar to Alternative B; moved to be near visitor center complex in southeast


Existing Infrastructure Low quality welcome center; unrepairable, unsafe milk barn

Demolish all existing infrastructure


Outdoor Classroom, Amphitheater, and Nature Explore Classroom

One outdoor classroom in southwest corner

Construct amphitheater, nature explore, and outdoor classrooms near visitor center

Same as Alternative B; moved to southeast corner with visitor center



Issue Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B (Proposed Action)


Facilities, continued Trail System About 6 miles of roads About 10 miles of designated

trails; trail loop in northeast section

Same as Alternative B; no trail loop in northeast section


Public Roads About 6 miles of roads Paved entrance road only Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Administration Roads About 6 miles of roads Limited to designated trails to serve dual purpose


Boundary Fence Continue to improve boundary fence; signage


Restroom Facilities 3 outside portable toilets, 1 indoor toilet at existing farm house, and 2 indoor toilets in portable classroom space

1 self-containing composting toilet; indoor and outdoor restrooms at the visitor center

Same as Alternative B; additional self-containing composting toilet


Inventory, Monitoring, and Research Conducted by Non-Service staff

Approved through SUP on a case-by-case basis; only 7 groups

Same as Alternative A; opportunity for more projects and groups; coordinated with refuge priorities

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B; slight decrease in number of groups and projects because of no wetlands

Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan

Work with AMAFCA on design of stormwater drainage swale system


Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Agricultural practices within

proximity to the Rio Grande makes the refuge about 90 percent attractive to large- bodied and flocking birds

Restoration of a mosaic of habitat would help reduce attractiveness of the refuge to large-bodied and flocking birds

Same as Alternative B Restoration similar to Alternative B; however no wetlands, further reducing attractiveness of habitat to large-bodied and flocking birds

Mosquitos Currently, no mosquito control

Use mosquitofish in wetlands; attract insectivores through habitats

Same as Alternative B Use mosquitofish in pond; attract insectivores through riparian areas; no wetlands


3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section provides a description of the affected resources determined to be applicable to the proposed action. Valle de Oro NWR encompasses 570 acres of land in the South Valley of Bernalillo County, about 7 miles south of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The refuge is east of the Rio Grande and adjacent Rio Grande bosque, west of the Manzano and Sandia Mountains, and about 3 miles southwest of the Sunport/KAFB airport.

3.1 Physical Environment

The refuge lies at an altitude of about 4,900 feet. Historically, 510 acres were precisely leveled to support flood irrigation agricultural production. Currently, 437 acres are vegetated by alfalfa and various fescue grasses for hay. Land use surrounding the refuge includes industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential development, creating an array of threats to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. In addition, other threats include invasive plants and wildlife, feral animals, crop monocultures, habitat fragmentation, pathogens, and pollutants from stormwater runoff and industrial contaminants of the surrounding area. The adjacent bosque is managed by the NMSLO, USBR, MRGCD, and the Rio Grande Valley State Park through AOS.

The historic landforms that characterized the area were the Rio Grande floodplain, Tijeras Arroyo fan, Rio Grande avulsed channel (former Rio Grande river channel), upland channel fans, and the Rio Grande upland floodplains, which ultimately were in marshy and alkali vegetated habitats as shown in Figure 16 and 17 and Table 3. The historic landforms are no longer functioning due to agricultural development and flood control within the Middle Rio Grande Valley floodplain.


Figure 16. 1935 Geomorphology and landform map for Valle de Oro NWR.


Figure 17. Habitats mapped in 1918 with the Rio Grande Drainage Survey for Valle de Oro NWR (key in Table 3; Tashjian 2013).


Table 3. Key to habitat map (Figure 17).

1917-18 Rio Grande Drainage Survey Map Codes

Map Unit Symbols Map Unit Symbols Meanings

A Alkali

C Cottonwood

CC1 Cultivated Class 1

CC2 Cultivated Class 2

MD Meadow

MR Marsh

null Null poly

O Orchard

S Sand

S/SB Sand and Sagebrush

SB Sage Brush

Sh/SB Sand Hills and Sage Brush

T Timber

3.1.1 Climate Change The South Valley has a semi-arid climate with average maximum temperatures of 71ºF and average minimum temperature of 41ºF. Temperatures in the South Valley typically vary from 21ºF to 91ºF. Average annual precipitation is about 10 inches. Brief rain storms from July to October provide half of annual precipitation events. Snow usually occurs from November to early-April although snow accumulations are rare. The average frost-free season for the area is 190 days, usually from mid-April to late-October. Relative humidity averages 20 percent to 50 percent. Winds mainly blow from the north during winter and from the south during the summer; they can reach speeds of up to 32 miles per hour. Average wind speed is about 10 miles per hour (USACE 2011).

Climate patterns are generally driven by regional and global influences. Predictions for pending climate change for the Southwest include alterations in the precipitation timing and type, earlier snowpack release, and increasing temperatures that would shift river hydrographs and stress natural systems, which could increase the potential for future severe droughts and/or flood events (IPCC 2007).


In 2014, the refuge participated in the Climate Change Scenario Planning Project (CCSP) for the Southwest region. The CCSP studied potential temperature and precipitation changes and projected associated impacts on area wildlife. The CCSP found that the region would face an increased risk of extreme high temperatures, drought, and wildfires. New Mexico is already confronting these threats. Of the 20 largest wildfires recorded in New Mexico’s history, 19 of them occurred in the last 15 years. Furthermore, the probability of human-caused wildfires is heightened by the overall proximity of dense urban populations to locations with ample amounts of dry brush. Changing precipitation patterns, warmer temperatures, and corresponding drought pose additional hazards to Central New Mexico’s riparian zone, which has been identified as the most critical habitat in the region. Because of riparian habitats’ reliance on water resources, they are exceptionally vulnerable to climate change and human activity. In Central New Mexico, human development alone has drained over 80 percent of the historic wetlands. Final Climate Change Scenario Planning fact sheets for Valle de Oro are located in Appendix VII.

The Upper Rio Grande and New Mexico’s rising temperatures have already negatively impacted endangered and threatened wildlife species (MRCOG 2014). If climate trends continue along their current trajectory, these species are at greater risk of extinction. Decreases in stream flows, reductions in available water to support riparian habitats, longer periods of drought, and more frequent and severe wildfires contribute to species decline. Moreover, because each species individually plays an important role in their ecosystem, the loss or diminishment of any one population could have major repercussions for the ecosystem as a whole.

Climate change is a growing challenge facing conservation and natural resource managers, especially since it poses unique challenges to wildlife management. While there is evidence to support climate change occurrences based on long-term monitoring networks observations, there have been limited studies done in this region, especially along the Middle Rio Grande Valley (USACE 2011). Currently, land use and management of the refuge does little to sequester carbon and has minimal influence on climate patterns.

3.1.2 Air Quality Under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401-7671q, as amended in 1990), the Service has a responsibility to protect air quality and related values from the adverse effects of air pollution and to comply with Federal, State, and local air pollution control laws and regulations. Polluted air injures wildlife and vegetation, causes acidification of water, degrades habitats, accelerates weathering of buildings/structures and other facilities, and impairs visibility. The land use surrounding the refuge includes agricultural and industrial production, which contributes to air pollution nearby.

Though Bernalillo County has met the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, there are a wide variety of emission sources in the Albuquerque metropolitan area that affect the air quality. In a 2007 project response from the City of Albuquerque’s Environmental Health Department (Jaramillo and Kavouras 2007), the department indicated that concentrated levels of hazardous air pollutants in the greater Albuquerque area can potentially pose a threat to the local population, especially those residing in the vicinity of industrial, commercial, and/or warehousing activities. In the South Valley, emission sources and air quality threats come from the diversity of land uses characterized by a mix of urban and rural population densities, as well

https://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/central-new-mexico-climate-change-scenario-planning-project


as industrial and commercial expansion. Additionally the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, who has the authority and responsibility to prevent or abate air pollution in Bernalillo County, currently evaluates permits based on individual impact with no consideration for the cumulative impact of polluting facilities in an area. Some of the industries located in the area of the refuge include a power station, the City/County sewage treatment plant, asphalt plants and tank farms, auto dismantlers, brick manufacturers, and a meat packing plant (Kavouras et al. 2015).

3.1.3 Soils and Topography Prior to refuge establishment, the land was precisely leveled to facilitate irrigation water delivery for agricultural operations. Current topography on the refuge ranges from 4,900 to 4,950 feet. The only noticeable topographic features are the numerous water delivery or drainage ditches and canals.

Based on a 2016 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Valle de Oro NWR, the refuge contains the following soil series (as depicted in Figure 18): Agua (42 percent or 240 acres), Anapra (11 percent or 65 acres), Glendale (20 percent or 112 acres), and Brazito (14 percent or 78 acres). See Figures 18 and 19 and Table 4 for the full list of soil types found on the refuge.

The Agua series is the predominant soil type found on the refuge, accounting for 42 percent (240 acres). These soils are typically found in arid and semi-arid climates at elevations of about 2,200 to 5,000 feet. They are well-drained soils, with moderate permeability and slow runoff, and are used to support vegetation suitable for livestock grazing in non-irrigated areas. Anapra soils are deep and well-drained with moderately slow permeable soils on bottomlands that formed in stratified loamy material underlain by sandy material. Slopes tend to range from 0 to 1 percent and are present in floodplains of major streams or rivers, such as the Rio Grande. Glendale soils are very similar to Agua soils; they are well-drained but are formed in stratified alluvium and found on alluvial fans, floodplains, and stream terraces with slopes of 0 to 5 percent. Glendale soils are used to support livestock grazing and irrigated croplands. Brazito soils are very deep, well-drained but rapidly permeable soils that formed in sandy alluviums derived from a variety of igneous and sedimentary rocks. These soils are found in floodplains, low terraces of major streams, and dunes with slopes that range from 0 to 5 percent. Much like the other soils found on the refuge, Brazito soils are used for cropland, livestock grazing, and urban land use (USDA 2014).

Soil conditions (e.g., nutrient and organic matter content) have been altered substantially (compared to historic conditions) due to many years of farming. In addition, tilling practices have altered water infiltration properties of the soil. Agricultural practices such as plowing and disking also expose soil to wind and water erosion.


Figure 18. NRCS Soil Survey of Valle de Oro NWR, May 2014 (NCRS 2016).


Figure 19. Key to NRCS Soil Survey of Valle de Oro NWR (Figure 15; NRCS 2016).

Table 4. Map unit legend for the NRCS Soil Survey at Valle de Oro NWR (NRCS 2016*).

Map Unit Map Unit Name Acres in Percent of Symbol AOI AOI

Af Agua loam MLRA 42 97.4 17.0%

Ah Agua loam, wet variant 142.6 25.0%

An Anapra silt loam MLRA 42 12.0 2.1%

Ao Anapra silty clay loam MLRA 42 53.3 9.3%

Ar Armijo clam loam MLRA 42 38.2 6.7%

BCC Bluepoint loamy fine sand, 1% to 9% slopes MLRA 42 3.0 0.5%

Br Brazito fine sandy loam MLRA 42 48.3 8.5%

Bs Brazito silty clam loam MLRA 42 7.5 1.3%

Bt Brazito complex 21.9 3.8%

Gb Gila loam, 0% to 1% slopes MLRA 42-1 25.4 4.4%

Gk Glendale loam MLRA 42 111.4 19.5%

Gm Glendale clay loam, 0% to 1% slopes MLRA 42-1 0.1 0.0%

VbA Vinton sandy loam, 0% to 1% slopes 10.1 1.8%

Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) 571.4 100.0%

*This is from the survey of Bernalillo County and parts of Sandoval and Valencia Counties, New Mexico (NM600).

3.1.4 Surface and Ground Water Quality In the Middle Rio Grande Basin, the surface water and groundwater systems are intimately linked through a series of complex interactions, making it difficult to recognize the boundaries between the two systems. The most prominent hydrologic feature in the basin is the Rio Grande. Historically, the Rio Grande has flowed year-round through much of the basin, except during severe drought. Within the basin, tributary streams, wastewater treatment plants, flood diversion channels from urban areas, and a large number of arroyos and washes contribute flow to the river. During irrigation season, a complex network of canals, ditches, and drains divert the river and recharge groundwater, among other processes. The primary use of surface water in the South Valley is for irrigation (Bartolino and Cole 2002).

In the Middle Rio Grande, any water rights that originate prior to 1907 are considered senior water rights and are meant to have more security than rights junior to this date. Only tribal water rights, which are considered prior and paramount, supersede pre-1907 water rights. The refuge has both senior and junior water rights. The refuge has a license for 261 acres associated with



senior water rights. The remaining 249 acres of irrigated lands have junior status water rights. As part of the first phase of refuge acquisition, 73 acres of senior water rights were transferred to the USBR for deposit into the New Mexico Strategic Reserve to help relieve pressures upon the water resources within New Mexico. The strategic reserve is a pool of publicly held water rights dedicated to keeping New Mexico’s rivers flowing to meet the needs of river-dependent endangered species and to fulfill water delivery obligations to other states such as Texas. It is a tool for New Mexico to achieve sensible and sustainable water policies by balancing water use between cities, industry, agriculture, and the rivers of the state (Tsosie et al. 2013).

The refuge has completed the change in place of use permit for the senior water rights (through the OSE) in order to redistribute the remaining senior water rights in appropriate areas on the refuge for the future restoration needs (April 2017). The refuge is currently working on an MOU with MRGCD for the management of the senior and junior water rights on the refuge as well as for the potential relocation and management of the Barr Interior Drain.

As per the Cooperative Land Management Agreement with the cooperative farmer on the refuge, the farmer has permission to use the refuge’s water rights with the condition that he must pay for its use and monitor the delivery of the water to designated fields.

The use of the refuge’s water rights can be accessed through groundwater supply wells in the winter and both the MRGCD irrigation infrastructure and groundwater supply wells in the irrigation season/summer (March to October). The license includes five groundwater wells that are supplemental to the surface water rights of the refuge. Current depth to groundwater is shown in Figure 20. Surface irrigation water diversions include the Williams Lateral, Barr Interior, and Barr Spur Drains. The Williams Lateral irrigation canal runs along the outside western side of the refuge and supplies irrigation water in the spring and summer. The Barr Interior Drain, which functions as a drain and as a storm runoff conveyance, runs north-south bisecting the refuge and continues north and south of the property; the Barr Spur Drain runs along the north refuge boundary to the midpoint of the refuge. All forms of the irrigation canals and drains are managed by MRGCD. There are approximately 4 miles of irrigation ditches on the refuge. Historically, the Barr Interior Drain has been managed by MRGCD and has functioned without resolution of property titles. The drain currently lies outside of the boundary of refuge; the Service is working closely with MRGCD regarding future access, management, and the potential reconfiguration, or realignment, of the Barr Interior Drain to ensure the drain continues to function as designed. Additionally a series of five drain tiles are located below ground on both the east and west side of the Barr Interior Drain. These drain tiles were vacated by the MRGCD in May of 2010.

The AMAFCA swale is still in the design phase but would be implemented on the west side of the refuge in phases, which would take land out of agricultural production and would help with urban runoff from the neighborhoods north of the refuge. The swale would be designed to not impair the function of the surrounding drains.

One potential source of groundwater quality pollution on the refuge may be the current 2,500 gallon septic tank and an about 540 square foot leach field system. In a 2004 study on the


impacts from on-site septic systems on groundwater quality in New Mexico, it was stated that “on-site septic systems have contaminated more acre-feet of ground water, and more public and private water supply wells, than all other sources combined”. This research stated that on-site “septic systems can contaminate ground water with dissolved solids, nitrate, anoxic constituents (e.g., manganese, iron and hydrogen sulfide), organic compounds, and microorganisms” and that “widespread ground-water contamination…has occurred in many rural areas utilizing on-site wells and septic systems” (McQuillan 2004).

Testing of the Rio Grande, the Williams Lateral, AMAFCA bosque swale, and other drains and wells around the refuge by Amigos Bravos and Wetwater Environmental Services showed that the main contaminants of the area are: pharmaceuticals and personal care products (e.g., antibiotics, beta-blockers, and other medicines), herbicides, sugar substitutes, phosphorous, aluminum, E. coli, and flame retardants. Many of these contaminants were shown to exceed standards set by the EPA and/or the State of New Mexico when present in samples, which were taken after most rain events.


Figure 20. November 2011 depth to groundwater at Valle de Oro NWR (Tashjian 2013).

Depth to Groundwater (in feet)

3.07

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00


3.1.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management Plan According to AMAFCA, most of the refuge is within the area subject to inundation by 100-year flood events. There are numerous flood control dams and diversions higher in the watershed, all minimizing the chances for Rio Grande main channel flood events on the refuge. Flood events large enough to affect the refuge are likely to be rare and would be the result of flash floods occurring in the immediate vicinity of the refuge. The AMAFCA swale is still in the design phase but would be implemented on the west side of the refuge in phases, which would take land out of agricultural production and would help with urban runoff from the neighborhoods north of the refuge. The swale would be designed to not impair the function of the surrounding drains.

Barr Interior Drain The Barr Interior Drain runs north to south roughly through the center of the refuge. This MRGCD facility is not a designated stormwater drainage facility, but it has the potential to overflow in a large storm event. The current, straight alignment of the Barr Interior Drain has decreased flow due to its slope and the addition of crossings and structures that have contributed to elevation and flow issues.

3.2 Biological Environment 3.2.1 Vegetation The majority of the refuge consists of agricultural fields that are used to grow various fescue grass and alfalfa hay in monoculture conditions. Other dominant vegetation species include Johnsongrass, common dandelion, Palmer amaranth, and yellow salsify. Little native vegetation occurs on the refuge. Sparse trees (e.g., Siberian elm) and shrubs (e.g., four-winged saltbush) occur along the perimeter of the refuge and around the old farm buildings on the far eastern corner near 2nd Street SW and where old buildings used to be along 2nd Street SW. Native species diversity and numbers are low (e.g., six-week grama, yerba mansa, and Hooker’s evening primrose) and mainly occur in areas outside of the cultivated areas, adjacent to the agricultural fields, along irrigation canals, and along the perimeter of the refuge. Due to the low diversity of vegetation, wildlife diversity is also low.

A refuge seedbank study was conducted but no viable native species were germinated, suggesting that after 80 years as a dairy farm, the refuge may not have any native species present in the seedbed. In addition, research fields show that invasive species would dominate the refuge if fields are left fallow without active management.

Non-native Plant Species Non-native plants are prevalent in and around the refuge. Past agricultural practices used herbicides and cultivation to keep invasive species at bay. Valle de Oro NWR is currently in agricultural production of non-native grasses and alfalfa for hay. Non-native plants were inventoried in 2015 by the Service’s Region 2 New Mexico Invasive Species Strike Team (NMISST). The list was categorized by species that are highly invasive or troublesome. The most prevalent invasives at the refuge include saltcedar, Russian olive, Siberian elm, tumbleweed or Russian thistle, and kochia. The main invasive species found along the boundaries of the refuge were Russian olive, saltcedar, Siberian elm, and perennial pepperweed.


A more extensive list of invasive weeds observed at the refuge is presented in Table 5 below. Figure 21 shows a map of the distribution of invasive plants reported by NMISST from their May 2015 survey. It should be noted that at the time of the survey the agricultural fields were in active production, making it hard to detect the presence of invasive plants in the fields. Invasive plants inhabit the perimeter of the refuge where neighboring lands and roads are potential sources of invasive species (Lehnen 2015). The refuge would continue to use herbicides and other techniques to control current targeted non-native plant species (Table 6).

Table 5. List of non-native plant species at Valle de Oro NWR from May 2015.

Non-native Plants on Valle de Oro NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Horseweed Conyza canadensis

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense

Kochia Kochia scoparia

Netseed lambsquarters Chenopodium berlandieri

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola

Puncture vine/Goathead Tribulus terrestris

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Russian thistle Salsola tragus

Saltcedar/Tamarisk Tamarix sp.

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila


Table 6. Current herbicides used on Valle de Oro NWR.

List of Pesticides Used on Valle de Oro NWR

Pesticide Target Pest(s) Integrated Pest Management Strategy

Some Best Management Practices

Ranger Pro Crop Pests (e.g., Foxtail, Johnsongrass; Kochia; Tumbleweed)

• Fields are plowed and disked every year under a cooperative land agreement

• Non-chemical methods are also attempted (e.g., cultivation)

• Application at wind speeds less than 10 mph

• Must follow label • Field scouting/monitoring before

pesticide application • Use lowest legal effective

application rate • Calibrate application equipment

Garlon Ultra 4 Siberian Elm • Science and Research; • Siberian elm would be cut at the

stump then the stump chemically treated; some smaller sprouts will be hand-pulled around sensitive areas (gardens boxes);

• Non-chemical methods are also attempted (e.g., hand pulling)

• Application at wind speeds less than 10 mph

• Must follow label • Calibrate application equipment • Field scouting/monitoring before

pesticide application • Pesticide application buffers

around sensitive areas • Use lowest legal effective

application rate

Figure 21. Location of the most prevalent invasive species at Valle de Oro NWR.



3.2.2 Wildlife The agricultural operation on the refuge provides some habitat for sandhill cranes, Canada geese, snow geese, Ross’s geese, and other waterfowl that feed on the open turf-like fields. Working with the Service’s Migratory Bird office at the Albuquerque Regional Office, it was estimated that the current seasonally flooded alfalfa fields support up to about a 150 DUDs per acre. Occasionally shorebirds, such as killdeer and black-necked stilts, have been observed. Coyotes, black-tailed jackrabbits, rock squirrels, American badgers, Gunnison’s prairie dogs, various butterfly species, whiptail lizards, skinks, side-blotched lizards, various spiders, bull snakes, and desert cottontails have also been observed at the refuge. The current lack of diversity in habitats results in a wildlife community with relatively low species richness. Bosque habitat, which occurs adjacent to the refuge to the west, has been studied extensively in the Middle Rio Grande Valley and has been shown to support a very diverse wildlife community (Finch et al. 1995).

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species Valle de Oro NWR does not currently provide habitat for any federally endangered or threatened species. However, the nearby Rio Grande channel is designated critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the bosque is critical habitat for the federally endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher and the proposed critical habitat for the western distinction population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo, a federally threatened species. The NMDGF has listed at least 12 species of state threatened, endangered, or of special concern within the Middle Rio Grande Valley. These species include the common black hawk, grey vireo, and the spotted bat. At least 15 species have been extirpated throughout the Middle Rio Grande Valley, including the shovelnose sturgeon, with an additional two species being extirpated in Bernalillo County, specifically the blue catfish and the Northern leopard frog (Bailey et al. 2001). Of the 12 state endangered and threatened species, only the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and the common black hawk have been seen in the vicinity of the refuge, mainly located in the adjacent bosque.

Although there are no known federally-listed species present on the refuge, the proposed restoration activities may result in either future beneficial impacts or no impacts on the following species and their critical habitats:

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) The Southwestern willow flycatcher was listed as a federally endangered species in 1995 by the Service. Designated critical habitat was determined for the Southwestern willow flycatcher in January 2013. This subspecies breeds in relatively dense riparian tree and shrub habitat near wetlands, rivers, and other large water bodies. Historically, this species nested in willows, cottonwood, boxelder, and other native riparian vegetation of the Southwest. The breeding range of the Southwestern willow flycatcher includes southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico with some occurrence in the extremes of northwestern Mexico, southern Nevada, and southern Utah (USFWS 2002).

This subspecies of willow flycatcher had declined rapidly due to riparian vegetation removal, thinning, and destruction, as well as diversions of groundwater and waterways, overstocked or mismanaged livestock populations, and human development. In addition to the threat of human


activities and habitat loss, the Southwestern willow flycatcher is subjected to brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism (USFWS 2002).

In a one-year study on the Middle Rio Grande from the Bernalillo Bridge to the La Joya State Wildlife Management Area in Socorro County, the Southwestern willow flycatcher was described as rare during both spring and fall migration and was found strictly in densely vegetated habitat near water (Hawks Aloft 2010). No known breeding sites were located near the refuge during this study; the nearest breeding site is potentially about 1.5 miles to the south within Isleta Pueblo. Currently, there is no habitat for this species on the refuge.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) The western distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo is found primarily in the western portion of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico and was federally-listed as threatened in 2014 by the Service. Proposed designated critical habitat was determined for the western yellow-billed cuckoo in August 2014. Breeding grounds are typically dense willow and cottonwood stands in river floodplains that occur at low to moderate elevations in areas west of the crest of the Rocky Mountains, including the Upper and Middle Rio Grande Valley (USFWS 2001). Population declines are due to riparian habitat loss, alteration of hydrology in breeding sites, habitat fragmentation, and overstocked or mismanaged livestock populations.

A year-long study determined that the western population of the yellow-billed cuckoo was uncommon and considered a rare migrant with no evidence of summering in the Middle Rio Grande Valley (Hawks Aloft 2010). Currently, there is no habitat for this species on the refuge.

New Mexico Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) The New Mexico jumping mouse is a federally endangered species listed in 2014 (USFWS 2014). Designated critical habitat was determined for the jumping mouse in March 2016. The jumping mouse is endemic to Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. It has exceptionally specialized habitat requirements which include tall, dense riparian herbaceous vegetation (primarily composed of sedges and forbs), a habitat type found only when wetlands reach full growth potential associated with seasonally available or perennial flowing water. Moreover, these specialized areas need to be within 6 feet of a stream, river, or wetland, and run alongside the waterbody for a length of 650 to 2,300 feet.

Threats to the New Mexico jumping mouse include wetland drainage, channelization of rivers and streams, grazing pressures of livestock, drought, wildfires, various human development and activities, riparian habitat destruction, and habitat fragmentation and overall loss.

Currently, there is no habitat for this species on the refuge.

Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) The Rio Grande silvery minnow was federally listed as endangered in 1994 by the Service. Designated critical habitat was determined for the silvery minnow in February 2003. Historically, the Rio Grande silvery minnow occupied about 2,400 miles of the river in New Mexico and Texas. Currently, the minnow is only found in a 174 mile stretch that runs from


Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of the Elephant Butte Reservoir, which is about seven percent of its historic range, and there is a pilot population in the Big Bend area of Texas.

The habitat requirements for this species are silt substrates in areas of low or moderate water velocity between 8 inches to 16 inches, depending on the season. Reasons for the decline in this species are attributed to destruction and alteration of its habitat due to dewatering, water diversion and impoundment, and channelization of the river. Furthermore, competition and predation of invasive fish species, poor water quality, and other factors have furthered the decline of this species (USFWS 2007).

The Rio Grande does not flow through the refuge, and the refuge currently does not have habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow. In addition, AMAFCA and refuge stormwater drainage and filtration systems would not directly discharge into the Rio Grande but would improve riparian habitat adjacent to the river.

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) The Mexican spotted owl was listed as federally threatened in March 1993 and its critical habitat was designated in August 2004. Its historic and present range extends from the southern mountains of Colorado into southern Utah and then southward into Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico. There are no accounts of the owl’s historic population size.

Mexican spotted owls nest, roost, forage, and disperse in a variety of biological communities. Habitat requirements for the spotted owl include canyons dominated by vertical-walled rocky cliffs, caves, or ledges that include forested vegetation such as pines, oaks, pinyon-junipers, and/or riparian vegetation. These areas are often situated near some type of water source, such as a pond, small pool of water, or stream. Mixed-conifer forests are commonly used throughout most of the owl’s range.

The primary reason for the decline of the Mexican spotted owl is habitat loss. Mexican spotted owls nest and roost primarily in closed-canopy forests or rocky canyons. Forests used for roosting and nesting often contain mature or old-growth stands with complex structure, are typically uneven-aged, multistoried, and have high canopy closure. Timber management practices and catastrophic wildfire can create even-aged forests, decreasing nesting and roosting sites. (USFWS 2013).

In March 2017, a Mexican spotted owl was seen at Petroglyph National Monument (about 15 miles north of the refuge), with critical habitat and species occurrences in Cibola National Forest, especially in the Sandia and Manzano Mountains, about 40 miles east of the refuge. No spotted owls have been detected within the adjacent bosque or the refuge. There is no habitat for the Mexican spotted owl on the refuge.


3.3 Human Environment 3.3.1 Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources Before the creation of extensive flood control infrastructure in the Middle Rio Grande Valley much of the refuge would have been affected by relatively frequent flood events, making the suitability of the location for archeological sites unlikely. This is especially true in terms of long- term habitation/village sites, which would normally be expected in an area that supported continuous occupation for hundreds of years.

However a historic trail, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (Appendix V), potentially ran though the refuge when the river meandered through the site. The Camino Real de Tierra Adentro was considered the official "Royal Road of the Interior" bringing the first European colonists to the region beginning in 1598.

Decades of mechanized farming at the site would have degraded any archeological resources that may have been present. Historically, the Middle Rio Grande Valley has supported extensive agriculture practices as shown by the many small farms in the South Valley. Other than the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Historic Trail, the refuge does not contain cultural resource features. A letter concurring with the lack of Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources on the refuge from the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is included in Appendix VIII.

3.3.2 Socioeconomic Resources Valle de Oro NWR is about 7 miles south of the city of Albuquerque, which in 2010 reported a population of 546,360. The refuge resides in an unincorporated area of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, known as the South Valley. The South Valley is 29 square miles in total area and home to about 41,000 people, the majority of whom (52 percent) are self-identified Hispanics of Mexican descent. Hispanics of any origin account for about 80 percent of the South Valley population (compared to 47 percent in Albuquerque and 16 percent nationally). Spanish is reportedly spoken in 53 percent of households.

The refuge lies in the southeast corner of the South Valley in the Mountain View neighborhood, which in 2010 reported a population of about 4,912 people. The Mountain View neighborhood is a roughly 12-square mile tract bounded by the Rio Grande to the west, Woodward Ave to the north, and I-25 to the east and south. The population is predominantly Hispanic (79 percent) with nearly 72 percent of self-identified Hispanics reporting Mexican ancestry. Spanish is spoken in about 55 percent of households, compared to 25 percent in Albuquerque.

The median income ($52,700) in Mountain View is higher than those of South Valley and Albuquerque (about $36,800 and $49,300 respectively) although Hispanics in all three areas have lower median incomes than White, non-Hispanics. About 50 percent of respondents in the Mountain View neighborhood and South Valley are either unemployed or not in the labor force, compared to 42 percent in Albuquerque. More than a third (36 percent) of the Mountain View residents aged 25 years or older has not earned at least a high school diploma or General Educational Development Test (GED) (29 percent in the South Valley; 13 percent in Albuquerque). See Table 7 for selected demographics.


Table 7. Comparison of selected socioeconomic characteristics by Place Designation.

Characteristic Mountain View Neighborhood~

South Valley CDP^

Albuquerque Metro Area

Population 4,910 42,060 549,810 People per square mile 500 1,460 2,920

Race & Ethnicity* (%) Hispanic 79 81 47 White, non-Hispanic 19 16 42 Other 3 3 12

Hispanic Ancestry for self-identified Hispanics (%) Mexican 72 64 53 Spanish/Spaniard 9 11 19 Other Hispanic or Latino 19 26 29

Households where Spanish is spoken (%) 55 53 25 Median Household Income (all) $52,700 $36,800 $49,300

Hispanics $41,900 $33,600 $40,600 Whites, Non-Hispanic $52,100 $52,200 $58,300

Educational Attainment (25 years and older) (%) More than a HS diploma or GED 20 17 38 HS diploma or GED 44 54 50 No HS diploma or GED 36 29 13

Employment Status (25-64 years old) (%) Employed 50 51 58 Not in Labor Force 40 42 37 Unemployed 10 7 6

Families with Children in House (%) 36 32 29 ~ Single Census tract ^ Census Designated Place * Not all categories sum to 100% due to rounding. Data from statisticalatlas.com

The average life expectancy for Bernalillo County residents is about 80 years; for residents of most of the South Valley, including Mountain View, the estimated life expectancy is 5 years shorter. Mountain View was an agricultural community re-zoned for heavy industrial use in the 1960s. It has among the greatest concentrations of environmental hazards in the area with about 25 polluting industries that border residential and agricultural properties and two of the three superfund sites in Bernalillo County. “Although researchers cannot say with certainty that these neighborhood conditions cause poor health, the overall pattern suggests that the clustering of social, economic, and environmental health risks in low-income and non-white neighborhoods makes it more difficult for people in these communities to live healthy lives.” (Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 2012). Mountain View is also home to Joy Junction (the state’s largest homeless shelter for families), and Albuquerque’s only Wastewater Treatment Plant2.

2 Retrieved 8/22/16 http://www.doivista.org/showProjectRecord.cfm?ProjectID=85

http://www.doivista.org/showProjectRecord.cfm?ProjectID=85


3.3.3 Visitor Services/Public Access Opportunities for visitor services and related interpretive, outreach, and education activities are currently limited by presence of the monoculture agricultural hay fields. Access to the former dairy farm was not limited by the owners, and there has been some “unofficial” use of the refuge by local citizens. The Rio Grande Valley State Park is adjacent to the refuge and a popular area for recreational activities. The nearest sites offering substantial outdoor wildlife education opportunities are the Rio Grande Nature Center, City of Albuquerque Open Space properties, Bernalillo County Open Space properties, Albuquerque Bio Park, Sandia Mountain Natural History Center and Rio Grande Community Farm (about 10 miles north). There is little or no exposure to the Service or the NWR System at those venues.

Mountain View Elementary School is located a mile and a half miles north of the refuge on 2nd

Street SW, and the Mountain View Community Center is located about two and a half miles to the north on Prosperity Avenue SE. These locations often bring visitors to the refuge and are sites where refuge staff visit to conduct environmental education and outreach programs.

As a refuge, the seemingly mundane area and the adjacent bosque have become prime locations to teach ecology, biology, and the importance of the natural environment. Nex+Gen Academy, South Valley Academy, and Mountain View Elementary are three local schools whose students are actively engaged in educational programs of the refuge.

Vehicle traffic in the area surrounding the refuge is mostly from local residents and businesses. Current public road traffic patterns are typical of low-density residential and light industrial land uses. The refuge is accessible via a gate off of 2nd Street SW between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Refuge staff are occasionally present on-site to address visitor issues or questions and to give tours by request. Public use by pedestrian and horseback riding traffic is not uncommon on the MRGCD- owned Barr Interior Drain and maintenance roads that bisect the refuge. The public has access to 6 miles of unpaved roads on the refuge.

The refuge currently has a welcome center within the existing farm house and offices and classrooms in the temporary buildings behind the house. Public, partner, and staff restrooms are limited to portable toilets around the refuge, the restroom in the welcome center, and restrooms in the temporary buildings, which has a 2,500 gallon septic tank and 540 square foot leach field system. This system cannot support visitor capacity during events, so extra portable toilets are brought in during special events.

3.3.4 Aesthetic and Visual Resources Although the refuge is located within an industrial and residential area, the refuge provides open vistas with views of the Sandia Mountains, Manzano Mountains, Albuquerque Volcanoes, surrounding farm fields, and the adjacent bosque. Visitors have opportunities to view migratory and resident wildlife species on the refuge.

3.3.5 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Kirtland Air Force Base, located in the high desert of north-central New Mexico, occupies approximately 52,000 acres of land in southeast Albuquerque. The Sunport is a commercial


service aviation facility (2,574 acres) that is shared with KAFB. Due to the proximity to the Sunport and KAFB, the refuge is addressing the bird aircraft strike hazard potential in this EA. This section outlines the context for potential bird aircraft strikes in the vicinity of the refuge and surrounding areas as outlined in a WHA completed for the Sunport in 2012 by SWCA Environmental Consultants.

As per FAA AC 150/5200-33B and a FAA issued CertAlert 09-10, an active WHA and wildlife hazard management plan (WHMP) for the Sunport were prepared in June 2012 and January 2014, respectively, to identify potential hazards to aircraft and human safety associated with wildlife populations and movements within a 5 mile radius from the outer edge of the Sunport’s AOA. The Sunport contractors, SWCA Environmental Consultants, considered the entire 5 mile radius (78,979 acres) of surrounding landscape uses when developing these documents and incorporated an October 2011 KAFB bird/wildlife aircraft strike hazard plan into the WHA.

In the 2012 WHA, habitats were identified by a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis and grossly divided into six categories. These categories include wetland/water sources (629 acres), trees and shrubs (6,767 acres), grasslands and open space (44,736 acres), agricultural land (1,986 acres), residential/commercial/industrial (22,287 acres), and airport property (2,574 acres). Examples of main land use areas that were deemed potentially incompatible with safe airport operations and were within the 5 mile radius of the airport’s AOA include the Rio Grande (about 3 miles west of the Sunport), the Mesa del Sol development to the east of KAFB, numerous agricultural fields, golf courses, various open spaces, and the 570-acre Valle de Oro NWR (about 3 miles southwest of the Sunport).

Wildlife hazard surveys were conducted by SWCA biologists to ascertain seasonal and daily patterns and movements of potentially hazardous wildlife within the 5 mile radius of the Sunport/KAFB airport. The wildlife hazard surveys were conducted for 12 consecutive months in 2011, with eight survey points identified; one of which was the refuge when it was still Price’s Dairy and Valley Gold Farms (until late-September 2012). Survey points are identified in Figure 22. The Rio Grande at Bridge Blvd SW (about 5 miles north of the refuge) is identified as Survey Point 7, and the refuge is identified as Survey Point 8.

The refuge was chosen to represent agricultural development within the floodplain and was a prime location for survey biologists to view the interaction between the potentially hazardous wildlife, the land use, and the approach and departure flight paths to the airport. The SWCA biologists determined that the Rio Grande was “…a significant bird attractant located within the buffer area and immediate flight path of aircraft approaching or departing on Runways 08, 03, and 12.” However, waterfowl moving between the Rio Grande and agricultural fields along the floodplains ‘…generally stay well below the flight path of ABQ aircraft; therefore, these movements are not a significant risk to ABQ aircraft.” (SWCA 2012)


Refuge Boundary

Figure 22. Wildlife Hazard Assessment survey points from the SWCA 2012 Sunport WHA (map modified to show refuge boundary).


As part of the Central Flyway, the Rio Grande is an active wildlife corridor for migratory birds including sandhill cranes, snow geese, and Canada geese. It is an essential migration route for the Rocky Mountain population (RMP) of greater sandhill cranes that migrate from Montana along the Rocky Mountains and down into Mexico. Figure 23 shows popular winter feeding and roosting stopovers for RMP sandhill cranes located on or near the refuge. It should be noted that the refuge is a small portion of the overall area used by these cranes (less than one percent) within the corridor and within the 5 mile radius of the Sunport/KAFB airport.

Figure 23. Rocky Mountain Population of sandhill crane use of the Middle Rio Grande Valley Corridor from Albuquerque to Belen.


Historically and currently, the refuge is in cooperative agricultural hay production, which unintentionally leaves plant residue and mimics turf-like conditions that attracted flocks of cranes and geese during fall and winter migrations (September to March) in addition to its proximity to the river. In the summer irrigation season, the shallowly flood irrigated agricultural fields attract flocks of ducks, mainly mallards and shorebirds (e.g., yellowlegs and long-billed curlews). The 2012 WHA notes that peak bird migration times are between September and February and that reported strikes at Sunport/KAFB were highest from July through September and April through May due to migrating species.

According to the 2012 WHA, waterfowl accounted for 20.5 percent of observations during their one year survey period. Bridge Blvd SW at the Rio Grande (Survey Point 7, see Figure 19) and the agriculture fields of Price’s Dairy (Survey Point 8) accounted for most of the waterfowl observations and among those, most were documented at Survey Point 8. Canada geese (65.5 percent), snow geese (28.7 percent), and mallards (4.3 percent) were the most abundant waterfowl in the survey. As a group, wading and shorebirds accounted for 10.4 percent of documented observations, most of which occurred at Survey Points 7 and 8. The group consisted of sandhill cranes (64.4 percent), snowy egrets (11.7 percent), western sandpipers (9.9 percent), and spotted sandpipers (9.9 percent) (SWCA 2012)

Service winter waterbird data from surveys conducted during the 2005-2006, 2013-2014, 2015- 2016, and 2016-2017 seasons are outlined in Table 8. Until 2015, crane and geese data were collected based on the availability of NWR System personnel. Survey protocols and timeframes for data collections varied so direct comparisons from year-to-year are not reliable. These snapshots of waterbird abundance serve as a rough baseline from which to analyze the impacts of the management actions described in the Alternatives B-D. During the later surveys, it was reported that these large-bodied birds primarily used the southwestern, southeastern, and northwestern agricultural fields along with the field surrounding the existing milk barn.

Table 8. Winter waterbird numbers on Valle de Oro NWR (November to February).

Winter Waterbird Data for Valle de Oro NWR Year Average Number of

Dark Geese Average Number of Light Geese

Average Number of Sandhill Cranes

2005-2006* 1,593 Unknown Unknown 2013-2014** Unknown 1,069 201 2015-2016*** 1,856 302 110 2016-2017*** 1,274 105 464 *Surveys were conducted for dark geese only; the refuge was still a dairy farm. **Surveys for sandhill cranes and light geese were conducted once a week, November through February, by Bosque del Apache NWR only after the refuge was established. ***Surveys were conducted by the Valle de Oro NWR biologist and trained volunteers; protocols changed from the 2015-2016 survey to the 2016-2017 survey when counts were conducted twice a week during the survey period.

The SWCA survey found that birds that can attain altitudes of about 1,400 feet such as raptors and other birds of prey (e.g., Swainson’s and red-tailed hawks) accounted for less than one

percent of the survey observations at all points; most raptors and other birds of prey were observed hunting above open spaces or in agricultural fields or soaring above the Rio Grande and its bosque with the greatest number occurring from July through September (SWCA 2012).

In the late fall and winter months, SWCA biologists noted larger groupings of American crows flying hundreds of feet above the Rio Grande floodplain heading up or down the river corridor. Most observations (98 percent) of this species occurred near the agricultural and floodplain habitats and were primarily conducting short flights between agricultural and urban areas near the bosque. It is unclear how many actually used the refuge. Greatest numbers of corvids were observed in March and again between December and February (SWCA 2012).

The blackbird and starlings, flocking bird species, were mainly represented by Brewer’s blackbirds, red-winged blackbirds, great-tailed grackles, and European starlings (an introduced bird species). Most of these observations included small flocking groups of either European starlings or Brewer’s blackbirds perched on telephone wires along city streets and within adjacent military lands. On some occasions, larger groups were observed. The larger groups of about 800 individuals were typically dominated by European starlings and red-winged blackbirds. Again, it is unclear how many blackbirds and starlings use the refuge since these species are mostly attracted to urban environments with mature trees and short grass areas for roosting and feeding. The greatest number of observations occurred November through March with these species flying around agricultural fields and floodplains associated with the Rio Grande.

Mosquito Population on Valle de Oro NWR During summer flood irrigation of agricultural fields, mosquitoes may be present on the refuge but not in large quantities such as those found in the bosque and near the Rio Grande.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can reasonably be expected by the implementation of the alternatives described in Section 2.0. An analysis of the effects of management actions has been conducted on the physical environment (e.g., air quality, water quality, and soils); biological environment (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species); and human environment (e.g., cultural resources, socioeconomic features, visitor services including public use and recreation, and visual and aesthetic resources).

Potential impacts are described in terms of type, quality, duration, intensity, and scale. General definitions are as follows:

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of each alternative are considered in the EA.

• Direct effects are the impacts that would be caused by the alternative at the same time

and place as the action. • Indirect effects are impacts that occur later in time or distance from the triggering action. • Cumulative effects are incremental impacts resulting from other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions, including those taken by federal and nonfederal



agencies, as well as undertaken by private individuals. Cumulative impacts may result from singularly minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

The refuge considered the quality of impacts during the EA.

• Beneficial impacts are those resulting from management actions that maintain or

enhance the quality and/or quantity of identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities.

• Adverse impacts are those resulting from management actions that degrade the quality and/or quantity of identified refuge resources and recreational opportunities.

The EA evaluates the reasonably expected duration of each impact.

• Short-term impacts affect identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities and

occur during implementation of the project but last no longer. • Long-term impacts affect identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities and

occur during implementation of the management action and are expected to persist in the 1 to 5 years following implementation.

The refuge considered the intensity of impact when evaluating the alternatives presented in the EA.

• Negligible impacts result from management actions that cannot be reasonably expected

to alter identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities at the identified scale; impacts are so small that they would not be measureable.

• Minor impacts result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have detectable though limited effects on identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities at the identified scale; impacts are detectable but would affect a small area.

• Moderate impacts result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have apparent and detectable effects on identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities at the identified scale; effects would be readily apparent and would occur over a relatively large area but are not extreme or excessive.

• Major impacts result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have readily apparent and substantial effects on identified refuge resources and recreation opportunities at the identified scale; effects would be readily apparent and would substantially change the characteristics of the resource over a large area and are extreme or excessive.

Impacts are also described in terms of geographic scale.

• Project-specific effects are those that would occur solely within the project area (i.e.,

construction site or treatment area). • Site-specific or Refuge-specific effects are those impacts that would occur within the

refuge boundaries.


• Local community-specific impacts are those that would occur within the surrounding community, defined as the Mountain View neighborhood and the Rio Grande bosque.

• Widespread impacts are those that would occur beyond the local scale.

It has been determined that current management, the proposed action, and other alternatives would not impact geology and mineral resources, therefore, there is no further discussion of these resources in the analysis. Potential impacts to all other resources are addressed below. A comparison of impacts can be found in 4.4 Summary of Impacts.

4.1 Physical Environment 4.1.1 Climate Change In the Albuquerque area, predictions for climate change include alterations in precipitation timing and type, earlier snowpack release, and increased temperatures that would shift river hydrographs and stress natural systems. The refuge considers carbon sequestration, a climate- related phenomenon, in planning the vegetative mosaic for the restoration of uplands, wetlands, and riparian forest areas. Restoring and conserving habitat is the primary management tool in this EA.

Restoring and conserving native vegetation on the refuge may help mitigate or buffer against local climate change impacts to species or ecosystems by increasing the ecological integrity of the native habitat near the adjacent Rio Grande bosque and within the surrounding neighborhood.

After restoration occurs, trees and other permanent vegetation on the site could potentially improve local refuge air, soil, and water quality by sequestering small amounts of carbon. To different degrees, all alternatives analyzed share impacts related to climate change.

Habitat restoration (Alternatives B, C, and D) could help reduce vehicle emissions due to the eventual phase out of agricultural production with its related fuel and other petroleum product use. As refuge visitation increase, there would be increased vehicle traffic in the local community, although the choice to visit the refuge as opposed to a more distant outdoor site might also reduce overall emissions. The refuge is also exploring opportunities for alternative transportation to the refuge, which would likely decrease emissions from vehicle traffic in the local community.

Habitat restoration on the refuge would employ low water use features that may also provide minor mitigation for reduced flows in the local floodplain from unusually dry years and/or the declining moisture conditions predicted by climate change models. If climate changes happen as predicted, wetland, and riparian ecosystems would become increasingly stressed and degraded in the future. Water allocated under the refuge’s senior water rights in excess of that needed for ecological purposes would be considered for in-stream flow contributions to the Middle Rio Grande Valley. In periods of severe to exceptional drought, however, the impact of these seemingly minor contributions could help the main river ecosystem. Given the occasional dewatering of the Rio Grande, any contribution is minimal compared to what is needed to enhance the integrity of the system sufficient to have greater regional climate change mitigation benefits (USFWS 2011).


The use of prescribed burning as a habitat management tool releases carbon dioxide directly in to the atmosphere from the biomass consumed during combustion. Due to the small size of the refuge and anticipated infrequent use, the impact on climate change of prescribed burning under any alternative would be negligible.

The Service contributed to and participated in the Albuquerque CCSP, a project that would inform transportation and land use decision- making in the Albuquerque region. Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG) would use the results of the CCSP analysis in the development of its Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which guides funding for Federal, State, and local transportation investments. The Service’s experience contributed valuable insight to developing MRCOG’s transportation goals.

In addition to helping regional agencies increase the preparedness of their land use and transportation plans, the CCSP’s research should aid the Service by informing refuge environmental management and providing information for Service staff to communicate the risks to the natural environment from climate change. A summary of how the refuge could increase the Albuquerque region’s resiliency to local climate change and extreme weather impacts can be found in the CCSP factsheets in Appendix VII.

The predicted long-term climate change related impacts would occur regardless of which management alternative the Service ultimately selects. Overall, implementing Alternative B, C, or D would have negligible, indirect, beneficial and adverse impacts on global climate change. Though, Alternative A would continue to have negligible indirect adverse impacts.

4.1.2 Air Quality The construction of the AMAFCA swale is a management action common to all alternatives. There would be vehicle emissions from heavy equipment used to recontour and revegetate the land, and blowing dirt from excavation and shaping. The duration and intensity of these events would decrease during regular maintenance of the swale once it is constructed. Vegetation associated with the swale would sequester negligible amounts of carbon. Potential sequestering of emissions could come after the construction and vegetation of the AMAFCA swale, but without a larger scale restoration effort of native and diverse plant species, the direct and indirect impacts of the swale would do very little to improve the air quality of the refuge. Adverse air quality impacts of the construction of the swale would be negligible to minor and short-term. Long-term impacts would be beneficial but negligible on the refuge and in the local community regardless of the alternative selected.

Alternative A—Current Management Under Alternative A, impacts to air quality would remain unchanged from current levels. There would be no additional air quality impacts from construction of wetland, upland, and riparian habitats or the visitor center since these activities would not be implemented under this alternative.

Farming. The current agricultural hay operations at the refuge would impact air quality through greenhouse gases (e.g., emissions from farm vehicles and equipment) and aerosols (e.g., application of fertilizers and herbicides) (Viney et al. 2009). Blowing dust from plowed fields,


dirt parking areas and roads would also introduce dirt and dust into the air. Harvest occurs May through October and requires running two balers for most of the harvest period. Farm equipment is used throughout the refuge. Adverse air quality impacts from agricultural hay operations would be periodic, short-term, direct and indirect, and minor at the refuge and negligible in the local community air quality.

Fire. Prescribed fire is not used on the refuge. Infrequently, piles created after invasive plant species removals may be burned. These infrequent burns could create direct, negligible to minor, short-term adverse impacts on refuge and local community air quality. The use of fire will be more completely explored when the refuge is added to the New Mexico NWR Fire District’s Spatial Fire Management Plan. The Spatial Fire Management Plan will undergo separate NEPA review.

Visitor Use. The refuge welcomes about 6,000 visitors per year, which impacts air quality by way of road dust and vehicular emissions. Visitors are present everywhere on the refuge with vehicles restricted to gravel and dirt roads and parking areas near the southwest corner of the refuge, the existing and the old farm manager’s house that is currently used as a visitor center, and near the information kiosk near the front gate, which is designated by down logs. There is a higher concentration of vehicles on the refuge during major special events, which typically occur in April, September, and November. Impacts to the refuge and the surrounding neighborhood’s air quality are expected to be direct and indirect, minor, adverse, and short-term and long-term.

Overall, under Alternative A these impacts to air quality on the refuge and local community would be negligible to minor, short-term and long-term and adverse. Without habitat restoration, there is little to offset these on-going impacts, even with the implementation of BMPs and IPMs (see Table 6 in Section 3.2.1).

Alternative B—Proposed Action Under this alternative, limited farming, construction of a visitor center complex, topographic contouring for wetland, upland and riparian habitat restoration, increased visitation, and adoption of prescribed fire as a management tool would all effect air quality on the refuge and, potentially, in the local community.

Visitor Center Complex and Related Infrastructure. The construction of the visitor center complex and related trails would require the use of heavy equipment and large trucks that would contribute to air pollution through blowing dirt and diesel engine emissions. This project would take about 2 to 10 years to complete. The result would be direct and indirect, minor to moderate, short-term, adverse impacts on air quality at the site and local community scales.

Habitat Construction and Restoration. The construction of wetland, upland and riparian habitats would require the use of heavy equipment and large trucks that contribute to air pollution through blowing dirt and diesel engine emissions. It is anticipated that full restoration and development of about 566 acres would take 5 to 20 years, depending on funding availability. The extensive construction and landscaping would be intermittent with the phases timed to minimize impacts on air quality at any point in time. The result would be direct and indirect, minor to moderate, short-term, adverse impacts on air quality at the site and local community scales. In the long-term, native vegetation would reduce air pollution through the influence of pollutant


deposition and dispersion, potentially mitigating the effects on air quality of increased vehicular traffic associated with this alternative. Long-term beneficial impacts to air quality would be negligible to minor at the refuge and in the surrounding community.

Farming. As in Alternative A, agricultural hay production would be associated with production of emissions by farm vehicles and equipment, application of fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides, and from blowing dust from plowed fields until restoration occurs. The use of fertilizers would be eliminated and the use of herbicides reduced because of other control measures for invasive plant species. Compared to Alternative A, there would be less blowing dust as plowed fields are transformed into permanent upland, riparian or wetland habitat and hay farming is ultimately eliminated. Impacts of farm-related activities would be short-term, direct, adverse, and negligible to minor.

Fire. Under this alternative, burning of invasive species piles may continue and prescribed burns would become an infrequently used habitat management tool. Compared to Alternative A, which only includes the burning of invasive species brush piles, prescribed burns for habitat management purposes would cover a larger area, create more smoke and therefore have a slightly greater effect on air quality on-site and in the local community. Mitigations for these impacts include: only conducting burns under specific, ideal conditions (e.g., relative humidity and temperatures are not too cold or too high), using specific techniques that best meet management objectives and taking into consideration surrounding land uses. Prescribed burn methods may include staggering the burns over the course of a fire season to further minimize air quality impacts. Full communication on planned prescribed fire events would be shared with surrounding community and affected neighbors and businesses. The impact of fire on air quality under this alternative would be direct, minor to moderate, short-term, adverse impacts on air quality at the site and local community scales.

Visitor Use. Annual refuge use levels are difficult to project, but with the addition of the visitor center complex, related trails and restored habitats, the number of visitors to the refuge is expected to increase substantially from those associated with Alternative A. This would result in additional vehicles traveling through the local community to refuge, thereby increasing vehicle emissions on and near the refuge. On the refuge, public vehicles would be limited to the entrance road, reducing impacts from vehicle emissions and blowing dirt. The refuge would continue exploring alternative transportation options for visitor to reduce the emissions from vehicular use in the local community. The impacts of increased visitation on air quality are direct and indirect, long-term minor and adverse at the refuge and in the surrounding community

Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative B would be adverse, direct and indirect, minor, short- and long-term at the refuge and in the local community. Impacts for Alternative B would greater than Alternative A.

Alternative C Impacts from Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B.


Alternative D Under this alternative, agricultural hay production would cease immediately, eliminating emissions from farming equipment and aerosol use. Given the timeframe for construction of the visitor center and restoration of native plant communities, there would be an increased need for herbicide application or prescribed burns to control invasive species. Impacts to air quality would be site and community-specific, generally minor and adverse.

Habitat Construction and Restoration. There are no wetlands in this alternative. The creation of upland habitat in the place of the wetlands in Alternatives B and C would require less dirt work for contouring and therefore require fewer construction vehicles, reducing the amount of vehicle emissions and potential for blowing dirt. The lack of wetlands limits plant and animal diversity on the refuge and might reduce the number of visitors, especially repeat visitors, over time.

Visitor Use. Potentially, there would be fewer vehicles and less impact from vehicle emissions and road use than Alternatives B and C but still more than in Alternative A.

Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative D would be adverse, direct and indirect, minor, short- and long-term at the refuge and in the local community. Impacts for Alternative D would greater than Alternative A but less than Alternatives B and C.

In summary, the direct and indirect, short-term, adverse minor impacts on air quality from farming would be greater for Alternative A and reduced as farm acreage is phased out in Alternatives B and C and negligible for Alternative D. Minor adverse air quality impacts from visitor use are greatest under Alternatives B and C, less for Alternative D, and least for Alternative A. The adverse effects of prescribed burns are greatest for Alternative D, less for Alternatives B and C, and least for Alternative A. Short-term adverse minor to moderate effects on air quality from the construction of the visitor center complex are the same for Alternatives B, C, and D, and not applicable for Alternative A. Long-term minor benefits to air quality derived from restoration of farm acreage to native plant communities is greatest under Alternatives B and C, less in Alternative D and not applicable for Alternative A.

4.1.3 Soils and Topography Before its purchase by the Service, the refuge site was a working dairy. About 510 acres had been under agricultural hay production; the remaining about 60 acres are on a dirt and gravel footprint, long disturbed by human activities associated with residential housing, maintenance structures and farm infrastructure. Much of the historic topography of the refuge was laser- leveled for flood irrigation of agricultural fields.

The construction of the AMAFCA swale is a management action common to all alternatives. Installation of the swale would require excavation and grading by heavy equipment, which could result in soil compaction, topsoil loss, erosion, siltation, and increased deposition rates. Native vegetation associated with the swale would secure soil and improve soil quality over time. Once vegetation is established and mature, there would be less exposed soil and far less irrigation necessary to assure plant health. This would be expected to reduce erosion, siltation, and deposition to well below current levels.


Impacts on soil and topography associated with the construction and maintenance of the swale are minor, short-term and adverse. Long-term impacts are minor to moderate and beneficial on the refuge and in the local community regardless of the alternative selected.

Alternative A—Current Management There is no visitor center construction or habitat construction or restoration in this alternative. Added impact to soils and typography from visitor use would be direct, short- and long-term and negligible given the current infrastructure and farming activities.

Agricultural practices such as plowing, disking, and flood irrigation would continue to expose soil to wind and water erosion and alter natural water infiltration. It is probable that sediment eroded from the agricultural fields would wash into small drainages and irrigation structures. Soil conditions (e.g., nutrient and organic matter content) that have been altered substantially (compared to historic conditions) after many years of farm management practices, including the application of herbicides, would continue to degrade.

Fire. Fire would not be used in agricultural production, and if wood or brush piles are burned, they would be burned in their current area, which is devoid of vegetation under the piles and be well maintained and controlled as to not affect nearby fields or resources. This would have a negligible impact on soil and soil biota of the wood pile area, which may be beneficial to the location in the long-term as fire would help nourish the soils.

The impacts of this alternative are direct and indirect, short- and long-term, adverse and negligible to minor on the refuge and in the surrounding community.

Alternative B—Proposed Action In this alternative, limited agriculture, construction of a visitor center complex, topographic contouring for wetland, upland, and riparian habitats, increased visitation, and adoption of prescribed fire as a management tool all affect soil quality on the refuge.

Visitor Center Complex and Related Infrastructure. Dirt work during the construction of buildings, visitor use facilities, trails, parking areas, and the AMAFCA project would impact soils and recontour topography to create wetlands, uplands and riparian areas. With demolition and construction, some topsoil would be lost throughout the process. Soils taken from the construction of the wetlands would be used to build up natural topography and raise building facilities out of the floodplain. Wetlands and uplands environments would have micro- topographies built into their designs to maximize the microhabitats of plants and wildlife within these areas and to break up the uniformity of these environments across the landscape.

Building about 10 miles of trails may have impacts on soils based on the different types and substrates of trails that would be constructed. The perimeter and most interior trails of the refuge would be naturally surfaced or compacted dirt paths. Unpaved trails have the highest soil compaction, increasing their ability to resist erosion and are known to reduce impact on the joints of joggers, walkers, and horses. Increased visitor use would also mean increased off-trail use (social trails) and maintenance vehicles may have short-term impacts on the soil as these


undesignated areas are compacted. Soon after discovery, social trails would be closed and revegetated to prevent erosion and further compaction.

The refuge entrance road would be paved asphalt. Asphalt roads have a limited lifetime of about 7 to 10 years and need greater initial excavation and disturbance of the soil to provide the required rock base depth (Beach 2014; Keen 2008; Rails-to-trails Conservancy 2013a and 2013b).

Habitat Construction and Restoration. Restoration of riparian and wetland habitat and establishment of native plant communities would prevent erosion, improve soil quality, build and conserve soil nutrients, and reverse the damage that human agricultural practices have had on refuge soils (Reeves 1997). Over a long period of time, vegetative cover that protects the soil improves the fertility and depth of soil. Once native vegetation becomes established, soil quality may gradually increase as native biota and hydric soil conditions are brought back to the site. Soils would show hydrologic markers, as they would have shown historically. Best management practices would be implemented to minimize negative impacts to soils throughout the duration of the construction and restoration period of the refuge.

Habitat restoration activities on about 400 acres would require the use of heavy machinery to grade the refuge, prepare the soil, plant vegetation, and maintain habitats. Initially, this would result in erosion, siltation, and deposition rates greater than in Alternative A. Long-term, restoration would be expected to reduce erosion, siltation, and deposition to well below the Alternative A levels. Changing the topography from laser-leveled farm fields to those similar to the historical Rio Grande floodplain would have short-term negative impacts as heavy equipment builds up the topography and creates dust, but overall long-term impacts would be direct and indirect, beneficial and moderate to refuge resources (e.g., human safety, upland habitat creation, facility safety, and the creation of natural slopes to help filter and slow water drainage).

Farming. Impacts from agricultural practices would be similar to those described in Alternative A, but they would taper off as farming was phased out.

Due to the amount of dirt that would be moved in this alternative, Alternative B would result greater erosion and lost topsoil than Alternative A. Impacts to soil quality due to the use of fertilizers and pesticides would be less in Alternative B than Alternative A. In the long-term, decreased erosion and increased soil stability and quality would occur based on the establishment of native vegetation, resulting in beneficial impacts to soils on the refuge. Additionally, the topography would be restored to mimic the ecosystem functions of the historical Rio Grande floodplain; a moderate direct and indirect long-term benefit to the refuge and surrounding community.

Fire. Prescribed burning would be used a management tool to set back succession of the native plant communities and control non-native species, while impacting the soil. Impacts of fire on soil and topography would be short-term and adverse as the fire is put to the ground, but depending on the intensity of the burn planned for this refuge, soils would not be impacted severely that nothing grows or soil microbes are completed disabled. Fire would help cleanse the


soil of debris and would add nutrients back into the soil such as carbon. Long-term impacts would be minor direct and beneficial on the refuge.

Alternative C Impacts on soils would be similar to those described under Alternative B.

Alternative D Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternatives B and C. Although no wetlands would be created on the refuge, soil properties would still be improved through the immediate termination of agricultural hay production and the eventual planting of native species to control erosion and improve soil conditions. Therefore, Alternative D would have greater effect on soil quality and topography than Alternative A, but overall would be less beneficial than Alternative B and C.

In summary, short-term soil erosion and topsoil loss are greater in Alternative B and C than in Alternative D, and least in Alternative A. Soil quality improvements are least likely in Alternative A and equally as likely in Alternatives B and C, either of which would be slightly greater than Alternative D. Alternatives B and C maximize long-term minor to moderate benefits to refuge soils. Alternative A would have long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts on refuge soil quality. Alternatives B and C entail greater changes to the topography of the refuge than Alternative D; these three alternatives would have direct short-term adverse and indirect long-term beneficial impacts on the refuge and the surrounding community. There would be no changes to topography under Alternative A.

4.1.4 Surface and Ground Water Quality Under all alternatives, the AMAFCA swale would alter water quality at the refuge and in the local community. Implementation of the AMAFCA stormwater drainage plan has the potential to introduce to the refuge contaminants, pollution, and litter from the surrounding neighborhood. Water filtering through AMAFCA facilities and refuge habitat would decrease the direct and indirect impacts of these contaminants on the refuge and the local communities south and west of the refuge, improving water quality in the short- and long-term. Through the design and planned vegetation for the swale, impacts on stormwater runoff would be moderate, beneficial, and long- term, direct and indirect (see Section 3.1.5 for design details). Occasional heavy equipment and invasive species control measures used for swale maintenance may have short-term, direct, negligible to minor impacts on the refuge water quality

Impacts of herbicides on water quality are described in Section 4.4.

Alternative A—Current Management Under Alternative A, 420 acres would remain in agricultural production so the primary use of surface and groundwater would be for maintaining agricultural practices.

Farming. Farming operations that disturb the ground, such as planting and disking using tractors, loosen bare soils and have the potential to increase erosion. Water quality and soil absorption capabilities are degraded by these farming practices. Herbicide and fertilizer use on agricultural fields could negatively impact water quality due to runoff during the irrigation season and during


rain events. Best management practices, as outlined in Section 4.4.2, for herbicide use on the refuge would be used to avoid potential impacts to water quality. Impacts from farming to surface and ground water on the refuge and in the surrounding community under Alternative A would continue to be adverse, and short- and long-term.

Human Waste Disposal/Septic System. Groundwater quality could be affected by the refuge’s current about 2,500 gallon septic tank and about 540 square foot leach field system. To mitigate potential adverse impacts, the refuge has the septic tank pumped and waste disposed of off-site by a local contractor based upon capacity use. For special events and other high demand times (e.g., when youth crews are working), the refuge provides portable toilets to minimize the use of the current septic system. Impacts to ground and water quality would have long-term adverse direct and indirect effects on the refuge and in the local community as the septic system ages.

Fire. Fire would not be used as a maintenance tool around sensitive refuge resources such as the visitor center complex, trails, and partner infrastructure, and if fire is used in the surrounding areas to these resources, then buffers, or fire lines, would be constructed to protect these resources. Currently, fire is not used or if used would be limited to certain wood piles already on the refuge, and therefore has no effect on water resources on the refuge or surrounding area.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Under the proposed action, the restoration and creation of wetlands would serve as a filtration system for water entering and exiting the refuge, as microbial populations, like periphyton, live on the plant roots in the wetlands or riparian areas and breakdown various nutrients found in the water (Hoag 2000). Additionally, by establishing upland areas adjacent to the riparian areas, water would be slowed down by plants and varying slopes to then filter sediment and other contaminants, further improving water quality. Furthermore, although the effects of AMAFCA’s Drainage Management Plan and the swale are the same for each alternative, the added impact of wetlands and riparian areas in Alternatives B and C would help prevent severe flood events and improve water quality by filtering and cleaning the stormwater runoff from the neighboring area before it reaches the AMAFCA pond system in the bosque.

Visitor Center Complex and Related Infrastructure and Human Waste Disposal/Septic System. The about 2,500 gallon septic tank and about 540 square foot leach field system associated with the existing farm house would be decommissioned and filled in as the visitor center is constructed with a new about 4,000 gallon septic tank with an about 9,900 square foot leach field system. The new septic system would be designed and located to minimize the potential for direct and indirect groundwater contamination and would meet State standards. In addition, holding tanks are permitted for recreational vehicles, which if desired, can be installed and minimally reduce the total flow to the septic or sewer system. In the future, if the refuge has the opportunity to be connected to the City’s/County’s sewer system, the potential for groundwater contamination would be less than with a septic system due to the system being closed.

In accordance with New Mexico state regulations (Title 20 Chapter 7 Part 3 (NM 20.7.3)), “Environmental Protection, Waste Water & Water Supply Facilities, Liquid Waste Disposal & Treatment, ” the tank and field would be far above the groundwater of the east side and properly designed, constructed, inspected, and operated to be as efficient and economically as possible.


As with the current septic system, this new system would be pumped depending on capacity use with off-site waste disposal. Service engineers measured groundwater depths during a geotechnical study at the refuge, which showed depths that varied from about 5 to 15 feet with increasing depths to the northeast, where current facilities are located. Fill, or spoils, from wetlands are planned to add about another 3 feet to the site to be about 2 feet above the 100-year floodplain. New Mexico regulations Title 20.7.3.303 B states “[n]o conventional on-site liquid waste system shall discharge liquid waste into the soil where the vertical clearance from the bottom of the absorption area to seasonal high groundwater table, impervious formation or other limiting layer is less than 4 feet of suitable soil.” If an area toward the northeast of the centrally located visitor center is selected for the leach field, with about 7 feet to groundwater plus the about 3 feet of fill, the about 4 feet minimum can easily be achieved.

Even as agricultural fields are transitioned into restored native environments and visitor infrastructure construction is completed, water quality would continue to be impacted by various non-point sources and causes, including fire control methods, roads or developed areas, soil- disturbing construction activities, runoff from roads and parking lots, application of agricultural herbicides and fertilizers, heavy equipment use, and invasive vegetation removal. BMPs form the basis for mitigation actions for all these impacts. However, it is anticipated that long-term, non- point source impacts to refuge water resources would decrease due to wetland filtration and be limited to those associated with regular maintenance of refuge and AMAFCA resources.

Construction of the visitor center would have short-term direct adverse impacts on water resources as erosion and run-off increase sediment loads in surface waters until vegetation is established and can hold the soil and slow down sediment run-off.

Alternative B would represent a more active strategy for improving water quality and managing water resources for native plants and wildlife than Alternative A, where those impacts are minimally addressed. Overall, Alternative B impact on water quality would be short-term and adverse on the refuge and in the surrounding community as construction and habitat restoration are underway but would have a long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impact on water quality thereafter.

Fire. Fire would not be used as a maintenance tool around sensitive refuge resources such as the visitor center complex, trails, and partner infrastructure, and if fire is used in the surrounding areas to these resources, then buffers, or fire lines, would be constructed to protect these resources. Some short-term or long-term adverse impacts of fire on water quality would be the potential increase of sediment, pH, nutrients (e.g., phosphorus), temperatures, and that can overwhelm an aquatic system. A measure to minimize these adverse impacts is by determining a fire regime of the habitats, meaning managing burns over 3 to 5 years or more, so habitats can recycle nutrients and sediment build ups naturally and over a number of years. Other management actions may include the frequency, intensity, size, and duration of a burn. Fire also have beneficial long-term impacts on water resources such as adding nutrients that were lacking to better benefit aquatic plants and wildlife.


Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B.

Alternative D Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B but without the added filtration and deposition functions of the wetlands. Beneficial water quality impacts are greater for Alternative D compared to Alternative A because of the immediate termination of agricultural production and eventual restoration of riparian and upland areas, but they would be less than Alternatives B and C. The impact of the use of fire for invasive species would be greater for Alternative D than other alternative but the lack of wetlands means fewer water resources would be affected.

In summary, impacts on water quality from agricultural production would be adverse, direct and indirect and minor on the refuge and in the surrounding community. Under Alternative A, adverse impacts are short- and long-term; under Alternatives B and C, these effects would decrease as agriculture is phased out and replaced with upland, wetland, and riparian habitats. The immediate termination of agricultural production in Alternative D would have the least adverse impacts from that source. The potential for minor to moderate adverse impacts from waste disposal systems is greatest under Alternative A but similar for Alternatives B, C, and D due to the building of a new septic system that meets State regulations. Overall, the greatest direct and indirect, moderate and beneficial impacts on surface and groundwater quality would be achieved under Alternatives B and C.

4.1.5 Stormwater and Drainage Management Refuge resources are currently above the floodplain in Alternative A due to the laser-leveling of agricultural fields and the location of the existing buildings in the elevated northeast corner of the refuge. Under Alternative B and C, the visitor center and uplands would be raised above the floodplain by the fill from the wetlands and the current dirt pile (from previous work by AMAFCA in the bosque) located in the southwest corner of the refuge. The placement of the visitor center complex closer to the southeastern portion of the AMAFCA swale in Alterative C would require more fill to meet building requirements than Alternative B. Under Alternative D, fill to raise the visitor center and uplands above the floodplain would need to be obtained from other sources, mainly sources not present on the refuge.

AMAFCA Stormwater Drainage Management In the long-term, the AMAFCA swale would be a moderate to major beneficial impact on stormwater management in the surrounding neighborhood, minimizing the direct and indirect impacts of flooding on Mountain View houses, wells, and septic systems while directly and indirectly benefiting the bosque and aquatic habitats of the refuge. The swale would aid in the conveyance and treatment (e.g., slowdown of water, sediment fall-out, filtration, and erosion control) of flood and surface waters prior to discharge into the existing AMAFCA pond system in the bosque west of the refuge. This project would also demonstrate how a public land can serve its community using natural ecosystem processes. Regular maintenance as described in Section 2.3.5 would be necessary to keep the swale functioning properly. Although the implementation of the AMAFCA Drainage Management Plan on the refuge has the potential to introduce contaminants, pollution, and litter, the filtration through the AMAFCA facilities and


wetland management would minimize any adverse impacts and would greatly benefit habitats on the refuge and within the bosque. Impacts are expected to be similar across all alternatives.

Fire. Fire would not be used as a maintenance tool in the AMAFCA swale, and if fire is used in the surrounding areas to this swale, then buffers, or fire lines, would be constructed to protect this resource.

Barr Interior Drain Alternative A The Barr Interior Drain runs north to south in a straight line, roughly through the center of the refuge. Although this MRGCD facility is not a designated stormwater drain, it has the potential to overflow in a large storm event. The current straight alignment of the Barr Interior Drain has decreased flow due to its slope, which affects nearby Mountain View houses, wells, and septic systems when groundwater is high.

Fire. Fire would not be used as a maintenance tool in the Barr Interior Drain and if fire is used in the surrounding areas to this drain, then buffers, or fire lines, would be constructed to protect this resource.

Alternative B Under this alternative, the Barr Interior Drain would be curved. The refuge would work with AMAFCA and MRGCD to relocate and realign the Barr Interior Drain to increase its slope and therefore its flow while making the structure look more natural, mimicking the historic oxbow of the Rio Grande through the refuge. This change would result in moderate beneficial impacts to the nearby Mountain View houses, wells, and septic systems when groundwater is high since these resources would no longer be threatened by flooding. Indirect impacts of the realignment of the drain would be beneficial to adjacent refuge resources, aesthetics, habitat, and visitor services.

Fire. Impacts similar to Alternative A.

Alternative C Under this alternative, the Barr Interior Drain would stay in its current configuration; impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A.

Alternative D The Barr Interior Drain would be curved in this alternative; therefore impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B.

In summary, the effects of the swale are similar for all alternatives. The straight alignment of the Barr Interior Drain under Alternatives A and C would provide fewer long-term beneficial impacts for stormwater drainage on the refuge and in the local community than the curved drain alignment of Alternatives B and D.


4.2 Biological Environment 4.2.1 Vegetation Impacts on the construction and restoration of the AMAFCA swale are the same for all alternatives: direct, minor, short-term, and adverse during construction and minor to moderate, beneficial direct and indirect in the long-term on the refuge and in the local community.

Alternative A—Current Management Historically, the refuge was a dairy farm; current vegetation is limited to alfalfa and grasses grown for hay. Additional plant species include a few native plants but mostly non-native and invasive species around the edges of disturbed or cultivated areas and near existing buildings. Commercial hay production would continue under this alternative. Changes in vegetation would be the result of the cooperative farmer’s management of the agricultural production of non-native species.

Under this alternative, the AMAFCA swale would be the only substantial source of native vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods, willows, and salt grasses) on the refuge. Early in the development of the swale’s plant community, management of non-native species from the agricultural fields would require rapid identification and treatment to protect young native plants.

Under this alternative, the refuge’s ability to develop a mosaic of upland, wetland, and riparian habitats is severely curtailed since habitat restoration and site development would not occur.

Fire. Fire would not be used in the agricultural production, and if wood or brush piles are burned, they would be burned in their current area, which is devoid of vegetation under the piles and be well maintained and controlled as to not affect nearby fields or resources.

Alternative B—Proposed Action The refuge’s vegetative resources are currently limited to alfalfa and various grass fields with some native plant species and invasive species around the edges of disturbed or cultivated areas. Under this alternative, about 400 acres of agricultural fields would be restored to pre-1935 conditions with upland, wetland, and riparian habitats featuring native vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods, willows, rushes, cattails, various bunchgrasses, various asters and other forbs, saltgrass, saltbush, and cactus). This restoration would improve habitat conditions for native resident and migratory wildlife and increase species diversity.

Visitor Center Complex and Related Infrastructure. Construction of a visitor center complex and other public use infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, and parking lots) would permanently remove vegetation and habitat in those areas. The location of the visitor center complex in this alternative is on the similar footprint as current facilities, in an already disturbed area with intermittent non- native and invasive species for vegetation. Visitor infrastructure would be constructed in the same timeframe as habitat restoration to minimize impacts to the refuge’s vegetative resources.

Perimeter and interior trails not in the vicinity of the visitor center would be mainly compacted natural surface, or dirt paths, which have the potential to be reclaimed by nature and result in less habitat fragmentation (Hancock et al. 2009). Potential off-trail use by visitors and maintenance


vehicles may cause minor adverse impacts to vegetation as plants are trampled or damaged, but impacts are expected to be negligible.

The refuge entrance road and parking lots would be paved and the viability of using sustainable/permeable products considered. Though asphalt roads are an impervious surface that permanently removes strips of vegetation and space from the habitats of various wildlife species, leading to habitat fragmentation, the refuge would restore as much land adjacent to these areas as possible and limit visitor disturbance.

The impact to habitat from the visitor center complex and trails would be the permanent removal of vegetation (predominantly alfalfa and crop grasses) from about 14 percent of the refuge (about 78 acres). An increase in visitation and visitor services opportunities poses additional challenges as the potential creation of social trails and other off-path activities may occur.

Impacts to refuge vegetation resources under this alternative would be short-term minor and adverse. Long-term impacts would be direct and indirect, moderate and beneficial on the refuge.

Habitat Construction and Restoration. Restoration would impact existing vegetation during the wetland construction and land recontouring phase. Alfalfa fields and disturbed areas would be replaced with native vegetation, facilities, trails, roads, and demonstration pollinator and native plant gardens. In addition, the current straight alignment of the Barr Interior Drain would be curved to allow for more natural vegetation and habitat topography on the refuge.

Once restored, the fields would be managed to provide diverse habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. For wetlands, one proposed flood/flow regime would be to flood during the growing season (March to October) with early summer drawdowns (May to June) to encourage species diversity with re-flooding in September to November. Slow drawdowns of two to three weeks are usually more desirable for wildlife and plants and would be coordinated to best fit the needs of targeted wildlife and plants (Nelms 2007). The use of prescribed fire and other management tools (e.g., mechanical, chemical, flooding, and drying) would mimic the natural disturbance processes, which sets back plant succession and improves habitat quality for a variety of native plant species.

Through restoration and establishment of native plant habitats, refuge vegetative resources would be less vulnerable to non-native and invasive species infestations. Potential vectors for non- native and invasive plant species include irrigation water, stormwater run-off, neighboring properties, horses, pets, and humans. As restored habitats mature they become resilient to the direct and indirect impacts of non-native infestations. Impacts of herbicide use are described in Section 4.4.

Fire. Fire may adversely impact some plant species in the short-term, but in the long-term would beneficially impact native plant species by setting back succession and controlling non-natives, while encouraging new plant growth that many wildlife species would find more palatable. For many plants, fire would help them become resilient to diseases and to non-native species encroachment. Fire would open up dense areas to sunlight, allowing for species in the understory or that are shaded by other plants to thrive. Furthermore, fire would allow for new generations or


for regeneration of native species on the refuge. Impacts of fire on vegetation would be short- term direct adverse and minor to moderate on the refuge. Long-term impacts would be direct beneficial and minor to moderate on the refuge.

Farming. Under this alternative, farming would continue as described in Alternative A, but faming would be phased out as scheduled restoration activities occur over time. Keeping agricultural fields in production until restoration would aid invasive species control on farmed acres and provide marginal habitat for resident and migrating wildlife.

Visitor Use. Proposed public use opportunities on the refuge, including but not limited to biking, walking/jogging, and horseback riding have the potential to directly and indirectly introduce invasive species, produce litter, and hinder the growth of or damage (e.g., trampling) vegetation in highly visited areas. Offering these activities does not alter the refuge’s ability to meet habitat goals and helps support several of the primary goals of the refuge.

Alternative A does not actively manage for native plant communities that make up the historic mosaic of habitats in the Middle Rio Grande Valley; Alternative B would have the greatest beneficial impact on vegetation resources on the refuge. Alternative A offers the least beneficial impact on current refuge vegetation. Alternative B would have short-term negligible adverse impacts and long-term moderate beneficial impact on the establishment of vegetative resources on the refuge.

Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. The placement of the visitor center complex in the far southeastern corner of the refuge would decrease habitat fragmentation of the upland vegetation.

Alternative D Impacts on vegetation resources from the construction of visitor center complex and associated use infrastructure would be similar to Alternatives B and C. However, the diversity of vegetation would be limited because no wetlands would be created. Under this alternative, the refuge’s ability to restore the area to pre-1935 hydrologic, topographic, and vegetative conditions would be limited. Since the refuge is situated in an historic floodplain in the Rio Grande, the absence of wetlands decreases the refuge’s ability to restore this habitat component.

Under this alternative the refuge would eliminate the agricultural program immediately. This would result in an increase in the spread of invasive species until restoration. Agricultural field seedbanks on the refuge are made up of predominantly non-native and invasive species seeds, which when combined with their ability to out complete native species creates conditions for rapid infestations of undesirable plant species. Once they are established, non-native and invasive plant species would be subject to rapid identification and treatment BMPs over a larger area; monitoring, treatment and removal would require increased use of herbicides, staff time, and resources.

In summary, Alternative D has more beneficial impacts to vegetation diversity and habitat health than Alternative A, but results in less habitat diversity than Alternatives B and C. Alternatives B


and C would have short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on refuge vegetation due to construction of the visitor center complex and related infrastructure. Impacts from wetland construction would be associated with Alternatives B and C, but not Alternatives A or D. The curved Barr Interior Drain and wetlands (Alternative B) would have moderate, short- and long- term beneficial impacts on vegetation resources on the refuge.

4.2.2 Wildlife For all alternatives, there would be some changes in existing diversity and the amount of wildlife on the refuge after the implementation of the AMAFCA swale, but the beneficial impact would be negligible to minor in the short- and long-term.

Alternative A—Current Management Under this alternative, the refuge would maintain existing conditions that favor broad generalist wildlife species that thrive in developed landscapes such as Canada geese, coyotes, meadowlarks, doves and pigeons, house sparrows, and sandhill cranes. Monoculture crops would not promote diversity in native plant species, leading to low diversity of plant and wildlife species on the refuge.

Impacts to wildlife from current farming practices would continue to be beneficial and negligible in the short- and long-term on the refuge.

Fire may adversely impact some wildlife species in the short-term for those species that live in the wood or brush piles that may be burned, but this impact would be localized to the wood pile area and be minor to the overall refuge.

Short-term adverse impacts from public access and uses are associated with disturbance of wildlife and their habitats. Wildlife disturbances may include flushing, as well as altering wildlife behavior to avoid human or horse presence. Visitor access is typically by individuals or small groups for short durations. Horse and cycling use of the perimeter trail would be generally irregular, minimizing impacts to temporarily displaced wildlife but other uses may occur more frequently such as walking. Under this alternative, impacts to wildlife are negligible to minor.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Under Alternative B, habitat restoration, invasive species management, fire management (i.e., prescribed fire), installation of AMAFCA facilities, and visitor center construction would impact the refuge’s current wildlife populations. There would be some impact on small mammals, birds, and other wildlife due to habitat loss and displacement during habitat restoration and construction of the visitor center complex and related public use infrastructure; however, similar habitat (i.e., agricultural fields) is abundant in the surrounding area and no loss of species diversity is likely.

Visitor Center Complex and Related Infrastructure. During the construction phase of the visitor center complex, trails, other public use infrastructure and habitat restoration, it is expected there would be short-term disturbance of wildlife from the presence and noise of equipment and workers. The work would be temporary and only occur during daylight hours, in limited


locations, and scheduled to minimize these impacts. Once habitat restoration and infrastructure construction are completed, wildlife disturbances would greatly decrease.

Habitat Construction and Restoration. Compared to Alternative A, the number of geese and cranes that currently use the refuge would decrease due to the conversion of a monoculture of large agricultural fields into a diversity of habitats including uplands, riparian forest, and wetlands with depths from about 0 to 18 inches, which are not favorable conditions for crane and geese (Nelms 2007). The possible short-term decline in large-bodied bird numbers would be limited to the refuge but would not affect the overall populations within the area due the presence of alternate habitat along the Rio Grande corridor. Restored habitat would be attractive to species such as small-bodied neo-tropical migrants (i.e., songbirds), insects, reptiles, mammals, and amphibians.

The refuge and partners would establish plant species (e.g., rushes, goldenrod, cattails, and willows) that have little to no energy value to waterfowl but have value to insects, targeted bird species, and mammals in wetland areas, ponds, and adjacent grasslands. Wetlands would be surrounded by trees, shrubs, and other tall vegetation to discourage non-targeted birds and would have different flood regimes to attract a variety of wildlife species. Despite these controls, wetlands may become flooded during high groundwater times or high volume precipitation events and temporarily draw unintended bird species.

Bird species that would find the proposed habitat restoration and management of the refuge attractive include black phoebes, western kingbirds, Say’s phoebes, various species of sparrows, several species of swallows, small-bodied shorebirds, and ground foraging species such as meadowlarks, roadrunners, juncos, and raptors. Other species that would benefit from the proposed action would be small rodents (e.g., harvest mice, grasshopper mice, and kangaroo rats), cottontails, jackrabbits, coyotes, lizards, toads, butterflies, and dragonflies. Proposed wetlands may increase habitat for insectivores (e.g., bats, amphibians, dragonflies, and insect eating birds like swallows), whose presence could decrease the overall population of mosquitos on the refuge (NRCS 2008).

Fire. Fire may adversely impact some wildlife species in the short-term, but in the long-term would beneficially impact wildlife habitat due to setting back succession on native plant species and controlling non-natives, while encouraging new plant growth that many wildlife species would find more palatable and providing food for predatory wildlife species after burn treatments.

Visitor Use. Once habitat restoration is complete, wildlife diversity would increase, expanding opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, interpretation, and outreach. The refuge would expect substantial increases in visitor use upon completion of the visitor center and habitat restoration plans described under this alternative. Increased human activities would potentially lead to increase wildlife disturbance. It is anticipated that the design of the visitor center complex and trail would help regulate the size and conditions of large groups of visitors and posted refuge rules of conduct would mitigate some wildlife disturbance by human activities.


Establishment of the environments planned under Alternatives B would lead to greater wildlife species diversity on the refuge than what would be found under current monoculture agricultural conditions (Alternative A). Adding over 400 acres of restored land to the existing cover along the Rio Grande bosque should result in greater resilience of the native plant communities and the associated wildlife community. Under this alternative, visitor center and habitat construction would have a direct, negligible adverse impact on the small number of resident and migrant wildlife that does use the refuge. Short-term adverse impacts from public access and uses are associated with disturbance of wildlife and their habitats. Due to the estimated increase in visitor use, opportunities for wildlife disturbances would increase as well, resulting in minor short-term adverse impacts that would decrease to negligible as animal populations acclimate to visitors. Horse and cycling use of the perimeter trail would be generally irregular, minimizing impacts to temporarily displaced wildlife but other uses may occur more frequently such as walking. Under this alternative, impacts to wildlife are negligible to minor.

Habitat restoration would have moderate beneficial short- and long-term impacts on the wildlife resources of the refuge.


Alternative D Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. However, the lack of habitat for aquatic species (i.e., no wetlands) or species readily found near water would mean lower biodiversity than in Alternatives B and C but more than Alternative A. With the immediate termination of agriculture under this option, fields would be fallow until restored over an about 5 to 20 year timeframe. In the interim, non-native and invasive plant growth would potentially decrease native plant and wildlife diversity in the short- and long- term. However, wildlife diversity in Alternative D would be greater than in Alternative A.

In summary, impacts to wildlife from visitor center complex and wetland construction would be similar for Alternatives B, C, and D, which is minor to moderate, adverse and short-term. Wildlife disturbance from increased visitor use would be adverse, moving from minor to negligible over time (i.e., wildlife’s acclimate to the presence of people), and would be similar for Alternatives B and C, slightly less for Alternative D and least from Alternative A. Long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts to species diversity, especially for songbirds and aquatic wildlife, is greatest under Alternatives B and C, less in Alternative D and least in Alternative A.

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species and Other Special Status Species Alternative A—Current Management No threatened, endangered (T&E), or other special status species are known to exist on the refuge. Under this alternative, existing monoculture alfalfa and various fescue grass fields would remain with no changes in management practices. There would likely continue to be no habitat for T&E species on the refuge under this alternative.

Fire. The potential usage of fire to burn wood or brush piles of invasive species on the refuge would have no effect on T&E species.


Alternative B—Proposed Action Establishment of native vegetation, such as willows and cottonwoods, could potentially draw in migrant western yellow-billed cuckoos and Southwestern willow flycatchers to the refuge and adjacent bosque if their specified habitat requirements are met at the refuge after restoration efforts become established and mature. There would be no direct impacts to the Rio Grande silvery minnow since AMAFCA stormwater drainage swales would not be connected to the Rio Grande but would discharge filtered stormwater into and existing closed pond system in the bosque (Figure 10). Indirect impacts of the refuge wetlands and the AMAFCA swale emptying into the bosque would be the remediation of the bosque west of the refuge as surface water seeps into the groundwater, benefiting the bosque vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods) and wildlife species. This remediation could improve the bosque enough to meet habitat requirements for the flycatcher and the cuckoo, and improve conditions along the bosque for the silvery minnow. There would be no impact on the New Mexico jumping mouse or the Mexican spotted owl; they are not present in the adjacent bosque. If these species become present on the refuge, the refuge staff would work with the Service’s NM Ecological Services field office to adapt management activities to meet the needs of these species.

Fire. The usage of prescribed fire to maintain habitats on the refuge may affect some migrant T&E species in the bosque but buffers, timing of the burns, and where the burns occur in relation to the bosque would help mitigate moderate to major impacts to these species. Currently, there would be no affect to these species due to the infrequency of migrants in the bosque and the absence of habitat for them on the refuge.


Alternative D Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B with the exception that there would be no wetlands on the refuge, which would discourage or not attract the flycatcher or the cuckoo.

In summary, there are no foreseeable direct impacts to T&E species from any of the management options. Should Alternative B, C, or D result in the appropriate habitat and attract the flycatcher or cuckoo, these alternatives would have had minor long-term beneficial impacts on T&E species.

4.3 Human Environment 4.3.1 Cultural/Archaeological/Historical Resources Cultural resources are tangible links to the past and include archaeological sites, buildings and structure, landscapes, objects, and historic documents. According to the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the refuge does not contain cultural resources (see Appendix VII) and if it had, these resources were adversely degrade or destroyed due to the long history of agricultural practices done on the land. However, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Historic trail (see Appendix V) which may have crossed the refuge about 300 - 400 years ago, has historical and cultural significance. If excavation and other ground disturbance reveal historical artifacts, the refuge would consult and coordinate with SHPO and NPS on preservation


of these resources. The discussion below is limited to the impact of management actions on the promotion of heritage education for a historically and culturally significant historic trail.

Alternative A—Current Management Under this alternative, the refuge would work with NPS to create education and interpretation opportunities regarding the historical and cultural significance of the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, but they would be severely limited by the lack of supportive infrastructure such as the trail itself and a visitor center.

Alternative B—Proposed Action The NPS National trails Intermountain Regional Office, Camino Real Trail Association and refuge would collaborate on the development of the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Historic Trail on the refuge to provide immersive and interpretive experiences where its historic route coincides with the refuge. The trail would be located east of the Barr Interior Drain and run north/south. Construction of the visitor center and related facilities and trails under this alternative would include exhibits in the visitor center, interpretive stations, art installations, and education programs in support of understanding this piece of New Mexico’s history. Impacts on the culturally important Camino Real de Tierra Adentro trail under this alternative would be direct, minor, and beneficial in the short- and long term.

Alternative C Impacts would be slightly greater than those described under Alternative B. During scoping, NPS identified the southeast corner of the refuge as the preferred location of the visitor center complex. This would maximize interpretative opportunities by having the trailhead located near the parking lot and other visitor center facilities.

Alternative D Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B.

In summary, construction of the visitor center complex and related infrastructure would have a beneficial long-term minor to moderate impact on the preservation and advancement of this culturally and historically significant knowledge. Impacts would be greatest under Alternative C, slightly less for Alternatives B and D, and least for Alternative A.

4.3.2 Socioeconomics Resources Alternative A—Current Management Under this alternative, the economic and social conditions of the surrounding area would remain the same. The refuge would continue to be one of the area’s attractions. The presence and operation of the refuge provides economic benefits to the surrounding communities within about a 30 mile radius in several ways: direct and indirect refuge expenditures, tourism-related activities, and potential crop depredation.

Much of the refuge’s annual budget is recycled into local businesses through refuge staff and visitors (e.g., food, housing, utilities) and purchase of equipment and supplies (e.g., pollinator habitat plants), as well as contracts for local labor to accomplish refuge projects (e.g., septic services). The refuge provides full-time, permanent employment for seven individuals that live in


nearby communities, provides a venue for the cooperative farmer to grow and sell hay, and provides opportunities for conservation-related employment through internships, youth crews, and volunteer opportunities. The Friends group raises funds through membership dues, grants, donations and from fee-based tours and events. These funds are then used to support the refuge and work in the surrounding community.

The refuge attracts local, national, and some international visitors, generating revenue for the local economy. Tourism-related expenditures include meals, lodging, gas, souvenirs and sundry items, airfare and other related transportation costs. Under this alternative, visitation rates would continue at about 6,000 per year creating negligible to minor, beneficial short-and long-term impacts in the local community and in the Albuquerque area.

Under this alternative, crop depredation may be a loss for the cooperative farmer and others nearby, but this is expected to be negligible to minor as many within the area grow alfalfa and various grasses for hay and not corn or wheat, which would greatly attract cranes and geese during migration (September to March). Alternative A would continue to have direct and indirect, short- and long-term negligible to minor impacts on the socioeconomic resources of the surrounding community and the broader Albuquerque community.

Alternative B—Proposed Action The sources of beneficial impacts under this alternative are the same as in Alternative A. However, habitat and visitor service improvements would increase visitation to about 75,000 people, thus increasing tourism revenue to the local economy. Interpretative needs for the visitor center and acres of restored habitat would offer increased opportunities for conservation employment. With the planned decrease in favored large-bodied bird habitat and lack of flood- irrigated agriculture, there may be some negligible to minor increase in crop depredation in the local community.

Socioeconomic impacts from refuge expenditures would increase intermittently based on habitat restoration and construction of visitor service infrastructure. There would be a greater demand for temporary employees and volunteers (including youth employment), contracts for local services, and materials and supplies. A multi-million dollar contract for the design-build of the visitor center would also impact the local economy as contracts are let for visitor center infrastructure design and production, and refuge planning. The Service staffing levels are not anticipated to increase with the increased complexity of the habitat and visitor use, but opportunities for volunteers, interns, and youth crews would potentially increase.

Although habitat restoration would increase biodiversity, it could decrease the attractiveness of the refuge for various large-bodied birds and flocking species that favor agricultural fields (e.g., cranes and geese). Cranes and geese may move to neighboring lands, leading to a slight increase in crop depredation at nearby agricultural sites. The refuge is a small portion (less than one percent) of the overall area used by cranes within the corridor; socioeconomic impacts from depredation is expected to be negligible to minor as many farmers within the area grow alfalfa and various grasses for hay and not corn or wheat, which would greatly attract cranes and geese during migration (September to March). If depredation is reported because of refuge actions, the


refuge would work to partner neighboring private landowners with agencies like USDA Wildlife Services to address such problems.

The overall impact on socioeconomic resources would result in direct and indirect, beneficial, moderate to major impacts in the short- and long-term in the local community and Albuquerque area.


Alternative D Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B. However, the lack of wetlands would decrease habitat and species diversity, potentially impacting the number of visitors to the refuge which would impact tourism-related expenditures. With the immediate termination of hay production, depredation impacts to local communities, if they occur, would take place earlier and for a longer period of time compared to other alternatives.

In summary, impacts to the socio-economic resources of the local community (and wider Albuquerque community) from refuge expenditures and tourism would be, in the short- and long-term, beneficial, direct and indirect, and minor to moderate. Alternatives B and C would have greater impact than Alternative D, and Alternative A would have the least impact on refuge expenditure and tourism. The socioeconomic impacts from crop depredation, if it occurs would be direct, short-term, adverse and negligible.

4.3.3 Visitor Services/Public Access Alternative A—Current Management Many public uses (e.g., jogging and walking, cycling, and horseback riding) have moderate direct and indirect beneficial impacts on refuge goals and objectives by enhancing and diversifying opportunities for visitation and the quality of visitor experiences on the refuge. Public uses and access can also promote visitor understanding of and increase appreciation for natural resources and conservation history as they walk and cycle among native habitats and view native wildlife. These public uses would have minor to moderate beneficial long-term environmental impacts as people connect with nature near an urban setting. This connection fosters environmental stewardship.

Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to welcome visitors and provide opportunities for appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses (e.g., environmental education, wildlife photography and observation, and interpretation). However, the quality and number of such opportunities are limited due to lack of habitat and wildlife diversity, and lack of trails and facilities (e.g., shade, water, and bathrooms) to support prolonged visitation or encourage repeat visitation.

The refuge welcome center would remain in the existing farm house, which is not ABA and ADA complaint. Visitors would continue to be allowed to drive, walk, cycle, horseback ride, and jog on all about 6 miles of unpaved refuge roads. An outdoor classroom in the southwest corner of the refuge would continue to provide environmental education and other recreational uses.


Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 outlines the available uses and facilities on the refuge under this current management action.

However, under this alternative, there would be moderate adverse impacts on the implementation of the planned Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan. This plan would use desired audience experiences as the structures for determining the interpretive, outreach, orientation, wayfinding, and trip planning opportunities and actions to take to facilitate those experiences and to attract, hold and communicate effectively with our target audiences due to limited facilities and programs.

Overall, short- and long-term impacts of the current habitat, wildlife and facilities on environmental education and interpretation, wildlife viewing and photography, would be beneficial but negligible to minor.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Under this alternative, opportunities for wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, interpretation, and outreach on the refuge would be expanded by restoring a mosaic of habitats and constructing visitor services facilities. Expanding these opportunities would represent a benefit for the visiting public and support key refuge goals such as fostering environmental awareness, exposing an urban population to the larger NWR System, and developing an informed and involved conservation constituency. Restoration would provide environmental education and outreach opportunities by exposing urban audiences to the historical importance, beneficial functions and interrelatedness of landforms and water.

Visitor facilities and infrastructure are described in Section 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Direct and indirect impacts of these areas would be major, beneficial, and long-term since visitation would increase tenfold and visitors would have designated parking areas, restroom facilities and outdoor gathering areas for family, community, and refuge special events.

Safer access for alternative transportation to the refuge would help to establish an enhanced appreciation of the outdoor experience and encourage families and future generations to continue to pursue outdoor recreation and appreciate the value of wildlife and habitat conservation. Alternative transportation would improve visitor access and further the refuge’s goal of encouraging community residents and tourists to come to visit the refuge via alternative modes of transportation. In addition, the quality and breadth of implementation of the Visitor Interpretive Experience Plan would be greater under Alternative B than Alternative A due to the construction of adequate facilities and quality programs. Under this alternative, impacts to visitors and public access would have some minor, adverse direct and indirect impacts, but those would be outweighed by moderate to major, beneficial impacts.

Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B with the exception of the location of the visitor center complex in the far southeast corner close to 2nd Street SW, which could result in negligible adverse impacts to the visitor experience since facilities would be closer to 2nd Street SW noise and industry. This location would also put the facilities closer to


Salida Sandia SW, altering sightlines from the visitor center to include homes and horse training facilities.

Alternative D Under Alternative D, impacts would be similar as those described under Alternative B; however, the refuge would not create wetlands on the refuge. The quality of visitor services programs would be reduced compared to Alternative B and C due to the lack of wetlands and decreased opportunities for wildlife observation/photography, interpretation, environmental education, and outreach associated with that habitat type.

In summary, the greatest short- and long-term moderate to major beneficial impacts to visitor use would be from Alternative B. Impacts under Alternative C would be similar but moderate in intensity. Impacts from Alternative D would be moderate to minor and under Alternative A impact to visitor use would be negligible to minor.

4.3.4 Aesthetic and Visual Resources Short-term adverse impacts on the aesthetic and visual resources of the refuge for the construction of the about 90-acre AMAFCA swale would be the same for all alternatives. Management activities that remove vegetation and use heavy equipment to move dirt and revegetate would have a negligible to minor and adverse impact in the short-term (during project implementation). The long-term beneficial impacts of increased habitat diversity on aesthetic and visual resources are similar for all alternatives, although in Alternatives A and D where there are no wetlands, the swale may be perceived as out of place to some or be welcomed as a single vegetative counter-point to the monoculture farm fields. The diversity of wildlife and plants near and within the swale would increase slightly the in that area.

Alternative A—Current Management Agricultural hay production would continue on most of the existing about 420 acres of agriculture fields. The Barr Interior Drain would remain straight. Management activities to maximize the attractiveness of the refuge would include weeding, the creation and maintenance of pollinator gardens, and improved seating around the existing farm house as it continues as the main welcome center. As boundary fences are replaced, chain link and barbwire would be removed and wooden two plank post and rail fencing would be used to mark the refuge boundaries. The refuge expects that visitors would continue to enjoy their encounters with wildlife and the views of the nearby bosque, the mountains, and volcanos. Overall, the refuge expects the long-term impacts of its facilities, operations, and visitation on aesthetic and visual resources would be negligible to minor and beneficial.

Alternative B—Proposed Action Under the proposed action, visual and aesthetic resource on the entire refuge would be affected over the course of the 5 to 20 years the restoration may take. Short-term impacts would be adverse, minor to moderate, depending on the timing of construction and restoration projects. In the long-term, these actions would restore native habitat and wildlife and diversify the visual resources available, expanding wildlife observation and photography opportunities.


Placement of the visitor center complex in the center of the refuge is expected to maximize exposure to external visual resources. In addition, a curved Barr Interior Drain would blend in more with refuge habitats and look more natural than a straight drain which disrupts the visuals of the refuge.

The proposed riparian area with nearby upland habitat situated adjacent to the Rio Grande bosque would produce high quality visuals with natural-appearing landscapes for the benefit of nearby residents and refuge visitors. The refuge would alter the scenery from residential areas, industrial development, and monoculture agricultural fields to distinctive wetlands, riparian, and upland habitats with minor line-of-sight disruptions from facilities and other structures. The change from laser-leveled agricultural fields to a more historically accurate Rio Grande floodplain landscape would be a diverse addition to Mountain View, South Valley, and the City of Albuquerque that meets the missions of the refuge, the Service, NWR System, and the desires of the surrounding community.

Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B with exception that the visitor center complex would be in the far southeastern corner of the refuge, close to 2nd Street SW on the east and Salida Sandia SW on the south side. Visuals from within the visitor center and from the complex would be more limited to the south than in Alternatives B and D. However, being able to see a more continuous northwestern view of the refuge, including the entire stretch of the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Historic Trail and uninterrupted uplands would create a different view of the visual resources of the refuge.

Alternative D This alternative would have similar impacts to aesthetic and visual resources as Alternative B with the exception that there would be no wetlands. The lack of visual diversity is similar to Alternative A with the exception of a native habitat landscape as opposed to an agricultural one.

In summary, short-term adverse impacts to visual resources due to visitor center complex construction and restoration would be greatest under Alternatives B and C, less under Alternative D, and least under Alternative A. Long-term beneficial impacts to visual resources (e.g., diversity of habitat and wildlife) and related wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be greatest under Alternative B, slightly decreased (due to visitor center placement) in Alternative C, further decreased in Alternative D (no wetlands), and least beneficial in Alternative A.

4.3.5 Public Health and Safety Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Due to the Sunport and KAFB proximity to the Rio Grande there is a potential bird aircraft strike hazard that will continue to exist. The agricultural practices in the area and the Rio Grande provide favorable habitat and are situated within the Central Flyway for many migrating bird species. This is an inherent risk that will continue to occur regardless of which alternative is selected. The following further discusses the differences between alternatives.


Alternative A—Current Management Under this alternative, there would continue to be a potential for bird aircraft strikes near the refuge. Historically, the refuge (prior to establishment) and other areas in the Middle Rio Grande Valley have been in agricultural production, which mimics open turf-like conditions that attract flocks of cranes and geese during fall and winter migrations (September to March) because of its proximity to the river. In the summer irrigation season, the flood irrigated agricultural fields attract flocks of ducks, mainly mallards. Under Alternative A, current commercial, agricultural alfalfa and hay production would continue on about 420 acres of the refuge under a cooperative land management agreement, providing habitat that is about 90 percent attractive to cranes, geese, and ducks. These species were identified in a 2012 WHA as potentially hazardous wildlife since many of these birds and other flocking species have been documented flying between heights of about 300 feet to 1,500 feet overhead. Though there would be a greater potential for bird aircraft strikes under Alternative A than the other three alternatives, the hazard is no greater than what has historically occurred and would continue to occur due to agricultural practices in the area and the Rio Grande which provide favorable habitat and are situated within the Central Flyway for many migrating bird species.

Alternative B—Proposed Action It is anticipated that actions implemented under Alternative B would have the most beneficial impact when compared to other alternatives in reducing the potential bird aircraft strike hazard. The impacts described under Alternative A would be reduced since the refuge would develop a mosaic of native habitats to include riparian forests, wetlands, and grasslands which would support a diversity of bird species as oppose to those attracted to the monotypic agricultural fields. Flooding of refuge habitats to include slow drawdowns (about two to three weeks) may be used to elicit a favorable vegetation response which would continue to attract some large-bodies and flocking birds; however, over time, restoration would likely reduce, but not totally preclude, use by sandhill cranes, geese, and other waterfowl that primarily feed on the open turf-like grasslands and alfalfa fields maintained by the current hay farming operation.

The proposed habitat restoration and management of the refuge would favor bird species including black phoebes, western kingbirds, Say’s phoebes, sparrows, swallows, small bodied shorebirds, and ground foraging species such as meadowlarks, roadrunners, juncos, and raptors, which accounted for less than ten percent of the survey observations (SWCA 2012). These species were observed year-round, feeding immediately above the ground, and when in large groups flying near the Rio Grande, they were observed flying far below the flight path of the Sunport/KAFB aircraft (SWCA 2012). As determined by SWCA survey biologists, these species do not pose a significant threat to aircraft safety. Ground foraging species such as meadowlarks and horned larks were observed year-round in small groups foraging in short grasslands or making short flights between fields at low elevations, less than about 33 feet (SWCA 2012). These species pose a low hazard to aircraft most of the year. During October to November, greater numbers and large flocks can potentially form due to the migration period and it is unclear how many will ultimately use the refuge once habitats are restored.

Research conducted by the USDA Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research Center has shown that no single grass management regime would deter all species of hazardous wildlife in all situations. Though large-bodied birds would still utilize the refuge, it is still anticipated that


there would be a reduction in refuge attractiveness by about 50 percent due to the mosaic of habitats on the refuge when compared to the monotypic agricultural fields in Alternative A, which would have an overall beneficial impact on reducing the potential for bird airstrike hazard associated with the refuge. Actions under Alternative B would reduce the attractiveness of refuge habitats to large-bodies birds, which would be an overall negligible impact to reduce the hazard due to what has historically occurred and would continue to occur due to agricultural practices in the area and the Rio Grande which provide favorable habitat and are situated within the Central Flyway for many migrating bird species. Additionally, in the long-term (20-50 years), there could be an increase use of refuge habitats by raptor species, such as bald eagles; however, this increase is likely to be negligible because habitat conditions associated with the Rio Grande would continue to be more attractive to these species than refuge habitat.


Alternative D Under this alternative, the only body of water on the refuge would be the about 0.25 acre permanent pond, however, riparian habitats would be flooded during the growing season to promote and stimulate plant growth for riparian plants. During initial restoration of riparian habitats, the impacts would be similar to Alternative A and B because slow drawdowns (two to three weeks) may be used to elicit a favorable vegetation response during the initial stages of restoration as large-scale planted areas get established on the refuge (Nelms 2007). This would create a potential bird airstrike hazard similar to what has historically existed on the refuge and throughout the Rio Grande corridor. Once riparian areas are established that hazard would likely decrease as vegetation gets higher.

Additionally under this alternative, all agricultural production would cease and areas that are not yet restored would go fallow. This would reduce attractiveness of the refuge to large bodied and flocking birds to about 60 percent once vegetation reached heights unattractive to these birds. These fallow fields would be filled with some invasive species that can grow to heights of about 5 feet, and these plant species do not provide the forage that cranes and geese and other large- bodied birds favor. Furthermore, these tall vegetation heights would discourage their use of the refuge since the vegetation would obscure their view of potential predators and would conflict with the space needed for them to take flight.

Though actions under this alternative would reduce the number of large-bodies birds on the refuge, it would have an overall negligible impact to reduce the hazard of these birds. As mentioned before, this is due to what has historically occurred and will continue to occur because of the agricultural practices in the area and the Rio Grande, which provide favorable habitat and is situated within the Central Flyway for many migrating bird species.

When compared to the current potential for bird aircraft strike hazards caused by the on-going agricultural practices in the Middle Rio Grande Valley and the proximity of the Sunport to the Rio Grande, all alternatives would have a negligible impact. The greatest number of large-bodied


birds attracted to the refuge would be under Alternative A, with reduced numbers in Alternatives B and C; those numbers would be further reduced in Alternative D.

4.4 Summary of Impacts Table 9 below provides a comparison of the environmental consequences of each of the alternatives.

Table 9. Environmental consequence for each alternative per resource.

Resource Alternative A

Current Management

Alternative B Proposed Action


Climate Change Negligible direct and indirect adverse impacts in the long- term

Negligible direct and indirect beneficial impacts in the long- term



Air Quality AMAFCA Swale

Construction

Short-term, direct, negligible to minor and adverse, on-site and in the local community

Same as Alternative A



AMAFCA Swale Restoration

Long-term, direct and indirect, negligible and beneficial




Construction of the Visitor

Center Complex

Not applicable (N/A); no new infrastructure is planned under this alternative

Intermittent over 2 years; direct and indirect, short-term, minor to moderate, adverse



Habitat

Construction N/A Indirect and direct,

minor to moderate, short-term and adverse


Slightly less adverse than Alt. B or C but more than Alt. A; no wetlands construction, reducing duration of adverse impacts

Habitat Restoration

N/A Long-term benefits, negligible to minor at refuge and surrounding community

Similar to Alternative B



Farming Short-term, direct, minor adverse impacts on refuge and in surrounding community

Less than Alt. A due to phasing out farming; short-term direct, negligible to minor adverse impacts


Less direct adverse impact than Alt. A, B, and C due to immediate termination of farming; however, impact from pesticides greater than Alt. A, B, and C

Fire

Short-term, adverse, negligible to minor, direct on the refuge and locally

Greater than Alt. A on the refuge and locally; direct, minor to moderate, short-term adverse.


Increased invasive species controls required; short- term, direct, adverse, moderate on the refuge and locally

Visitor Use

~ 6,000 people/year; direct and indirect, negligible to minor, adverse, short and long-term

~75,000 people/year; more than Alt. A, impacts are direct and indirect, minor, adverse, short and long- term

Similar to

Alternative B

~60,000 people/year; similar to Alt. B with less impact associated with fewer visitors; greater than Alt. A

Soils and Topography

AMAFCA Swale Construction

Short-term, direct, minor and adverse, on- site.

Similar to Alternative A Similar to Alternative A

Similar to Alternative A


Long-term, direct and indirect minor to moderate beneficial impacts on site and locally

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A


Construction of

the Visitor center complex

N/A Direct, short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on refuge



Habitat Construction

N/A

Direct, minor to moderate, short-term and adverse to soils; direct, moderate, short- and long-term beneficial impact on topography


Slightly less adverse than Alt. B or C but more than Alt. A; no wetland construction, thereby reducing duration of adverse impacts.


Habitat Restoration

N/A Long-term moderate and beneficial on the refuge and minor impacts locally


Slightly less beneficial than Alt. B or C but more impact than Alt. A

Farming Short-term and long- term adverse minor impacts on refuge and local community

Similar to Alt. A, but less impact as farm fields are retired and restored


Farming ceases immediately so least impacts to soil quality

Fire Short-term direct negligible and adverse; long-term negligible and beneficial on burn area

Short-term direct minor adverse on refuge; long-term direct minor and beneficial on refuge



Visitor Use

Direct, short-term, adverse, negligible, on the refuge

Due to increase visitation: short- and long-term negligible to minor and adverse on the refuge


Similar to Alt. B with less impact associated with fewer visitors; greater than Alt. A

Surface and Ground Water Quality AMAFCA Swale

construction

Short-term, direct, minor and adverse, on- site




Long-term, direct and indirect moderate beneficial impacts on site and locally



Construction of the Visitor

Center Complex

No construction, however, septic system would have short- and long-term, direct and indirect adverse impacts on and off refuge as system ages

Direct, short-term, minor, adverse impacts on and off refuge. Less potential than Alt. A for long-term adverse impacts




N/A Direct, minor, short- term and adverse


Slightly less adverse than Alt. B or C but more than Alt. A

Habitat Restoration

N/A

Direct and indirect, long-term moderate and beneficial on the refuge and locally


Slightly less beneficial than Alt. B or C but more beneficial impact than Alt. A


Farming Short-term and long- term minor adverse impacts on refuge and local community



Farming ceases immediately so least short-term impacts to water quality

Fire

No impact Short-term direct negligible and adverse; long-term indirect adverse or beneficial


Similar to Alt. B with greater need for fire as management tool but fewer water resources to affect.

Stormwater and Drainage Management

Long-term, moderate to major beneficial impact on refuge and surrounding area from swale; direct and indirect, long-term negligible adverse impacts on surrounding area from straight alignment of Barr Interior Drain

Impacts of swale same as Alt. A; short- and long-term, direct and indirect, minor beneficial impacts on surrounding area from curved alignment of Barr Interior Drain

Similar impacts to Alt. B but refuge resources would need to be raised further to clear floodplain; Barr Interior Drain impacts similar to Alt. A

Similar impacts to Alt. B but would need to get fill elsewhere to bring refuge resources out of the floodplain; Barr Interior Drain impacts similar to Alt. B

Vegetation AMAFCA Swale

Construction

Short-term, direct, minor and adverse, on- site




Long-term, direct and indirect minor to moderate beneficial impacts on site and locally



Construction of

the Visitor Center Complex

N/A Direct, short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on site




N/A Direct, minor, short- term and adverse.



Habitat Restoration

No habitat restoration is planned

Direct and indirect, long-term moderate and beneficial impacts on the refuge

Similar to Alt. B with decreased fragmentation based on placement of visitor center

Less habitat diversity than Alt. B or C, more than Alt. A; slightly less beneficial than Alt. B or C due to a lack of wetlands

Farming

Short-term and long- term minor adverse impacts on refuge



Fallow land would increase presence of invasive species


Fire N/A Short-term direct minor to moderate adverse on the refuge; long-term direct minor to moderate beneficial on the refuge.



Visitor Use Direct, short-term negligible, adverse

Similar to Alt. A, could increase with number of visitors


Less than Alt. B and C but more than Alt. A

Wildlife AMAFCA Swale

Construction

Short-term, direct, negligible to minor and adverse, on-site




Short- and long-term, direct and indirect minor beneficial impacts on site and locally



Construction of

the Visitor Center Complex

N/A Direct, short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on-site




N/A Direct, negligible, short-term and adverse.

Same as Alternative


Habitat Restoration

No habitat restoration is planned

Direct and indirect, long-term major beneficial impacts to wildlife on the refuge; minor beneficial impacts locally

Similar to Alt. B with decreased fragmentation based on placement of visitor center

Lower species diversity than Alt. B or C, more than Alt. A; slightly less beneficial than Alt. B or C due to a lack of wetlands

Farming Short-term and long-

term, negligible to minor beneficial impacts on refuge wildlife.

Similar to Alt. A, but less impact as farm fields are retired and restored.


Fallow land would increase presence of non-native and invasive species

Fire

N/A Short-term adverse

direct negligible to minor; long-term direct and indirect minor beneficial



Visitor use/Visitation

Direct, short-term negligible, adverse

Similar to A, with minor adverse impacts on the refuge and in the local area due to increased visitation.


Less than Alt. B and C but more than Alt. A.


Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species No T&E species

are known to exist on the

refuge.

No habitat for T&E species

T&E species currently not on the refuge; restoration is not designed to attract T& E species; if T&E species adopt refuge habitat impacts would be a minor long-term and beneficial



Cultural/Archaeological/HistoricResources

The refuge doesnot contain

culturalresources.

The Camino Real de Tierra Adentro has

cultural and historical significance; minor to moderate, adverse short and long-term impacts on the

promotion of heritageeducation for this trail

Short- and long-term, direct, minor beneficial

impacts on Camino Real heritage

knowledge on site with minor impacts off-site (only a fraction of the

continuous trail is on the refuge)

Similar impacts to Alt. B with minor to moderate beneficial impacts due to placement of visitor center in relation to the trailhead


Socioeconomics Direct and

indirect expenditures

Negligible to minor, beneficial short- and long-term impacts in local community and Albuquerque area

Short-term and long- term, direct and indirect moderate to major beneficial impacts to local community and Albuquerque area


Similar impacts to Alt. B without expenditures for wetland construction and restoration

Tourism-related expenditures

Negligible to minor, beneficial short- and long-term impacts in local community and Albuquerque area

Short and long-term, direct and indirect moderate to major beneficial impacts to local community and Albuquerque area


Less than Alt. B or C, more than Alt. A

Crop depredation

None reported in the area. Some negligible, expected short term adverse impact to cooperating farmer

If it occurs, direct, short- and long-term negligible adverse impact to area farmers



Visitor Services/Public Access

Short- and long-term, minor, beneficial direct and indirect impacts; moderate, adverse impacts on implementation of Visitor Experience and Interpretation Plan

Short-term minor adverse impacts during construction; long-term, direct and indirect, moderate to major beneficial impacts

Similar impacts to Alt. B but with negligible adverse impacts to refuge resources closer to 2nd Street SW

Similar impacts to Alt. B but long- term beneficial impacts less than Alt. B or C, but greater than Alt. A

Aesthetic and Visual Resources

Short-term direct, minor adverse impacts associated with construction of AMAFCA swale; long-term negligible beneficial impacts

Direct, minor adverse short-term; moderate to major beneficial impact in the long-term

Similar impacts to Alt. B less beneficial impact due to visitor center proximity to 2ns Street SW

More beneficial and long-term impacts than Alt. A but lesser beneficial impacts than Alt. B or C


Public Health and Safety

Greatest number of large-bodied birds. Negligible impact compared to non- refuge related existing conditions and potential hazards.

Same as Alternative A with fewer large-bodied birds; negligible impact

Same as Alternative B; negligible impact

Same as Alternative B with further reduction in large-bodied and wetland related birds; negligible impact

4.5 Impacts from Herbicide Use for All Alternatives Chemical herbicides are one of the methods the Service uses to control invasive plants; it kills plants by decreasing their growth, seed production and competitiveness. Herbicides can efficiently and effectively suppress or kill unwanted plants and the Service uses them to minimize adverse effects on non-target resources. Herbicide use on National Wildlife Refuges must comply with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and other Federal laws and authorities. The use of herbicides and other pesticides on refuges is governed by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) IPM Policy (517 DM 1), the Service IPM Policy and Responsibilities (30 AM 12), and the Service Refuge Manual (7 RM 14).

One goal of herbicide use on the refuge is to maximize the benefits of its use, while at the same time minimizing the health, environmental, and social costs to the biological and human environment (Pimentel 2004). The dosage, or amount and frequency, of herbicide application would be tailored and minimized for a specific management project with clear goals and objectives and with established right-of-way maintenance for safety. One objective for herbicide use is increasing the environmental values of natural areas and landscapes -- in other words, controlling non-native and invasive species for the benefit of the native biological environment. Furthermore, demonstrating appropriate herbicide application would enhance and promote public understanding of how to better protect the health of the public and the environment while controlling pest species (Pimentel 2004). In these projects, the costs and benefits of herbicide use would be considered.

The benefits of herbicides in controlling invasive plants must be weighed against the potential for exposure and impacts to human health, non-target organisms, and the environment. The EPA requires extensive test data from herbicide producers to show that their products can be used safely. The EPA evaluates both exposure and toxicity to determine the risk associated with the use of a given herbicide. People, non-target plants and wildlife, water, and soil may all be exposed directly or indirectly to herbicides during applications and subsequent movement; this exposure can be minimized or avoided by following proper instructions and labels. For wildlife and humans, herbicides may enter the body through the skin, by swallowing, and by breathing. Once herbicides have been applied, the potential for exposure is further influenced by the many biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) processes that affect the fate of herbicides in the environment.

The Service policies and Refuge Manual state that refuges will use herbicides only after full consideration of management alternatives, including chemical, biological, physical, and no action. If, after considering all of these factors, managers determine that herbicides will be used


to meet invasive plant management objectives, then the least hazardous, most effective herbicides will be used to meet those objectives (USFWS 2009).

As outlined in 569 FW 1.9, Refuge Managers must ensure that:

• Pest management decisions are consistent with all applicable policies, laws, and

regulations; • IPM plans are developed and include strategies consistent with resource management

goals and objectives; • IPM practices are promoted to landowners and others whose pesticide use may affect

Service lands and resources; • Anyone applying pesticides, releasing biological control agents, and conducting other

IPM activities has the appropriate training and equipment necessary to protect their safety and health;

• Pesticides are applied only after the appropriate reviewer approves the PUPS process; • Threshold levels of damage for pest populations are established according to Service or

field station goals and objectives and applicable laws; • Staff must verify that damage levels for pest populations exceed threshold levels at

potential treatment sites prior to treatment; • After treatment, staff determines whether the pest management action achieved the

desired results and whether there were any unanticipated or non-target impacts; • Staff store, handle, and dispose of pesticides and pesticide containers in accordance with

the label and in a manner that safeguards human, fish, and wildlife health and prevents soil and water contamination; and

• Submit annual reports documenting pesticide use and efficacy into the online PUPS database (USFWS 2009).

In addition to Service policy, the approved PUPS include measures to minimize environmental impacts through best management practices that are outlined below:

• Calibrate application equipment; • Application must be in accordance with chemical label; • Field scouting and/or monitoring before pesticide application; • Use pesticide application buffers around sensitive areas; • Use lowest effective application rate; • Foliar applications will not be made if wind speeds are in excess of about 10 mph; • Herbicides will not be applied after a moderate or heavy rain or if moderate or heavy

rains are forecast within six hours; and • Post notices in kiosk and in buildings about the herbicide application period for 30 days

or more, including immediate flagging around areas that have been treated to be kept until the restricted entry interval for the herbicide has past.


Furthermore, herbicide application on the refuge would only be by state-certified applicators and in compliance with their labels; their use also would be further regulated under the Service's IPM and PUPS policies, EPA, and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture laws and regulations to minimize hazards to the biological environment and the human environment. Personnel would be equipped with the proper personal protective equipment and the treated site would be restricted verbally and through signage until the chemical’s restricted-entry interval has passed (usually 30 days), as directed on the label (NRCS 1998).

On the refuge, the primary direct and beneficial effect of herbicide use would be the control of non-native plant species, such as the Siberian elm, saltcedar, Johnsongrass, and other non-native, invasive species found on the refuge and listed in Table 6. This control would benefit the growth and restoration of native and desired plant species that are often outcompeted by non-native, invasive plant species, giving these desired species a chance to become established and better compete with the invasive species. Having these native species in the landscape, habitats of grassland and aquatic obligate species, wildlife and plants alike, could potentially be of high quality and become an oasis for species migrating through the area. This restoration of a native and natural environment that would mimic the historic landscape within the Middle Rio Grande Valley would offer beneficial impacts to visual resources by providing riparian, wetland, and upland qualities not often seen within the South Valley.

A direct and indirect adverse effect of herbicide use would be the harm of non-target vegetation due to the drift, or volatilization from the treated area or runoff of treated areas after a rain event. This drift could affect nesting or feeding wildlife, such as birds and mammals, which wander into the treated area or are present near the treated area. Herbicide treatments would be limited even more during times when birds and other wildlife are not migrating or nesting, or other treatment methods or combination of methods would need to be used.

Near aquatic areas, herbicides may runoff from the surrounding terrestrial landscape due to rain or erosion, causing harm to macro-invertebrates and other wildlife that use these aquatic areas such as birds, amphibians, and desired wetland plant species. To mitigate this, BMPs and streamside management zones would need to be established and maintained so that buffers are in place to prevent large-scale negative impacts to aquatic life. Furthermore, for control of species within an aquatic environment, only herbicides that are specifically formulated for aquatic areas would be used as directed from their label.

To prevent adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystems and soil quality, herbicides would be applied at their lowest effective level, used only when necessary and according to rates and quantities listed in their label, and stored and disposed of correctly. Other considerations would be to use the streamside and best management practices along with using integrated pest management and a combination of pest control methods. Since herbicides could be retained in the soil, the types of herbicide, their mode of action, and their chemical properties would be considered before their use to best minimize their effects on the biological and human environment.

Beneficial impacts from herbicide application would occur under each alternative. Benefits would result from control of invasive plants that threaten to infest large areas, displacing native


species of plants and wildlife; these beneficial impacts would be long-term on the refuge and the surrounding community.

4.6 Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). A summary of certain environmental impacts associated with each alternative is provided in Table 10.

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially cancelling out each other’s effects on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource.

This section addresses the potential cumulative effects for each of the alternatives and is intended to consider the activities on the refuge in the context of other actions on a larger spatial and temporal scale. The current resource conditions (Affected Environment) reflect the impacts of past and present actions that have taken place on and around the refuge as described in Section 3.0 of this EA. Earlier parts of this EA also discuss the impacts of proposed future actions (for all alternatives). The adverse direct and indirect effects of current refuge management and the proposed actions (all alternatives) on air, water, soil, habitat, wildlife, the local economy and population, and aesthetic/visual resources are expected to be mostly negligible to moderate and short-term to long-term. The long-term benefits of improvements that include but are not limited to vegetative communities and wildlife habitats, expansion of recreational activities and environmental education programs, opportunities to explore alternative transportation, and enhancements to the quality of life for humans and wildlife, far outweigh any negative impacts associated with implementing any alternative. The Service also considered past, present, and future planned actions on other state, federal, and private lands surrounding the refuge.

The section below provides an analysis area for potential cumulative effects on each resource and a summary of those potential impacts. This analysis will address the cumulative impacts of the proposed action in combination with other projects or management activities. Table 10 identifies activities (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) that are either located in the vicinity of the refuge or have been identified as having the potential for cumulative impacts when considered in addition to the impacts of the proposed action. These actions will be addressed below, as appropriate. Since the activities would not necessarily impact all resource areas, the cumulative impacts section for each resource will begin with a summary of the activities having potential for cumulative impacts.


Table 10. Actions considered for cumulative impacts analysis.

Activity or Project Description Location

Past Projects AMAFCA stormwater drainage work in the bosque (NMSLO and MRGCD/USBR land); completed in 2014

Installation of retention ponds as the first phase of the Valle de Oro NWR stormwater draining project covering about 90 acres and containing about 6 ponds to accept storm water that would ultimately flow through Valle de Oro NWR, also included installation of a bridge over the Riverside Drain and Williams Lateral

Bosque (riparian area) directly to the west and south of Valle de Oro NWR, part of the Rio Grande Valley State Park, on land owned by the NM State Land Office and Bureau of Reclamation/Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, all managed by Albuquerque Open Space

Bernalillo County improvements to 2nd Street SW from Rio Bravo Boulevard to the refuge

A state funded Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) project that installed a multi- use trail and fencing between the trail and

west side of 2nd railroad right of way on the Street SW from Prosperity to the South Diversion Channel- currently completed Additional extension from Prosperity to Rio Bravo in scoping, no funding or design completed

Project start is 2.5 miles north of the refuge

Improvements and construction of a new Mountain View Elementary School campus

The 106-year-old Mountain View Elementary School in the South Valley would be almost completely rebuilt. Construction and renovation with about 63,430 square feet of new facilities

About 1.5 miles north of the refuge

A Nature Explore Classroom Complete, constructed nature play space at the Mountain View Community Center.

About 2.5 miles northeast of the refuge For more information, see: https://natureexplore.org/about-us/nature-explore- classrooms-look-like/

On-going Projects Concurrent with Proposed Action AMAFCA stormwater drainage work in the Southeast Valley that is ongoing

Described in the Southeast Valley Drainage management plan, proposed stormwater infrastructure to be designed and constructed, part of which would feed into the Valle de Oro NWR stormwater system

Study area concentrated on about 7,000 acres, in the southeast valley. The study area is roughly bounded by Rio Bravo on the north, Interstate 25 on the east and south, and the Rio Grande to the west, and includes Mesa del Sol and the Mountain View neighborhood

Federal Lands Access Program improvements to 2nd Street SW

Reengineering and resurfacing of 2nd Street SW to include realignment of the Desert road intersection with installation of a traffic signal and adjustments to the railroad crossing at Desert road. This project would also include a sidewalk on the west side of 2nd Street SW and a multi-use trail on the east side with landscape barrier. This project is a continuation of a state funded Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) project that installed a multi-use trail and fencing between the trail and railroad right of way on the west side of 2nd Street SW from Prosperity to the South Diversion Channel

From the South Diversion channel to the proposed new entrance of Valle de Oro NWR

Activity or Project Description Location USACE Rio Grande restoration and recreation. Restoration project complete, recreation project in planning phase

The project focuses on ecosystem restoration with supporting recreation. The project: reestablishes fluvial process; restores hydraulic processes between the bosque and river via overbanking, increased groundwater recharge while also reducing the risk of catastrophic fires; protects, extends, and improves areas of potential habitat for listed species; and integrates recreational and interpretive features with restoration in select locations. Planned actions include: jetty jack removal, removal of select exotic vegetation; planting native vegetation; establishing shrub thickets and native canopy; and excavating backwater channels, seasonal high-flow channels, wetland swales, and an oxbow wetland Recreation improvement include: soft-surface and crusher fines trail system with benches, bridges, boardwalk, educational kiosks and interpretive signs, overlooks, and wildlife blinds; parking areas at key locations to give the public access to the bosque and river; designating and developing canoe/kayak launch areas

There are about 916 acres to be restored within the about 26 miles at 18 locations. For additional information, see: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact- Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article- View/Article/479099/middle-rio-grande- ecosystem-restoration-project-new-mexico/

Mesa del Sol development Mesa del Sol planned master community 40 year plan; residential and light industrial development in South Valley. Also part of Southeast Valley Drainage management plan

Located on the mesa east of the refuge

Future Projects USACE Rio Grande Levee Restoration program

In the planning stages, USACE would reengineer the levee from Rio Bravo to I-25 interchange as part of the Mountain View Section

West of the refuge affecting adjacent bosque

Extension of the Paseo del Bosque trail along the levee

Funding not secured, project led by Friends group in conjunction with Bernalillo County to extend hike and bike trail along levee from South Diversion Channel to Valle de Oro, including bridge over South Diversion Channel. Coordination for this project is ongoing with AMAFCA, MRGCD, Bernalillo County, City of Albuquerque, and USACE. USACE would include creation of base for trail in levee improvement project

Along Levee adjacent to Valle de Oro from South Diversion channel to the AMAFCA bridge

Extension of the Rio Grande Trail.

Same as above- This is an initiative by the Governor to build, in the early scoping (not even planning phase yet) should eventually align with Paseo del Bosque trail

Along Levee adjacent to Valle de Oro NWR from South Diversion channel to the AMAFCA bridge. For more information see: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ADMIN/riogrande trailcommission.html


http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/479099/middle-rio-grande-ecosystem-restoration-project-new-mexico/




http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ADMIN/riogrande


Activity or Project Description Location Bernalillo County Realignment of intersection, lane construction, For information on all Bernalillo County improvements to 2nd Street SW and adjustment of existing features transportation projects see: and Rio Bravo Boulevard http://web.bernco.sks.com/uploads/files/PublicW

orks/MRCOG_BernCo_Pres2015_Handout.pdf Development around the refuge Mesa del Sol planned master community 40

year plan; residential and light industrial development in South Valley; Light industrial, business and residential development is typical to local community and South Valley

4.6.1 Cumulative Impacts on Physical Resources Based on the analysis presented earlier in this section, the Service has concluded that there would be no significant cumulative impacts on the physical resources from proposed refuge management actions, when considered in context with other State, Federal, and private actions (as summarized below); all management alternatives have similar impacts and conclusions.

Air Quality The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to air quality is defined as the South Valley of Bernalillo County. The actions from Table 10 were considered for potential air quality cumulative impacts; all contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality. In the South Valley, emission sources and air quality threats come from the diversity of land uses characterized by a mix of urban and rural population densities, as well as industrial and commercial expansion. Additionally the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, who has the authority and responsibility to prevent or abate air pollution in Bernalillo County, currently evaluates permits based on individual impact with no consideration for the cumulative impact of polluting facilities in an area. Some of the industries located in the area of the refuge include a power station, the City/County sewage treatment plant, asphalt plants and tank farms, auto dismantlers, brick manufacturers, and a meat packing plant. In addition, there is a large amount of ongoing and planned construction around the refuge that would continue to impact air quality in the future.

Construction projects and increased visitor use on the refuge would result in short-term adverse impacts to air quality, while habitat restoration activities are expected to have beneficial long- term impacts on air quality in the local area. The effects of refuge management actions, when compared to the magnitude of impacts occurring outside of the refuge, are expected to be negligible. No significant cumulative impacts are expected to occur as a result of refuge activities.

Soils and Topography The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to soil and topography is defined as local Mountain View Community. The actions from Table 10 were considered for potential cumulative impacts on soils. All construction and development activities impact soils; however, these soils throughout the middle Rio Grande Valley have been altered substantially (compared to historic conditions) after many years of farming. The proposed refuge management activities would not result in any new areas being impacted; planned activities would restore more natural

http://web.bernco.sks.com/uploads/files/PublicWorks/MRCOG_BernCo_Pres2015_Handout.pdf

http://web.bernco.sks.com/uploads/files/PublicWorks/MRCOG_BernCo_Pres2015_Handout.pdf


topographic features. These impacts are not expected to result in significant cumulative impacts to soils.

Surface and Ground Water Quality The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to surface and ground water quality is defined as the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The actions from Table 10 that were considered for potential cumulative impacts to surface and groundwater quality include the AMAFCA projects and any residential or commercial development in the area. Within the basin, tributary streams, wastewater-treatment plants, flood-diversion channels from urban areas, and a large number of arroyos and washes contribute flow to the river. During irrigation season, a complex network of canals, ditches, and drains divert the river and recharge groundwater, among other processes. The primary use of surface water in the South Valley is for irrigation.

The impacts to surface and ground water quality from proposed restoration activities and the AMAFCA swale, as described earlier in this document, are not expected to result in significant cumulative impacts.

Stormwater and Drainage Management The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to stormwater and drainage management is defined as the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The actions from Table 10 that have the most potential to impact stormwater and drainage management are past, present and future AMAFCA projects, which are designed to identify drainage corridors, ponding areas and water quality treatment opportunities crucial to address drainage and irrigation facilities that are overwhelmed in large storm events. Proposed refuge management activities are designed to work in conjunction with AMAFCA projects to benefit biological and aesthetic resources. Minor beneficial cumulative impacts are expected.

4.6.2 Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources Based on the analysis presented earlier in this section, the Service has concluded that there would be no significant cumulative impacts on biological resources from proposed refuge management actions, when considered in context with other State, Federal, and private actions (as summarized below), all management alternatives have similar impacts and conclusions.

Vegetation The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to vegetation is defined as the Middle Rio Grande Valley. This area has been heavily altered by human development and other activities. Upland and riparian habitats are constantly being lost or degraded by these activities. The actions from Table 10 that were considered for potential cumulative impacts to vegetation quality include the AMAFCA projects and the USACE Rio Grande restoration and recreation project. The benefits to long-term ecosystem health that the proposed habitat restoration on the refuge would accomplish far outweigh any of the short-term adverse impacts discussed in this document.

Wildlife The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to wildlife is defined as the Middle Rio Grande Valley. This area has been heavily altered by human development and other activities.


Upland and riparian habitats are constantly being lost or degraded by these activities. Resulting impacts to habitat also affect the wildlife that use the habitat. The actions from Table 10 that were considered for potential cumulative impacts to wildlife include the AMAFCA projects, the USACE Rio Grande restoration and recreation project, and development around the refuge. The benefits to long-term ecosystem health that the proposed habitat restoration the refuge would accomplish far outweigh any of the short-term adverse impacts discussed in this document. These impacts, however, would not be cumulatively significant.

Threatened and Endangered Species The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered species is defined as the Middle Rio Grande Valley. The threatened or endangered status of species in this area is a result of past and ongoing impacts on habitat from urban development. No threatened or endangered species currently occur on the refuge so there would be no direct impacts from refuge activities, but habitat restoration is expected to have long-term benefits. These impacts, however, would not be cumulatively significant.

4.6.3 Cumulative Impacts on the Human Environment Based on the analysis presented earlier in this section, the Service has concluded that there would be no significant cumulative impacts on the human environment from proposed refuge management actions, when considered in context with other State, Federal, and private actions (as summarized below); all management alternatives have similar impacts and conclusions.

Cultural/Archaeological/Historical Resources The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to cultural, archaeological, and historical resources is defined as the South Valley. The area in and around the refuge is a highly disturbed landscape and it is possible that there were past impacts on cultural resource. There could also be cumulative impacts from future activities described in Table 10. Proposed refuge management activities are not expected to impact cultural or archaeological resources, but there may be minor impacts to historical resources (i.e., the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Historic Trail). This impact, however, would not be cumulatively significant.

Socioeconomic Resources The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources is defined as Bernalillo County. As a result of projected population and economic growth in the region over the next 15 years, overall cumulative economic impacts would continue to be beneficial. The refuge would continue to contribute positive, but relatively minor, economic effects on the area. All of the planned projects would have long-term beneficial impacts on the community once completed.

Visitor Services and Public Access The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to visitor service and public access resources is defined as Bernalillo County. The actions from Table 10 that were considered for potential cumulative impacts include USACE Rio Grande restoration and recreation project and the Nature Explore Classroom at the Mountain View Community Center. The nearest sites offering substantial outdoor wildlife education opportunities are the Rio Grande Nature Center and Rio Grande Community Farm (about 10 miles north). There is little or no exposure to the Service or


the NWR System at those venues. The refuge would provide increased opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation for the local community. This is particularly important in an urban area where these types of opportunities are generally limited. The refuge would play an important role in providing nature-based recreation opportunities in the area, resulting in minor beneficial cumulative impacts on the area.

Aesthetic and Visual Resources The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to aesthetic and visual resources is defined as the South Valley. Aesthetic and visual resources in the region surrounding the refuge are rapidly diminishing due to residential development, urbanization, and other ecoregional issues. The refuge would have an overall beneficial effect on aesthetic and visual resource in this area where open space and natural beauty are diminishing.

Public Health and Safety The analysis area for potential cumulative impacts to public health and safety is defined as the Middle Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande provides favorable habitat and are situated within the Central Flyway for many migrating bird species. Due to the Sunport and KAFB proximity to the Rio Grande, there is an inherent potential bird aircraft strike hazard that will continue to exist regardless of management at the refuge. Agricultural practices, which are extensive throughout the valley, are the primary activities that contribute to cumulative impacts to public health and safety in the area. The refuge, which only encompasses about 570 acres of the landscape, would contribute negligibly to potential bird aircraft strike hazard, when considering the amount of riparian habitat along the Rio Grande and the extensive amount of agricultural lands outside of the refuge. No significant cumulative impacts are expected to occur as a result of refuge activities.

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

None of the alternatives described in this EA would disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority or low income populations. Implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to benefit the environment and people in the surrounding communities. A few people in the Mountain View neighborhood expressed concerns that the refuge’s establishment would increase property values that in turn would lead to increases in property taxes and gentrification of the area. The Friends of Valle de Oro NWR have


incorporated this concern into their organization strategic plan and would work with community members and leaders to address the issue.

Valle de Oro NWR is located on a former dairy farm in Albuquerque’s South Valley in a heavily industrial, minority community which has also been a key incubator for the nation’s Environmental Justice Movement since the 1980s. The refuge resulted from the desire and efforts of the community and partnerships that formed around remediating and monitoring the impacts of industrial development and intensive agriculture in the neighborhood. The Friends group and Los Jardines Institute applied for and were awarded grants from the EPA and the Service to prepare the first environmental justice strategic plan on a national wildlife refuge.

The Valle de Oro NWR Environmental and Economic Justice Strategic Plan (EEJSP) outlines a strategic path forward for the refuge to integrate environmental and economic justice into its daily practice as the land is restored for wildlife and developed as an educational and recreational resource for the community. The EEJSP illustrates a collaborative, intentionally inclusive process, bringing community members and organizations together with government agencies to develop the first EEJSP for a public land site which matches refuge and Federal goals with the needs and aspirations of the community. The EEJSP development process involved research of the Environmental Justice movement as well as prior health and environmental studies, outreach, and neighborhood survey canvassing and analysis. The hope is that the process can be a model for other public land sites and government agencies for the development of environmental and economic justice strategic plans in order to serve their public missions and the communities and build an invested body of partners, collaborators, and future conservations stewards around mutual goals.

More information about the EEJSP, this environmental justice partnership, and to read a draft version of the EEJSP report can be found on the Friends of Valle de Oro NWR’s website.

4.8 Indian Trust Assets No Indian Trust Assets (ITA) have been identified on the refuge. There are no reservations or ceded lands present within the refuge boundaries. Because the refuge does not believe resources are present, it does not anticipate impacts to result from implementation of any alternative described in the EA.

4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Effects Under Alternative B, the proposed action, there will be some unavoidable impacts. These impacts are expected to be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the refuge would attempt to minimize these impacts wherever possible. The following sections describe the measures the refuge would employ to mitigate and minimize the potential impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed action.

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides Long-term herbicide use for invasive plant control could result in a slight decrease in water quality in areas prone to exotic plant infestation. Through the proper application of herbicides, however, this is expected to have a minor impact on the environment, with the benefit of reducing or eliminating invasive plant infestations. Additionally, manual removal of invasive

https://friendsofvalledeoro.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/Annoucements/VdO%20Environmental%20and%20Economic%20Justice%20Strategic%20Plan%20-%20April%202017.pdf


species by refuge staff, volunteers, interns and youth corps members will be used whenever feasible.

Foot traffic on trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. To minimize the impacts from public use, the refuge would include informational signs that request trail users to remain on the trails, in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems.

Wildlife Disturbance Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the activity involved. All of the public use activities proposed would be planned to avoid unacceptable levels of impact.

Vegetation Disturbance Adverse impacts could result from the creation, maintenance, and use of trails. This is expected to be a minor short-term impact. The refuge would minimize this impact by installing informational signs that request users to stay on established trails.

Other Unavoidable and Adverse Impacts When building facilities, efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally sensitive products. All construction activities would comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and other applicable regulatory requirements.

4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable resources and the effects that this use could have on future generations. Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of specific resources that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame, such as energy or minerals. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action, such as extinction of a threatened or endangered species or the disturbance of a cultural resource.

None of the alternatives would result in a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. Project implementation would require the irretrievable commitment of fossil fuels (diesel and gasoline), oils, and lubricants used by heavy equipment and vehicles. Also, management actions in this document would require a commitment of funds that would then be unavailable for use on any other Service projects. At some point, commitment of funds to these projects would be irreversible, and once used, these funds would be irretrievable. The proposed action would result in some unavoidable harm or harassment to some wildlife. The Service would implement best management practices to minimize potential impacts.

5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION 5.1 Agencies and organizations consulted in the preparation of this document include Document prepared by Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Staff and Division of Planning staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Southwest Region,


5.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND DOCUMENT PREPARATION 5.1 Agencies and organizations consulted in the preparation of this document include Document prepared by Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Staff and Division of Planning staff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Table 11. List of Preparers involved in the EA.

Team Member Title

Jennifer Owen-White Refuge Manager

Ariel Elliott Wildlife Biologist Amelia AR Murphy, PhD Conservation Social Scientist, MBS, Inc. (contractor)

Katie McVey Deputy Refuge Manager

Carol Torrez Chief, Branch of Planning, Division of Realty

Monica Kimbrough Assistant Refuge Supervisor AZ/NM

Juliette Fernandez Refuge Supervisor AZ/NM

Paul Tashjian Supervisory Hydrologist, NWRS Region 2 Water Resources

Lauren Slater Natural Resources Planner, Region 2

Art Needleman Visitor Services, Region 2

Dan Collins Migratory Bird Coordinator, Region 2

Julie Dickey Graduate Student, Community and Regional Planning, University of New Mexico

Contract Consultants Ducks Unlimited Great Outdoors Consultants Hydra Aquatics, Inc. PUP Global Heritage Consortium Robert Peccia & Associates Sites Southwest Wilson & Company, Inc.

Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted Albuquerque International Sunport Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority


Albuquerque Open Space American Rivers Amigos Bravos Bernalillo County Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge Bureau of Indian Affairs Camino Real Trail Association City of Albuquerque Ciudad Soil and Water Conservation District Conservation Voters NM Environment NM Environmental Education Association of NM Federal Aviation Administration Friends of Bosque del Apache NWR Friends of Valle de Oro NWR Intermountain West Joint Venture Jicarilla Apache Nation Kirtland Air Force Base Mescalero Apache Tribe Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program Mountain View Neighborhood Association

Natural Resources Conservation Service New Mexico State University NM Audubon NM Department of Game and Fish NM Energy Minerals and Natural Resource Department NM Environment Department NM Office of State Engineer NM State Land Office NM State Parks NM State Senate NM Wildlife Federation Pueblo of Acoma Pueblo of Cochiti Pueblo of Isleta Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo of Picuris Pueblo of Pojoaque Pueblo of San Felipe Pueblo of San Ildefonso Pueblo of Sandia Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Santa Clara Pueblo of Santo Domingo Pueblo of Taos


Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Zia Pueblo of Zuni Quiet Waters Ramah Navajo Chapter Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust Rio Grande Civitan Club Rio Grande Community Development Corporation Rio Grande Community Farm Rio Grande High School Rio Grande Nature Center Rocky Mountain Youth Corps Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge South Valley Civitan Club The Nature Conservancy Trust for Public Land U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Division of Water Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Migratory Bird Office U.S. National Park Service University of New Mexico USDA Wildlife Services Whitfield Wildlife Conservation Area

5.2 References and Bibliography

Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA). 2011. Southeast Valley Drainage and Water Quality Management Plan. Available online at: www.amafca.org.

———. 2013. Amendment to Middle Rio Grande Riverine Restoration Project Phase II Environmental Assessment SWCA 2007.

Bailey, J.A., D.L. Propst, C.W. Painter, C.G. Schmitt, and S.O. Williams III. 2001. Status of native wildlife in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. The New Mexico Journal of Science, 41(1).

Bartolino, J.R. and J.C. Cole. 2002. Ground-water resources of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1222, 132.

Beach, S. 2014. Choosing multi use trail surface types: gravel, asphalt, concrete. Available online at: http://www.permatrak.com/news-events/bid/102041/Choosing-Multi-Use- Trail-Surface-Types-Gravel-Asphalt-Concrete

Brossard, D., B. Lewenstein, and R. Bonney. 2005. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.

Dickinson, J. L., J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R. L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips, and K. Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10: 291–297.

Dick-Peddie, W.A. 1993. New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present, and Future. University of New

http://www.amafca.org/

http://www.permatrak.com/news-events/bid/102041/Choosing-Multi-Use-


Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, USA. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2015. Valle de Oro NWR, Bernalillo County. A design plan for wetland

and wells at Valle de Oro NWR prepared in cooperation with the USFWS. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail Association. Available online at:

http://www.caminorealcarta.org/. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. Hazardous

Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports. Finch, D.M. and J.A. Tainter (tech eds). 1995. Ecology, diversity, and sustainability of the

Middle Rio Grande Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-268. Fort Collins, CO, USA. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 186.

Great Outdoors Consultants. 2015. Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Interpretive Framework and Site Plan.

Hancock, J. K. Jones Vander Hoek, S. Bradshaw, J.D. Coffman, and J. Engelmann. 2009. Equestrian design guidebook for trails, trailheads, and campgrounds. USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development Program, Missoula, MT, USA.

Hawks Aloft. 2010. Bird and vegetation community relationships in the middle Rio Grande Bosque: 2009 Interim Report submitted to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.

Hoag, C.J. 2000. Harvesting, Propagating, and Planting Wetland Plants. Riparian/Wetland Project Information Series No. 14, July, 2000. USDA. Available online at: http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcarwproj14.pdf

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

Jaramillo, V.L. and I. Kavouras. 2007. Monitoring, Source Identification, and Health Impacts of Air Toxics in Albuquerque, NM. Prepared in response to EPA RFA NO: OAR-EMAD- 05-16 on 8/19/2005. Available online at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/20052006csatam/AlbuquerqueEHD.pdf.

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. 2012. Place matters for health in Bernalillo County: Ensuring opportunities for good health for all. A report on health inequalities in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Washington, DC, USA.

Kavouras, I.G., D.W. DuBois, G. Nikolich, and V. Etyemezian. 2015. Monitoring, source identification and health risks of air toxics in Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A. Aerosol Air Quality Research, 15: 556–571.

Keen, W. 2008. Comparing relative impacts of various trail user groups. Available online at: http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html

Lehnen, S. 2015. Inventory of past and ongoing research at Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Linderoth, O.C. 1999. Restoration efforts in the Rio Grande Valley State Park. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-7, 136-138.

McGregor, D. L. 2006. South Valley Agrichemical water quality impact study and surface water monitoring results for acequias located within Bernalillo County, 2005 submitted to Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners in cooperation with the Staff of Bernalillo

http://www.caminorealcarta.org/

http://www.caminorealcarta.org/

http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcarwproj14.pdf

http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcarwproj14.pdf

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html

http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/WKeenImpacts.html


County Office of Environmental Health. McQuillan, D. M. 2004. Ground-water quality impacts from on-site septic systems. Proceedings,

National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, 13th Annual Conference, November 7-10, 2004. Albuquerque, NM.

Mid-Region Council of Governments (MRCOG). 2014. Central New Mexico Climate Change Scenario Planning Project. Available online at: https://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation- planning/public-lands/central-new-mexico-climate-change-scenario-planning-project.

Morris, L., M. Stuever, L. Ellis, and R. Tydings, (eds). 2003. Bosque Education Guide, Second Edition. Friends of the Rio Grande Nature Center, 2901 Candelaria Road, NW, Albuquerque, NM 87107.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1998. Soil quality concerns: pesticides. Soil Quality Information Sheet. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington D.C., USA.

———. 2008. Indiana Biology Technical Note 4: Wetlands, Mosquitoes, and West Nile Virus. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington D.C., USA. Available

online at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_030939.pdf ———. 2016. Custom soil resource report for Bernalillo County and parts of Sandoval and

Valencia Counties, New Mexico for Valle de Oro. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Nelms K.D. 2007. Wetland management for waterfowl handbook. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available online at: www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_016986.pdf.

Paseo del Bosque. 2016. Available online at: https://www.cabq.gov/parksandrecreation/open- space/lands/paseo-del-bosque-trail.

Pimentel, D. 2004. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process, 1: 89-111.

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. 2013a. Designing for user type. Available online at: http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/trail-building-and- design/designing-for-user-type/

———. 2013b. Surfaces. Available online at: http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail- building-toolbox/trail-building-and-design/surfaces/

Reeves, D.W. 1997. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 43: 131-167.

Rodriguez-McGill, M. 2014. Preparing for people: Establishing alternative transportation access to the Southwest’s first urban wildlife refuge. A public lands transportation scholar final report prepared for the Federal Transit Administration. Available online at: http://www.fedlandsinstitute.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Rodriguez- McGill_Final_Report_2014.pdf

Smith, K. and S. Rich. 2009. Restoration in New Mexico Watersheds: The Uplands. Southwest Hydrology: 30-33.

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2012. Wildlife hazard assessment report for Albuquerque International Sunport. Prepared for Albuquerque International Sunport for submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration in cooperation with Coffman Associates and incorporated by the Kirtland Air Force base Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_030939.pdf

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_016986.pdf




http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/trail-building-and-



http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-

http://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-

http://www.fedlandsinstitute.org/Documents/RepositoryDocuments/Rodriguez-


group. Tashjian, P. 2013. Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Wetland Review Data Package and

Summary. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Trenham, P. C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for

population viability. Ecological Applications, 15: 1158–1168. Tsosie, S., S. Beninato, and J. Mann. 2013. Strategic Water Reserve. University of New Mexico

School of Law, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. Available online at: http://uttoncenter.unm.edu/pdfs/water-matters-2015/29_Strategic_Water_Reserve.pdf

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Albuquerque District. 2011. Environmental Assessment for the Middle Rio Grande Bosque Restoration Project. Available online at: http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/Portals/16/docs/environmental/fonsi/MRG%20Bosque%2 0Final%20Environmental%20Assessment.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. Official soil series descriptions. Available online at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. 12-month finding for a petition to list the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) in the western continental United States. Federal Register 66: 38611–38626.

———. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O.

———. 2007. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, NM. xiii + 175 pp.

———. 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. Managing Invasive Plants: Concepts, Principles and Practices. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/methods/chemical/practice.html.

———. 2011. Environmental Assessment, Land Protection Plan, and Conceptual Management Plan for the Middle Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared by the Southwest Region, Division of Planning, Albuquerque, NM.

———.2013. Mexican spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida): 5-year short form summary. Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

———. 2014. Final status review and assessment of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus). Prepared by the Listing Review Team, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

———. 2015. New Mexico Invasive Species Strike Team Report. U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 2015. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic

Trail. Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge National Historic Trail Development Concept Plan—Charrette Schedule and Agenda. Prepared for Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge.

Viney, A.P., W. H. Schlesinger, and J.W., Erisman. 2009. Effects of agriculture upon air quality and climate: research, policy, and regulations. Environmental Science & Technology 2009 43 (12), 4234-4240. Accessed: DOI: 10.1021/es8024403

Widner, Carolyn and Marion, Jeffrey L. 1993. Horse impacts: Research findings and their implications. Master Network, part 1-1993: No. 5, pp. 5, 14; part 2 - 1994: No. 6, pp. 5-6.

Wilson & Company. 2015. Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge Conceptual Site Plan Report.

http://uttoncenter.unm.edu/pdfs/water-matters-2015/29_Strategic_Water_Reserve.pdf

http://uttoncenter.unm.edu/pdfs/water-matters-2015/29_Strategic_Water_Reserve.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/methods/chemical/practice.html

http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/methods/chemical/practice.html


6.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 100-year Flood Event: A flood with a one percent probability of occurring in any given year. Accessible Facilities: Structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that meet Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and ABA Accessibility Standards. Adaptive Management: The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that uses feedback from research, monitoring, and evaluation of management actions to support or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels.

Agricultural Land: Non-forested land; now or recently pastures or crops. Adverse Impacts: Those impacts resulting from management actions that degrade the quality and/or quantity of identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities. Alternatives: Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, helping fulfill the NWR System mission, and resolving issues. A reasonable way to fix an identified problem or satisfy a stated need [40 CFR 1500.2 (cf. “management alternative”)]. Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the 1997 NWR System Improvement Act (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) or a use that contributes to the fulfillment of the refuge purpose(s), the NWR System mission, or goals or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997. Aquatic: Growing in, living in, or dependent upon water. Beneficial Impacts: Those impacts resulting from management actions that maintain or enhance the quality and/or quality of identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities. Bernalillo County’s Open Space Program: Lands acquired and managed by Bernalillo County to conserve natural and cultural resources, and provide opportunities for education and recreation and to shape the urban environment. The land is managed to benefit people, plants and wildlife by protecting and enhancing viewsheds, water resources, wildlife habitat, cultural/historical sites, and prime agricultural land; and providing resource-based recreation and environmental education. Best Management Practices (BMP): Land management practices that produce desired results [e.g., best management practices for herbicide application, grazing, etc.]. Biological Diversity or Biodiversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them and communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Biota: Plants and wildlife of the region. Bosque: Spanish word meaning “forest.” In New Mexico, bosque is used to refer to the riparian forest along the Rio Grande. Candidate Species/Candidate for Listing: Species for which there is sufficient information on file about their biological vulnerability and threats to propose listing them as threatened or endangered. Compatible Use: A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other proposed or existing use on a refuge that will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of the refuge or the NWR System mission.


Compatibility Determination: A document that assesses whether or not a use is compatible with the refuge purposes. Conceptual Management Plan: An overview of how the land will be managed until a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge is completed. It does not provide extensive detail related to management or show exactly where public use facilities would be located. Concern: see “issue” Conservation: Managing natural resources to prevent loss or waste, management actions may include preservation, restoration, and enhancement.Conservation Easement: A non-possessory interest in real property owned by another imposing limitations or affirmative obligations with the purpose of returning or protecting the property’s conservation values. Cooperating Agency: A cooperating agency assists the lead Federal agency in developing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA. Cooperative Agreement: A legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the Federal Government and a recipient when the principle purpose is to fund a project to support or stimulate activities that are not for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government but instead for a public purpose that the government participates substantially in. Corridor: Areas in the landscape that contain and connect natural areas, open spaces, and scenic or other resources. They often lie along streams, rivers, or other natural features. Critical Habitat: According the U.S. Federal law, the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. Cultural Resources: The collective evidence of the past activities and accomplishments of people such as the remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past; typically greater than 50 years old. Cumulative Effects: Incremental impacts resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including those taken by Federal and non-federal agencies, as well as undertaken by private individuals. Cumulative impacts may result from singularly minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Degradation: The loss of native species and processes due to human activities such that only certain components of the original biodiversity persist, often including significantly altered natural communities. Desired Future Condition: The qualities of an ecosystem or its components that an organization seeks to develop through its decisions and actions. Direct Effects: The impacts that would be caused by the alternative at the same time and place as the action. Disturbance: Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment. Duck-use Days (DUD): A duck-use day is the measure of which one acre of a given habitat type will provide adequate forage to meet the nutritional requirements of one duck for one day. Put simply, DUD represents the number of ducks that could be supported for one day by one acre of the habitat type.


Ecological Integrity: The relative intactness of the biotic and abiotic components and their interrelated structure and function within a given ecosystem. Ecosystem: Dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their associated non-living environment. Emergent Wetland: Wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants. Endangered Species: A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Enhance: Increasing the level or values provided by the action. Environmental Assessment (EA): A systematic analysis to determine if proposed Federal actions would result in a “significant effect on the quality of the human environment,” thereby requires either the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a determination of a “Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).” Environmental Education: Curriculum-based education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable about the environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve those problems, and motivated to work toward solving them. Environmental Health: The composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment. Exotic Species: A non-native plant or animal species introduced intentionally or unintentionally to the ecosystem under consideration. Federal Land: Public land owned by the Federal Government, including national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges. Federally-listed Species: A species listed either as endangered, threatened, or a species at risk (formerly a “candidate species”) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): Supported by an environmental assessment, a document that briefly presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment, and for which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared [40 CFR 1508.13.]. Floodplain: Flat or nearly flat land that may be submerged by floodwaters; a plain built up or in the process of being built up by stream deposition. Flyway: Any one of several established migration routes of birds; there are four: Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic Flyways. Fragmentation: The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. Fragmentation has two negative components for biota: the loss of total habitat area; and, the creation of smaller, more isolated patches of habitat. Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units. Groundwater: Water located beneath the ground surface in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formations; water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation, from which wells and springs and groundwater runoff are supplied. Habitat: The place or type of site where species and species assemblages are typically found and/or successfully reproduce; an organism’s habitat must provide all the basic requirements (e.g., food, shelter, space, and water) for life, and should be free of harmful contaminants. Habitat Conservation: Protecting an animal or plant habitat to ensure that the use of that


habitat by the animal or plant is not altered or reduced. Habitat Fragmentation: The breaking up of a specific habitat into smaller, unconnected areas. Historic Conditions: The composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial human-related changes to the landscape. Historic Floodplain: The area along a river influenced by periodic floods before flood control structures were created on the river system. Hydrologic or Flow Regime: Characteristic fluctuations in river flows. Hydrology: The science of waters of the Earth: their occurrences, distributions, and circulations; their physical and chemical properties; and their reactions with the environment, including living beings. Indirect Effects: Impacts that occur later in time or distance from the triggering action. Integrated Pest Management: Methods of managing undesirable species such as weeds, including: education, prevention, physical or mechanical methods of control, biological control; responsible chemical use; and cultural methods. Interpretation: Interpretation is a mission-based communication process that forges emotional and intellectual connections between the interests of the audience and the meanings inherent in the resource. Interpretation translates the technical language of science into terms and ideas that the non-scientist can readily understand. It typically involves visitor observation of on-site presentations by expert guides about biological, ecological, or cultural topics pertinent to the site or the NWR System in general. Interpretive Facilities: Structures that provide information about an event, place, or thing by a variety of means, including printed, audiovisual, or multimedia materials [e.g., kiosks that offer printed materials and audiovisuals, signs, and trail heads]. Invasive Species: A non-native or native species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species generally reduce diversity of ecosystems when they become dominant. Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires management decision(s) [e.g., an initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the resources unit, conflicts in uses, public concern, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition.]. Land Protection Plan: A document that identifies and prioritizes lands for potential Service acquisition from willing landowners, and describes other methods of providing protection. Landscape: An aggregate of land forms, together with its biological communities. Lead Agency: The agency carrying out the federal action who is responsible for complying with the requirements of NEPA and preparing official documents such as an Environmental Assessment and making the final determination. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): A green building certification program that recognizes best-in-class building strategies and practices. Long-term Impacts: Impacts that affect identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities; they occur during implementation of the management action and are expected to persist throughout the life of the plan and possible longer. Major Impacts: Impacts that result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have readily apparent and substantial effects on identified refuge resources and recreation opportunities at the identified scale; effects would be readily apparent and would substantially change the characteristics of the resource over a large area and are extreme or


excessive. Management Plan: A plan that guides future land management practices on a tract [N.b. In the context of an environmental impact statement, management plans may be designed to produce additional wildlife habitat along with primary products like time or agricultural crops (see cooperative agreement.”]. Management Strategy: A general approach to meeting unit objectives [N.b. A strategy may be broad, or it may be detailed enough to guide implementation through specific actions, tasks, and projects (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).]. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): see “Memorandum of Understanding”Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): A document written between parties to cooperatively work together on an agreed upon project or meet an agreed upon objective. Migrating Neotropical Birds: Birds that breed in Canada and the United States during the Northern Hemispheric summer and spend the Northern Hemispheric winter in Mexico, Central America, South America, or the Caribbean Islands. Migration: The seasonal movement of an individual or individuals [i.e., birds] from one area to another and back. Minor Impacts: Impacts that result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have detectable though limited effect on identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities at the identified scale; impacts are detectable but would affect a small area. Mitigation: Actions to compensate for the negative effects of a particular project [e.g., wetland mitigation usually restores or enhances a previously damaged wetland or creates a new wetland.]. Moderate Impacts: Impacts that result from a specified management action that can be reasonably expected to have apparent and detectable effects on identified refuge resources or recreation opportunities at the identified scale; effects would be readily apparent and would occur over a relatively large area but are not extreme or excessive. Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes in a selected parameter over time. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Requires all Federal agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use public participation in planning and implementing environmental actions [Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making (cf. 40 CFR 1500).]. National Wildlife Refuge (NWR): A designated area of land or water or an interest in land or water within the NWR System, such as refuges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas under Service jurisdiction for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife and plant resources. A complete listing of all units of the NWR System may be found in the current “Annual Report of Lands under Control of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.” National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR System): All lands, waters and interests therein administered by the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources. Native: A species that historically occurred in a particular ecosystem. Native Plant: A plant that has grown in the region since the last glaciation, and occurred here


before European settlement. Natural Disturbance Event: Any natural event that significantly alters the structure, composition, or dynamics of a natural community [e.g., floods, fires, storms, etc.]. Negligible Impacts: Impacts that result from management actions that cannot be reasonably expected to affect identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities at the identified scale. Non-consumptive, Wildlife-dependent Recreation: Wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation. Non-native Species: A plant or animal species not native to the area and introduced intentionally or unintentionally. Non-priority Public Use: Any use other than a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use. Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives should be attainable, time-specific, and measurable. Outreach: Outreach is specific targeted information that is communicated to a specific audience (e.g., flyers). Partnership: A contract or agreement among two or more individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, or agencies, in which each agrees to furnish capital or some service in kind (e.g., labor) for a mutually beneficial enterprise. Population: An interbreeding group of plants or animals. Also refers to the entire group of organisms of one species. Priority Public Use: Wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation which receive priority consideration in refuge planning and management. Public: Individuals, organizations, and non-government groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government agencies; Native American tribes, and foreign nations — includes anyone outside of the core planning team, those who may or may not have indicated an interest in the issues, and those who do or do not realize that our decisions affect them. Public Involvement: Offering an opportunity to interested individuals and organizations potentially affected by actions or policies to become informed and provide input. Public input is thoroughly studied and given thoughtful consideration in shaping decisions about managing refuges. Public Land: Land owned by local, State, or Federal governments. Public Uses: Normally refers to the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), but may include other permitted special uses. Purposes of the Refuge: “The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit” [601 FW 1]. Refuge Goals: According to “Writing Refuge management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook”, refuge goals are “…descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a purpose but do not define measureable units.”


Refuge Lands: Lands in which the Service holds full interest in fee-title or partial interest like an easement. Refuge Purpose: According to the NWR System Improvement Act of 1997, “[t]he terms ‘purposes of the refuge’ and ‘purposes of each refuge’ mean that purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit.” Restoration: Recreating environmental conditions similar those when there was less human influence on the landscape. A goal of recreating pre-European settlement conditions is not considered attainable in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Riparian Area: Of or relating to land lying immediately adjacent to a water body and having specific characteristics of that area, such as vegetation influenced by that water body. Runoff: Water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over a land surface into a water body. Urban Runoff: Water from rain, melted snow, or landscape irrigation flowing from city streets and domestic or commercial properties that may carry pollutants into a sewer system or water body. Scoping: A process for identifying the “scope of issues” to be addressed in planning refuge activities. Short-term Impacts: Impacts that affect identified refuge resources or recreational opportunities; they occur during implementation of the management action but last no longer. Sound Professional Judgment: A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, and adherence to the requirements of the NWR System Administration Act of 1966, as amended and other appropriate laws. Species: The basic category of biological classification intended to designate a single kind of animal or plant. Any variation among the individuals may be regarded as not affecting the essential sameness which distinguishes them from all other organisms. Species of Special Concern: A species or population which warrants special protection, recognition, or consideration because it has an inherent significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or substantial human exploration which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming threatened. Stakeholders: Those agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals of the public, having an interest or stake in an organization’s program, and that may be affected by its implementation. Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, techniques, used to meet unit objectives. Succession: The natural, sequential change of species composition of a community in a given area. Surface Water: Water collecting on the ground or in a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean; all waters whose surface is naturally exposed to the atmosphere, or wells or other collectors directly influenced by surface water. Sustainable Development: The attempts to meet economic objectives in ways that do not degrade the underlying environmental support system. [Note: there is considerable debate over the meaning of this term. We define it as “human activities conducted in a manner that respects the intrinsic value of the natural world, the role of the natural world in human well-being, and the need for humans to live on the income from nature’s capital itself.”].


Threatened Species: A plant of animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Upland: Dry ground [i.e., other than wetlands or floodplains.].Urban Refuge: Acquired lands and waters in or adjacent to metropolitan statistical areas (over 100,000 people) to protect fish and wildlife resources and habitats that will provide the public wildlife-dependent recreation, education, and interpretation opportunities. Watershed: The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or stream system. Wetland: Areas such as lakes, marshes, ponds, swamps, or streams that are inundated by surface or groundwater long enough to support plants and animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Service Manual 660 FW 2). Seasonal wetland - a wetland basin or portion of a basin where surface water is present in the early part of the growing season but is absent by the end of the season in most years. Wildfire: Unplanned ignition of a wild land fire (such as a fire caused by lightening, volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires) and escaped prescribed fires. Wildlife: Any wild animal, whether alive or dead, including any wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk [i.e., clam, snail, squid, octopus], crustacean [i.e., crab, lobster, crayfish], insect, sponges, corals, or other invertebrate, whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity, and including any part, product (including manufactured products and processed food products), egg, or offspring; wildlife refers to non-domesticated animals that are free-ranging and live in a natural environment or habitat. Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use: “A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation” [605 FW 1.]. These are the six priority public uses of the NWR System Administration Act of 1966, as amended. Wildlife- dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. Other uses are also considered in the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence.

7.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AC Advisory Circular AMAFCA Albuquerque Metropolitan Flood Control Authority AOA Air Operation Area AOS Albuquerque Open Space BASH Bird/Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard BMP Best Management Practices Bosque Spanish “Forest”; riparian forest of the Rio Grande DOI Department of Interior DUD Duck-use Days EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HMP Habitat Management Plan I&M Inventory and Monitoring


IMP Integrated Pest Management KAFB Kirtland Air Force Base (USAF) MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOU MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRGCD Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NMSLO New Mexico State Land Office NPS U.S. National Park Service (DOI) NRCS National Resources Conservation Service (USDA) NWR National Wildlife Refuge NWR System National Wildlife Refuge System refuge Valle de Oro NWR (usually) OSE New Mexico Office of the State Engineer PUPS Pesticide Use Proposal System Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI) Sunport Albuquerque International Sunport SUP Special Use Permit TPL Trust for Public Lands USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAF U.S. Air Force (Department of Defense) USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (DOI) USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WHA Wildlife Hazard Assessment WHMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

8.0 APPENDICES

Appendices to the Restoration, Activities, and Site Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) for Valle de Oro NWR are briefly summarized below. Appendices are available upon request.

Appendix I. USFWS/NWR System: Urban Wildlife Refuge Standards of Excellence 2014.

• The goal of the Urban Wildlife Refuge Program is to engage urban communities as

partners in wildlife conservation. Excellence may be achieved through the eight standards that serve as a framework for collaboration among the Service and urban communities, whether such collaboration is on or off Service lands. This document outlines the Service’s Standards of Excellence for Urban National Wildlife Refuges.

Appendix II. Wilson & Company/Sites Southwest: Valle de Oro NWR Conceptual Site Plan Report 2015.

• The Valle de Oro NWR Conceptual Site Plan presented in this report aims to establish a

direction for the planning and design of the Valle de Oro NWR and the design of AMAFCA’s swale. This report was accomplished under a contract between Wilson & Company, Sites Southwest, and AMAFCA signed in September 2013 and completed in March 2015.


Appendix III. Great Outdoor Consultants: Valle de Oro NWR Interpretive Framework and Site Plan 2015.

• In 2014, the Service continued with the planning process for Valle de Oro NWR by

completing an interpretive framework that establishes key interpretive messages as well as the conceptual designs of both landscapes and facilities. The Service hired a team of experienced consultants to help with the project including Great Outdoors Consultants, PUP Global Heritage Consortium, and Robert Peccia & Associates.

Appendix IV. Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Wetland Designs for Valle de Oro NWR.

• After design charrettes with the Great Outdoor Consultants, Wilson & Company, and

others, Ducks Unlimited worked with previous designs and the Service to come up with a wetland concept for Valle de Oro NWR. This design plan outlines potential wetland designs for the refuge in coordination with existing wells and the AMAFCA swale.

Appendix V. U.S. National Park Service: El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Development Concept Plan for Valle de Oro NWR.

• The Service worked with NPS and other stakeholders to develop a concept plan, goals,

and objectives for the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail to be constructed and designated on Valle de Oro NWR. This report outlines the goals and objectives created by the Service and NPS through various public charrettes and meetings.

Appendix VI. Compatibility Determinations for Proposed Public Use at Valle de Oro NWR.

• Compatibility determinations are included in this appendix. The following were found to

be appropriate and evaluated to determine their compatibility with the mission of the Service, NWR System, and the purposes of Valle de Oro NWR:

o Commercial Arts; o Commercial Hay and Alfalfa Agriculture — Cooperative Farming/Land

Management; o Construction of a Visitor Center; o Cycling; o Environmental Education; o Horseback Riding; o Interpretation; o Jogging and Walking; o Picnicking; o Research by Non-Service Staff, including Citizen Scientists; o Wildlife Observation; and o Wildlife Photography.


Appendix VII. USFWS Preparing for Climate Change and Innovative Regional Partnership Factsheets for Valle de Oro NWR.

• The Service collaborated with Federal and regional partners to conduct research through

the Climate Change Scenario Planning Project (CCSP), which studied potential temperature and precipitation changes, and projected associated impacts on area wildlife, in order to inform planning for the region’s future. The Service is contributing to local preparedness to climate change and extreme weather by developing a new urban refuge, Valle de Oro NWR. The refuge is a local example of the Service’s efforts to address climate change across the country. This factsheet summarizes the Service’s adopted a strategic plan called Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change.

Appendix VIII. New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office Letter about Cultural/Archaeological/Historic Resources on Valle de Oro NWR.

• In compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Valle de Oro NWR

was assessed on whether any known historic properties are present on the refuge and if these properties would be affected by development. This assessment of no effect on historic properties was done by the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office.

Appendix IX. Service Response to Public Review Comments

• Comments from 26 members of the public and 14 cooperating agencies/partners were

received during the public comment period. The comments and Service responses are listed in the appendix.

Appendix X. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form.

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all Federal agencies to work to conserve

endangered and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the Act. Section 7 of the Act is the mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. Federal agencies are required to determine whether their actions may affect listed or proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat (henceforth, referred to as protected resources). This Biological Assessment’s primary role is to document the refuge’s conclusions and the rationale to support those conclusions regarding the effects of its proposed actions on protected resources.

Appendix XI. Signed Decision Documents.

• Signed Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Action Statement for the

Environmental Assessment for the Restoration, Activities, and Site Plan for Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Valle de Oro National Wildlife Refuge 7851 2nd Street SW Albuquerque, NM 87105 505/248-6667 www.fws.gov/refuge/valle_de_oro/

Girl in environmental education class at Valle de Oro NWR Genevieve Barrett / USFWS

Overview of Valle de Oro NWR. Marisa Rodriguez-McGill / USFWS

August 2017

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/valle_de_oro/