Summary of Comments received on

Summary of Comments & Matched to Sections of the Interim Final New Mexico Statewide Policy and Strategic Plan for Non-Native Phreatophyte/Watershed Management The following represents the wide range of comments received and they are matched to appropriate sections of the Strategic Plan. They are categorized under the Recommendation and Implementation sections and are presented in no particular order of importance. For these two sections of the Strategic Plan, the Plan’s text is provided with the comments presented immediately afterward in Arial font. There were numerous comments that congratulated the HB-2 Work Group on the plan being well done, clear, and succinct. The comments summarized below represent either questions or statements people have on the plan or a future action. Comments on the templates and protocols as well as general comments are also presented. I. Management recommendations: 1. We support the concept of an office of forest and watershed health in State government whose primary function could be to identify and coordinate resources, and to facilitate cooperation between State agencies and other partners in support of this Strategic Plan and other related statewide policy documents. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. Support concept and NMDA should be agency to house new office. NMEMNR or NMED should manage the program. What will the role and focus of this office? What will its budget be? Where will it be located, under what department? How will a new bureaucracy help on-the-ground activities? More “red tape” which will dilute available funds and make it more complex. New office not needed. Existing system works. No need to create a new entity, this will create a lot of redundancy. Limited funds should go to operations and implementation. Better to fund education recommendations than a new office. What is the plan for the “saltcedar Czar”? Is it part of this new office, NMDA, SWCDs? What is the role of the “watershed coordinator”? Local “grass-roots” control of program much better than “Santa Fe” lead. Statewide coordinator should not have “regulatory” authority. Coordination should occur at all levels (local, state, federal, and Tribal). Who makes the final decision on this new office? The office needs to be better defined. What is the role of the office – “Coordination” or “program control”? How will this coordination take place with all the “partners”? 1 u. SWCDs are doing it right and need to be recognized for their good work. 2. NMDA will provide the administrative and contract oversight, in cooperation with the Soil and Water Conservation Commission and soil and water conservation districts, for the non-native phreatophyte management program funded by State appropriations. They will further refine appropriate performance measures for program outcomes in order to ensure accountability and to report results. These actions will be directly tied to the Templates and Protocols found in this Plan and other elements deemed necessary by NMDA (i.e., NMDA’s conformance with State accountability in government requirements). NMDA internal program accounting functions will continue to track appropriation expenditures. a. What is NMSU’s role in relationship to NMDA’s responsibilities? b. A statement assuring that NMDA will clearly have primacy for conduct of the Program is needed. c. Will NMDA’s relationship with SWCC allow NMDA to create an objective, rational process for awarding project funds? d. The local SWCDs should perform the work, but NMACD should not influence the expenditure of state funds. e. Will NMDA be responsible for inventory of infestations, selecting control techniques, prioritization, and monitoring? f. Who determines the most successful treatment method and what is the basis for evaluation? g. How will the decision process work for selecting control, revegetation, management, and monitoring? h. What mechanism is provided for individuals and organizations to be involved with the implementation of the plan? i. NM State Forestry department should be involved specifically on past projects. j. NMDA should not be the agency to manage the program because it has a bias towards herbicides, outstanding questions on the management of past funds, and is not responsible to the Governor because it reports to the NMSU regents. k. There needs to be independent oversight over NMDA expenditures. 3. NMDA and the Soil and Water Conservation Commission will convene the project proponents, relevant technical advisors, and partners to review this Plan and its action items on an annual basis. This will ensure incorporation of elements of adaptive management as new knowledge and information becomes available from on-theground project implementation and new research. This will also allow the program to take advantage of coordinating opportunities at the statewide landscape scale. 2 a. Adaptive management is critical to ensure that herbicide use is based on best available science. Use FWHP definition for Adaptive Management. b. More frequent reviews than on an annual basis may be appropriate. This would facilitate adaptive management better. 4. Independent assessment of projects will be performed to verify how well objectives identified at the start of projects are being achieved. This activity will require additional resources and may be performed by either NMDA or its subcontractor. a. What is the mechanism for accountability and reporting on past and future work? b. Independent assessment should be performed by a truly independent party outside of NMDA or organizations working on the program. c. Oversight needs to be broadened. There is also a perception of no accountability. d. Will there be an oversight committee? e. Accountability and progress reports should be a timely, transparent process. f. The review team needs to well balanced among stakeholders and interests. g. A frequent, balanced, expert, and independent review of the program is critical to accomplishing the Plan’s vision of becoming a “national model”. h. Assessments should include impacts of control, especially herbicides on wildlife, sensitive, and protected species. 5. Agencies, including NMDA, that fund and/or implement forest and watershed health related programs will retain autonomy in programmatic decision making and funding, but will, where relevant, ensure project management plans conform to the templates and protocols contained within this Plan. NMDA will assist with coordination of related activities among and between partners. a. Does this mean that NMDA will make all the decisions regarding projects using state funds? 6. Information will be shared among partners for the present and future benefit of statewide landscape-scale forest and watershed health improvements identified in this Plan and the FWHP. To support this information exchange, a centralized clearinghouse will be established for planning, monitoring, and project related information. a. The central database needs further clarification; i.e., where, who funds it, who maintains it, what are the benefits. 3 II. Planning 1. Since the FWHP recommendations provide much of the overall rehabilitation perspective for watersheds, it is recommended that these be adopted. In addition, the recommendations from the State Water Plan, as found in Section C-8 promoting river riparian and watershed rehabilitation, should be supported. 2. Respective State, Tribal, federal, and local agencies should work together to identify all forest and watershed planning efforts currently underway. In collaboration with program partners, these agencies should make recommendations for statewide forest and watershed health planning. Existing frameworks should be used to accomplish this level of planning and/or create a new level of planning. Ideally, this framework would identify resources necessary for each activity, and list a priority schedule for this level of planning. Specifically, watershed-scale plans should be developed for the five principle watersheds (Rio Grande, Pecos, Canadian, San Juan, and Gila/San Francisco), and one additional planning study should be performed for the remaining smaller watersheds (Little Colorado, Central Closed, Tularosa and Huerco, Salt, Southwest Closed, and Southern High Plains Basin). This level of planning would not replace site-specific planning required at the local level for specific projects. State-level funding should be provided for these planning activities in the near future, with completion of these planning studies accomplished within two to three years. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. Who will be responsible for developing these plans? How will the planning efforts be funded? When will these efforts begin? Important to work from the top of watersheds down, from tributaries to main stem of the rivers. Having a big picture of total problem and associated costs will be helpful. What about other invasives; e.g., Chinese elm, tree-of-heaven, Arundo donac, etc. Six watershed plans are too large – better to use smaller subwatersheds like BLM uses. Use baseline data for watershed plans, such as the Pecos River system comprehensive plan. When required, who has responsibility for Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments? Watershed planning is a waste of effort – monies should be spent on removing saltcedar. In planning activities, need to consider endangered species, exclusion zones, and critical habitat. Need to address the entire watershed, riparian is only part of the picture. Need to coordinate these efforts with existing planning efforts; e.g., Taos regional water and fire plan. 4 3. Local and regional site-specific planning will continue and will consider recommendations (as they become available) originating from State, federal, Tribal, and local agencies to incorporate statewide landscape-scale priorities for specific projects. Development of local/regional site-specific planning activities will continue as a collaborative effort and build upon past recommendations to incorporate new information and priorities. 4. Prioritization of future projects will be based on objective criteria for control, rehabilitation, maintenance, and monitoring of projects as identified in this Plan. Sound science, economics, local community involvement, cultural and traditional values, cost-benefit analysis, and urgency will play a role in this prioritization process as data and issues emerge. a. Water should be a part of the prioritization process. b. How do wilderness infestations get priority? 5. Planning for the activities discussed in this Plan will mature in response to adaptive management strategies. Close coordination among partners will ensure that individuals at different levels of interest are involved in the policy making process. III. Funding 1. Significant federal and private foundation funding is available to match State funding for tamarisk control/revegetation and watershed improvement projects; e.g., USDA, Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, EPA, Corps of Engineers, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the National Forest Foundation. Typically, these funding sources will provide from 50 to 75 percent of the overall project costs, and can go as high as 90 percent. It is recommended that future State funding strive for a minimum match of 25 percent from one or more of the following non-State sources: federal, private foundations, in-kind support by the landowner, and/or in-kind support by local communities. This approach is familiar to the agricultural and conservation community through programs such as WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program) and EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program). Most importantly, this cost sharing approach engages the landowner in the ownership of the rehabilitation effort. NMDA and the N.M. Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) will be developing a comprehensive list of non-State funding sources for tamarisk control/revegetation assistance, and their associated submittal requirements, eligibility, deadlines, required deliverables, cost share, and other general information. a. If matching is a “requirement” there is concern that available State funds would not be used. b. Matching funds should be required. c. Can State Parks or other state funding be used as matching? d. Timing of State funding should match with federal fiscal timing. 5 2. New Mexico is the national leader in its support for non-native phreatophyte control and rehabilitation projects. This support should continue, with emphasis placed on rehabilitation for those sites previously controlled that need active revegetation actions. Secondary priorities should be new projects that have developed sufficient planning documentation to identify the priorities for control, monitoring, maintenance, and rehabilitation. a. What is the source for stating New Mexico is the leader in research and control efforts? b. The plan appears to indicate an open-ended commitment – is there an end in mind? c. Need to target near term actions that are needed in areas that have already been controlled. d. Of critical importance is the funding of the watershed-scale planning efforts. This will provide State landscape-scale priorities that will inform funding priorities. e. Funding priorities should be first - rehabilitation projects, second – control projects that have watershed-scale plans developed, and third – control projects that have local planning completed. f. The highest funding priority should be for the ongoing EPSCOR project. g. Prioritization is needed for the 2006 projects in consultation with the technical advisory panel. h. Maintenance funding needed. i. Monitoring for baseline data is very important. j. How can the Tribes gain access to this funding and be prioritized for it? k. Tribes should have equal access to these state funds. l. The tribes do a better job and have more interest in long-term management; therefore, should get a greater amount of the funding. m. When will prioritization of funds occur? n. How do communities or individuals apply for funding? o. Prioritization should include interaction with federal agencies. p. Landowners and private business should be able to propose for funding projects using their own equipment. q. Can public land treatments be integrated programmatically with private land treatments? r. Prioritization should consider projects in progress, ones that require revegetation efforts, ones that address ESA or interstate Compact concerns, and projects that would be eligible for federal matching funds. 3. Specific criteria for establishing funding priorities must be developed. These would include degree of resource leveraging, completion of prior projects, meeting watershed planning goals, quantifiable partnerships, etc. NMDA and partner State agencies in consultation with the SWCDs would develop these criteria. 6 a. What will be the criteria for prioritizing funding? b. When will this prioritization system be in place? Suggestion of September 30, 2005. c. How will limited funding be prioritized? d. Who or what agency makes funding decisions? e. Allocation of funding should be based on need and prioritization. f. Rehab and restoration efforts should have the highest priority and be funded this year. g. How will different areas of the State be prioritized? IV. Education 1. Comprehensive educational and outreach efforts are necessary to maintain continued public involvement on watershed planning and rehabilitation efforts. It is recommended that NMDA, SWCDs, and the NMSU Cooperative Extension Service provide expanded resources in educational outreach, rehabilitation training, and general educational materials, including publications. This effort can be supported by expertise from federal USDA and Interior agency partners. An example of information that is urgently needed is a “Best Management Practices” manual. Currently, word of mouth and public meetings are the primary means of conveying information. a. Education is important and should include public and K-12 on the problem. b. Funding on education is investment and will return many times over. c. Education is the key to a long-term approach. d. Best Management Practices handbook is needed for control, revegetation, maintenance, and monitoring measures – when will it be available? e. Use existing university and wilderness groups’ education programs. f. BMP’s should include updates on safer herbicides. g. The hazards of herbicides and their use need to be better articulated so landowners can make good decisions. h. Educational materials are important to identify all the methods for control and their pros and cons. 2. Each control and rehabilitation project should include project specific education, outreach, and landowner training to improve the success rate of rehabilitation activities and to maintain and increase the public’s understanding of the project and its importance to overall watershed health. 3. University programs are encouraged to prepare and maintain a cadre of experts, including faculty and students involved in all aspects of watershed management and rehabilitation efforts. Additionally, NMDA, New Mexico 7 universities, and the NMSU Cooperative Extension Service should offer classes, internships, and special projects as part of a “Living Laboratory” for training and education of the workforce for the next generation. This university level educational component is essential to fill the growing demand for natural resource management expertise in collaboration with New Mexico universities, including Highlands where a federally funded ecological restoration institute is being established. a. Use existing project sites as the “living laboratory”. V. Monitoring 1. Monitoring is critical to long-term success of any watershed management action. It allows decision-makers to understand how the ecosystem is being altered and the benefits or disadvantages of those alterations. This requires that baseline information, as well as future changes are monitored. It is recommended that monitoring be required for all watershed projects and that funding for baseline through long-term activities be required prior to project implementation. These monitoring activities should be funded separately from control, remediation, and long-term management funds. 2. Each control and revegetation project should consider the involvement of local secondary schools in a program of long-term monitoring, using the Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Program (BEMP) model to engage students in performing basic monitoring tasks. The BEMP model would enable each community to become involved in restoring desirable conditions to local impacted lands, and students would develop skills in natural resource management. This would ensure that each site would have a consistent, comprehensive collection of data to guide on-going adaptive management of the projects, leading to more successful outcomes. VI. Research 1. Currently, there is no national program, consortium, institute, or lab that is focused on non-native phreatophytes and watershed rehabilitation. Although there are a large number of people working in this field, this lack of a coordinated research approach is a drawback to gaining the scientific input necessary to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these activities. Therefore, New Mexico should take this leadership position for the region and use the State’s universities to partner with key federal agencies (i.e., USDA, Agriculture Research Service, Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) along with leading universities in other states to form a non-native phreatophyte/watershed rehabilitation consortium similar to that formed for saltcedar bio-control efforts. This approach will focus resources for specific problems, bring 8 together the best researchers (from New Mexico and other western states), prevent undue duplication of effort, and will be more desirable to funding sources. The three Ecosystem Restoration Institutes, authorized under recent federal legislation (Public Law 108-317), in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, would be important components of this consortium. Water salvage should be a focus of research. How will New Mexico’s leadership be maintained? What is the quantification of “water salvage” in New Mexico? What is the status of bio-control using insects and can it be successful in NM? e. What can be done with tamarisk carcasses – options for bio-mass utilization? f. Replacement plants for tamarisk and Russian olive that are acceptable and use less water. g. Specific research should be done on herbicide use, safety, and alternatives. a. b. c. d. 2. A central database for information resulting from planning, monitoring, and research activities should be established and maintained to ensure full dissemination of critical information. VII. Government Actions 1. Rehabilitation efforts require funding that is substantial, continuous, and long-term to solve the serious problems that New Mexico faces with its watersheds. The New Mexico Legislature and Congressional delegation are to be commended for taking the lead in the West for supporting funding for continuing and expanding the non-native phreatophyte control program and watershed rehabilitation. Current federal funding is available from a number of agencies and departments (e.g., EPA, Interior, Corps of Engineers, and USDA). The State should continue to take its proactive role in supporting existing programs and the passage and authorization of pending legislation. a. b. c. d. Need continuous long-term source of funding. What is the reality of long-term funding? Will there be funding beyond just control efforts? Funding should be aggressive and legislature should be serious about large-scale approach. 2. Invasive species do not respect jurisdictional boundaries, nor do most other watershed issues; therefore, it is imperative that actions, to be effective, gain cooperation of adjacent political jurisdictions. This cross border cooperation in New Mexico is 9 required at the local level as well as at more expansive levels. The SWCDs have been coordinating much of the local cooperation, but more is needed at the State level. It is recommended that the Governor and his Cabinet actively work with the State’s Tribal governments, Mexico, adjacent states, and the Western Governors Association to foster Tribal, interstate, and international cooperation for solving the non-native phreatophyte problem and reaching a consensus on watershed management priorities. a. What efforts are being made to work with adjacent states? We recommend the Legislature and Governor consider providing continuous, sustainable funding for non-native phreatophyte programs in New Mexico. We direct readers to the referenced State study, which identifies important conservation initiatives and options for their sustained funding. Implementation – 2005 Actions for NMDA: 1. NMDA’s resource needs will be evaluated to determine increases necessary to provide technical assistance in areas such as contract administration, plant ecology, riparian rehabilitation, and funds procurement (federal and other non-State sources). a. NMDA needs funding commitment to carry out implementation. b. Need to identify staff requirements and funding needs. 2. Current policies will be expanded for the oversight of non-native phreatophyte control projects. These will use specific metrics to assess performance. 3. A prioritization framework will be established for new non-native phreatophyte projects, and priorities will be set for 2006 projects based on critical habitat, fire threat, cultural significance, containment strategy, and other factors. This prioritization framework will to be determined by spring 2006. 4. Tactical plans for each watershed will be developed by summer 2007 using the newly developed templates and protocols. 5. A broad-based technical advisory panel will be established from State, federal, Tribal governments, universities, environmental organizations, and other sources by the fall of 2005. Members will serve primarily in a voluntary capacity. The function of this technical advisory panel is to:  Provide input to processes for independent scientific review of watershed planning, local site-specific planning, monitoring, performance evaluation, and identification of critical research needs. 10  Review the inventory of infestations on a watershed scale and determine geographic information system (GIS) to provide a statewide landscape scale resource review.  Review Best Management Practices for all aspects of control/rehabilitation.  Review projects for achievement of performance objectives and milestones.  Evaluate and update Templates and Protocols as necessary to achieve objectives. a. Technical Advisory Panel should not be dominated by weed management interests, but should include a fair representation from ecological science and non-SWCD restoration practitioners along with SWCDs. b. How will panel members be appointed? c. Will the panel be an independent third-party? d. Will the technical advisory panel be the mechanism for soliciting project proposals, reviewing proposals, and making recommendations to NMDA for award of funds? e. Who will appoint panel (NMDA, Governor, ?) and for how long? f. Panel make-up should be multi-disciplinary and should not include anyone who would gain financially from the panel’s recommendations. g. Will some or all of the panel members be paid? 6. A cost-sharing policy will be established by fall 2005 that will identify the recommended in-kind match from landowners participating in these efforts. 7. The potential for federal agencies to be actively engaged to access matching funds for the non-native phreatophyte program will be explored through the development of a central point of contact. NMDA Actions Within the Next 5 Years (in collaboration with its partners) 1. Over the next 2 years, NMDA will encourage current educational outreach programs that target expansion of watershed health and riparian rehabilitation. These educational initiatives may be through NMSU Cooperative Extension Service, NRCS, and/or the SWCDs. 2. Through efforts with the technical advisory panel, NMDA will develop a draft Handbook of Best Management Practices for non-native phreatophyte control and revegetation by spring 2007. 3. By fall 2007, NMDA will encourage NMSU and other New Mexico universities to develop a living demonstration laboratory for teaching and training purposes on Best Management Practices. 11 4. NMDA, in collaboration with partners, will provide the leadership with New Mexico universities in the formation of a Western States Non-native Phreatophyte/Watershed Research Consortium that will perform critical research on all aspects of control, revegetation, and monitoring to increase efficiency and effectiveness. 5. NMDA will work with other State agencies to interact with their counterparts in adjacent states and Mexico to develop cooperation on solving the non-native phreatophyte problem and other watershed management priorities. Templates and Protocols: a. Tamarisk control and management is critical for watershed health. b. When will baseline monitoring occur and who will do it? c. Monitoring by landowners will be a burden – it should be the responsibility of the State. d. Suggestion that T&Ps be applied on projects over a 2-year pilot phase and updated based on experience. e. How do T&Ps apply to Tribes since they are independent nations? f. The T&Ps list cultural values at the end – they should be first and the most important. g. T&Ps should have been developed using the Work Group approach with public meetings. h. Who will do the landscape-scale monitoring, how long will it take, and what will its cost be? i. Single statewide entity for monitoring would be best. j. Landowners need to be involved with monitoring. k. Local monitoring can work if everyone uses the same yardstick. l. Aerial spraying of herbicides is an issue with organic farmers and must be considered in the T&Ps. m. Risks to endangered species (sw willow flycatcher) must be a strong consideration in developing any control program. n. An intermediate level of monitoring is needed to give project managers important information on their efforts. o. Monitoring P&Ts discuss sociological and cultural impacts – who is qualified to do this? p. Landowner monitoring assumes landowners are qualified – is this really true? q. The Hydrologic and Ecological FWHP guiding principles should be incorporated into the revegetation and rehabilitation T&Ps. r. Assessing the impacts of non-native carcasses after herbicide control should be part of T&Ps. s. Control T&Ps should be modified to include a notification (before, during, and after) section for landowners whenever herbicides are used. t. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means more than herbicide use. 12 u. Under control T&Ps, does herbicide use impacts refer to short- and longterm impacts or the use of herbicides over a short- and long-term? v. Under revegetation T&PS, what does “artificial plantings” mean. w. Monitoring #2 should require that “all” herbicide ingredients be monitored. x. Monitoring #2 for herbicides should included all available information not just what NMED has. y. Monitoring #3 should include invertebrates at the “species” level and not restricted to parameters used by NM Game& Fish and USF&WS. z. Monitoring #4 should include soil microbes. General comments: a. All of the recommendations should be seen as emergent suggestions rather than rigid rules. b. Support efforts that control woody vegetation when coupled with judicious provisions for replacement with native vegetation conductive to a broad array of wildlife use. c. Include the “current state of affairs” elsewhere in the West as a part of the webpage or the plan. d. Applaud elements of the Plan regarding adaptive management, sound science, education, monitoring, and research. e. Tribes were involved only to a minimum amount in the development of the Plan and did not have much say in it. They were not kept informed. f. NM Department of Indian Affairs does not represent Tribes, only Tribes represent Tribes. They need to be involved individually. g. Tribes are skeptical of the process for developing the Plan; i.e., sounded good, but even with repeated requests for involvement, were never informed of meetings or invited to participate. h. How does the plan address Tribal lands that cross state lines? i. Strategic Plan is fine, but must focus future efforts on Implementation. j. Whole-heartedly support the hydrologic guiding principle within the Plan. k. Importance of plan should be made clearer that it not only about water but also about ecological restoration. l. Minimal success will be attained unless the root problems (improper land management, impoundments, diversions, flood control, river confinement, and livestock grazing) are addressed and managed. m. Strongly encourage that control be performed without the use of herbicides. n. In addition to attempting to control exotic species, it is paramount to restore the desired ecosystem components and functions. o. It is not clear that tamarisk removal will benefit native species in a majority of dry sites. p. Landowners generally agree about the urgency to control tamarisk. q. “Background” section should include references to congressional support in the Bosque del Apache NWR over the past 4 years. 13 r. For federal projects there needs to be a way to streamline NEPA and other federal requirements. s. The Strategic Plan and funding sources should be constantly be updated. t. The definition for “Partners” should include professional societies. u. What agency will be responsible for updating the Plan? v. Non-native Phreatophyte Plan seems to parallel the Forest and Watershed Health Plan and should be worked together. w. Confused as to difference between the two plans. x. Clarify existing goat project’s size and costs. y. How are environmental groups involved in the planning and what has been their reaction to the plan? z. Is the saltcedar plan a subset of the watershed plan? aa. What is the desired outcome from this plan? bb. Will there be a mandatory requirement for landowners to control nonnatives? cc. Need to put a stop to the sales of tamarisk and other invasive plants in the state from nurseries – strengthen and enforce existing noxious weed laws. dd. Need definition in text and in definitions section of “landowners”. ee. Who are the “partners” and what does “cooperate” mean in the definition section? ff. Important to involve the youth in program such as Youth Conservation Corps. gg. There is a perception that all funding goes to control and none to restoration. hh. Under Guiding Principles include a new one that reads “Control strategies using herbicides should be applied in a fashion that fully prevents unintended movement of chemicals into water supplies and waterways and onto private and public lands. ii. Include use of water by different species of plants, native and non-native. jj. The redistribution of responsibility and money appears to have been the primary purpose of the HB-2 committee and this document. kk. The state needs to address other methods of reducing water consumption in the state other than just focusing on phreatophyte removal. 14