Muleshoe and Grulla National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Muleshoe and Grulla
National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
July 2004
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 2, Division of Planning
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions; set forth
goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail planning program levels that are
sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment
for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Muleshoe National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Grulla NWR will serve as a management tool to
be used by the refuge staff and its partners in the preservation and
restoration of the ecosystem’s natural resources. In that regard, the plan
will guide management decisions over the next 15 years and set forth
strategies for achieving refuge goals and objectives within that time frame.
The results of the planning process are represented within this document.
Management actions identified within this document reflect a need to
achieve a number of refuge goals that are supported by measurable
objectives and specific implementation strategies.
The goals of the CCP are designed to fulfill the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s (Service) mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge
System), as well as the established purposes of Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs.
The accomplishment of the management objectives and the employment of
associated activities and strategies will assist in the achievement of the
following broad refuge goals:
Goal 1: Natural Diversity: Provide habitat and manage for
migrating and wintering waterfowl, sandhill cranes, other
migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and
other species of concern by implementing appropriate
management strategies.
Goal 2: Cultural Resources: Identify, protect, and interpret the
prehistoric and historic cultural resources on Muleshoe and
Grulla NWRs for the benefit of present and future
generations.
Goal 3: Ecological Integrity: Protect the areas’ resource values
through land protection strategies that protect tracts of land
with desirable habitats. Strategies could include
agreements with private land owners, and consideration of
developing boundary expansion proposals for eventual
purchase of fee title and less than fee title interest in
adjacent lands.
Goal 4: Recreational Uses: Further the public’s interest and
involvement with Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs through
wildlife interpretation, education/outreach programs, and
quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
Goal 5: Partnerships and Interagency Coordination: Maintain or
strengthen existing interagency and jurisdictional
relationships and establish new partnerships within the
community to cooperate on mutually beneficial programs for
improving wildlife and habitat resources on the refuge,
within the High Plains region, and the Edwards Plateau
Ecosystem.
Goal 6: Administrative, Budgetary and Staff Resources: Develop
program support sufficient to provide the necessary staffing,
facilities, equipment, and operational funds to accomplish
the goals of the refuge and fulfill the mission of the Refuge
System.
Objectives with measurable outcomes will guide the refuge staff in a
consistent direction toward the accomplishment of each goal. The major
objectives of the CCP include the following:
C Document the diversity of native flora on refuge lands by developing a
comprehensive vegetation map of Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs by 2006.
C Develop a comprehensive biological data base for Muleshoe and Grulla
NWRs, revise and update the refuge biological program including
wildlife inventory plans using the most current information, and
prepare habitat management plans for Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs by
2006.
C Continue and improve protection strategies for populations of rare and
declining species (including endangered and threatened species and
species of concern) and maintain or improve their habitats on refuge
and adjacent lands.
C Implement waterfowl management activities to provide migrating and
wintering habitat for a minimum of 10,000 lesser sandhill cranes, 150
Canada geese, and 3,000 ducks. When possible, address and
incorporate the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Central Flyway, and regional plans into refuge habitat and
inventory plans.
C Implement a long-term (10 year) monitoring program for priority
species of neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, and other nongame
migratory birds to determine density and population response to
management. Incorporate population and habitat objectives developed
for priority species in refuge wildlife and habitat management
programs by 2008.
C Enhance populations of lesser prairie chickens and other upland bird
species on Muleshoe NWR through habitat restoration of 200 acres of
native grasslands.
C Manage refuge grasslands using the most effective methods available
to maintain the natural range of diversity in the native short and mid-grass
prairie that occurs on the refuge. Enhance the plant species
diversity on 3,725 acres of native grasslands through natural plant
succession and land management programs such as prescribed fire,
grazing, and removal of invasive and invader plant species; and
implement vegetation monitoring to document changes as a result of
management activities.
C Secure and protect existing water sources and pursue alternative water
sources to support wetlands on Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs.
C By 2006, establish dialogue with area universities (Eastern, UNM,
Texas Tech, Texas A&M, etc) and other institutions to develop research
that will improve the biological or archaeological database of the refuge
and contribute to habitat restoration and management activities.
C By 2010, survey for archaeological sites on current refuge lands and
future acquisitions to obtain baseline archaeological information.
Monitor known sites for disturbance or deterioration. Ensure all refuge
management activities are in compliance with the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (ARPA).
C Pursue land protection strategies involving private land adjacent to the
refuges (approximately 350 acres at Grulla NWR and 370 acres at
Muleshoe NWR) that are necessary to improve boundary management
at both refuges, increase opportunities for management and protection
of wildlife habitat, and provide additional public access.
C Establish a bi-annual review process for Farm Service Agency (FSA)
inventory lands to protect and enhance native biological communities
by 2008.
C Maintain and/or install 32 miles of boundary fences at Muleshoe and
Grulla NWRs to protect the refuge habitats from disturbance by
humans (both refuges) and overgrazing by trespassing cattle (Grulla
only). This includes 27 miles of fence maintenance at Muleshoe and 5
miles of new fence construction at Grulla.
C Develop a land protection proposal for review by the Regional Office to
better protect area lands with important water resources by 2010.
C Provide interactive visitor services and enhance current visitor
facilities, increase public contacts, and better secure public use areas
on Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs.
C In cooperation with TPWD, develop and improve compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities on refuge lands to increase
visitation by 10 percent within three years and 20 percent within 10
years.
C Develop an outreach program that interprets the resources of the area
and generates interest in the refuge. Pursue contacts with school
groups, community business groups and adjacent land owners. Provide
at least five community outreach programs annually by 2010 in towns
of Muleshoe, Morton, Littlefield and Sudan, Texas. These products and
activities might include community presentations, community involved
habitat restoration projects, and/or refuge staff representation at public
events that will foster the public’s appreciation and understanding of
fish and wildlife resources and the mission of the Refuge System.
C Participate with other government, non-governmental organizations
(NGO)s, and private groups in partnerships such as the High Plains
Initiative, Partners in Flight (PIF), and Playa Lakes Joint Venture that
are mutually beneficial and will ultimately benefit the fish and wildlife
resources of the refuge and surrounding private lands within the High
Plains region and the Edwards Plateau Ecosystem.
C Provide the funding and support of Regional Office (RO) staff
specialists to accomplish the goals of this plan.
C Continue to provide a safe, efficient, and productive work environment
for refuge employees and a safe infrastructure for refuge visitors.
The goals and objectives of this plan are the management framework
providing direction and continuity in refuge programs over a 15 year period.
Strategies and management activities are suggested to progressively work
toward achieving the specific objectives. The strategies may be modified in
the future as a result of a broader understanding or knowledge of an issue.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Legal, Policy and Administrative Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 The National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals . 6
Fulfilling the Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Refuge Purpose Statement(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Refuge Overview: History of Refuge Establishment,
Acquisition and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6.1 Muleshoe NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6.2 Grulla NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.0 PLANNING PERSPECTIVES, CONSIDERATIONS,
AND ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1 Planning Process and Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
NEPA and This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 The Ecosystem Approach to Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 The Edwards Plateau Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Area of Ecological Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5 Relationship to Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives 25
2.6 Planning Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.7 Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8 Expected Planning Outcomes for Both Refuges . . . . . . . . 37
3.0 REFUGE AND RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.2 Physiography and Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.3 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Woodland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Invasive Plant Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3.2 Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Migrating and Wintering Waterfowl & Cranes . . 52
Other Species of Management Concern . . . . . . . . . 55
Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Reptiles and Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Fish and Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.3 Species of Special Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Federally Endangered, Threatened, and
Proposed Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Black-footed Ferret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Bald Eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Whooping Crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Interior Least Tern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Candidate Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Black-tailed Prairie Dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Lesser Prairie Chicken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Other Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.4 Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.4.1 Archeological, Cultural, & Historical Resources . 70
3.4.2 Land Use/Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Croplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Water Management and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Fire Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Fee Title Lands and Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Land Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Wilderness Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Other Special Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.4.3 Public Use and Wildlife-Dependent Recreational
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Wildlife Observation and Photography . . . . . . . . . 90
Environmental Education and
Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.4.4 Other Socioeconomic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Regional Economic Profile (Growth) . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.0 REFUGE ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.1 Refuge Staffing and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.1.1 Volunteer Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.2 Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and
Other Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.2.1 Current Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.2.2 Future Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3 Other Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.1 Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.2 Disease Prevention and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.4 Other Administrative Considerations/Approaches . . . . . 100
5.0 MULESHOE NWR AND GRULLA NWR MANAGEMENT
DIRECTION: GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 101
5.1 Natural Diversity and Ecosystem Management . . . . . . . 101
5.2 Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.3 Land Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.4 Public Use, Education, and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.5 Interagency Coordination and Relationships . . . . . . . . . 118
5.6 Improvement of Staff, Funding, and Facilities . . . . . . . . 120
6.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.1 Resource Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.2 Current and Proposed Funding and Personnel . . . . . . . 124
6.3 Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.4 Step-Down Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
6.4.1 Completed Plans for Muleshoe NWR . . . . . . . . . 127
6.4.2 Completed Plans for Grulla NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6.4.3 Plans to be Completed in the Future . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.5 Compatibility Determinations and NEPA Compliance . 131
6.5.1 Compatibility Determinations for Muleshoe . . . . 132
6.5.2 Compatibility Determinations for Grulla . . . . . . 133
6.6 Monitoring and Evaluation of the CCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
6.7 Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Central Flyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2 - Edwards Plateau Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3 - Area of Ecological Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
GRAPHS:
Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Peak Sandhill Crane and Duck Numbers at Muleshoe NWR . . . . . . 54
Number of Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Revenue Sharing Act Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Bailey County Income by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
TABLES:
Priority Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Bailey County Personal Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
MAPS:
Map 1 - Muleshoe NWR Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Map 2 - Grulla NWR Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Map 3 - Muleshoe and Grulla NWR Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Map 4 - Muleshoe Vegetation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Map 5 - Prairie Dog Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Map 6 - Current Grazing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Map 7 - Proposed Grazing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Map 8 - Fire Management Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Map 9 - Public Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
APPENDICES:
A. Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
B. Grulla National Wildlife Refuge Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
C. Threatened and Endangered Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
D. Section 7 Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
E. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
F. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
G. Key Legislation and Service Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
H. Response to Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
I. Distribution / Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
FONSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 1
VISION
Muleshoe and Grulla National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) will preserve,
restore, and enhance the ecological integrity of the High Plains mixed grass
prairie. These refuges will continue to provide quality habitats for a variety
of native plants and wildlife, with emphasis on migratory birds and
threatened and endangered species, for the benefit of present and future
generations. They will provide interpretation of natural and human history
of the area and a place where people can learn about wildlife and their
habitats and enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation that is compatible with
refuge purposes. Whenever possible, habitats and populations will be
managed in partnership with local landowners, local and regional
organizations, and local, State and other Federal agencies to achieve
regional conservation goals. These efforts will result in greater protection of
wildlife, fish and plant resources throughout the High Plains region.
Muleshoe NWR
Located in the south plains of west Texas, this refuge’s unique features
include three shallow playa lakes and almost 5,000 acres of native mid to
shortgrass prairie. Only small areas of refuge sod have ever been broken.
Much of the refuge grasslands are pristine examples of what the
surrounding area was like before agricultural development. The refuge will
continue to be characterized by exemplar preagriculture grassland
conditions through the implementation of effective land management
programs that restore native species diversity and protect the natural
biological communities.
Management efforts will be focused on grassland management. Grazing and
prescribed fire techniques that mimic natural ecological processes will be
used, as well as biological or mechanical control of invading woody species
such as mesquite and other shrubs. All management activities will be
designed to enhance native plant communities and protect sensitive areas
such as wetlands, prairie dog towns, and current/proposed lesser prairie
chicken leks.
The Service will pursue all opportunities to protect water sources that
provide wetland habitats for waterfowl, sandhill cranes, many other
migratory bird species, and resident wildlife. The Service will strive to
acquire adjacent lands with water wells or springs that can provide water
resources for the refuge. Other sources that may supply water to refuge
wetlands will also be protected through easements. The refuge’s wildlife
resources will be further enhanced and protected through strong
partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and landowners to assist
with wildfire suppression, avian disease outbreaks, crop depredation,
habitat restoration, and central flyway waterfowl population issues.
A healthy refuge environment will continue to provide opportunities for
visitors to enjoy wildlife viewing, photography, and camping in a natural
setting. Through high quality interpretive and environmental education
programs, the public will have opportunities to visit and gain appreciation of
the unique ecosystem of the refuge and an understanding of its role in the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Interpreting wildlife and the refuge’s
unique heritage, as well as improving facilities will enhance the visitor’s
experience while protecting the cultural integrity of the area. The office
headquarters will have several interactive displays focused on the value of
this refuge to the central flyway and information interpreting the
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 2
archaeology of the area. Additional wildlife viewing facilities will be
developed. Interpretive and environmental education programs will
approach new audiences and generate more interest in the refuge through
innovative community outreach programs. Local residents and visitors will
view refuge lands with a sense of pride and value their relationships with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Grulla NWR
Located on the High Plains of eastern New Mexico adjacent to the Texas
state line, this refuge consists of the 2,300 acre shallow Salt Lake and 936
acres of native grasses and shrubs. Salt Lake provides habitat for migratory
birds only during wet periods when the lake holds precipitation and runoff.
The boundary of this refuge is very irregular and runs through the lake bed
in several places. Only one access point is currently available to the public
and the Service; all other access points require permission from adjacent
landowners. The Service will strive to improve access to enhance
management and public wildlife viewing opportunities.
The refuge provides outstanding wildlife habitat and viewing opportunities
when Salt Lake holds water; however, these opportunities are limited by
local precipitation. The public use facilities will continue to be minimal with
a parking area, interpretive site, and overlook at the existing refuge
entrance. Depending on the acquisition of other access points, the Service
will provide additional lake overlooks for wildlife viewing. During periods of
high bird use, the refuge staff will coordinate with other agencies,
universities, volunteers, and Audubon birding groups to provide guided bird
tours, and other special events advertised through the local chambers of
commerce and the media. These efforts will provide an opportunity to
increase the public’s awareness of this refuge and its value within the
mission of the larger Refuge System.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will guide the development
and management of the refuge for the next 15 years (2003 through 2018).
The goals and objectives contained in this document reflect a natural
management theme and focus on issues pertaining to the refuge. The refuge
will manage for ecological integrity with emphasis on protection and
enhancement of habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. The purpose of
the actions in this plan are to facilitate achievement of the refuge goals and
the purposes for which these refuges were established.
1.1 Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of comprehensive conservation planning is to “provide long-range
guidance for the management of national wildlife refuges.” As such,
all lands of the Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an
approved CCP that will guide management decisions and set forth
strategies for achieving refuge purposes. The National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all refuges to have a CCP and
provides the following legislative mandates to guide refuge management
and planning:
• Wildlife has first priority in the management of refuges.
• Wildlife-dependent recreation involving compatible hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation are the priority public uses of the Refuge System.
• Other uses have lower priority in the Refuge System and are only
allowed if they are compatible with the mission of the Refuge System
and the purpose of the individual refuge.
This CCP provides management direction to present and future Refuge
Managers for the next 15 years. It describes all management activities that
occur on the refuge and provides management goals, measurable objectives,
and management actions or strategies designed to enhance, protect, and
restore habitats for the benefit of wildlife.
The Service’s goals for the Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
are to:
• provide a clear statement of desired future conditions (vision) for each
refuge or planning unit;
• provide a forum for the public to comment on the type, extent, and
compatibility of uses on refuges – provide refuge neighbors and visitors
with a clear understanding of the reasons for management actions on
and around the refuge;
��� ensure that the refuge is managed to fulfill the mission of the System
as well as the specific purposes for which it was established;
• ensure public involvement in refuge management decisions by
providing a process for effective coordination, interaction, and
cooperation with affected parties, including Federal agencies, State
conservation organizations, adjacent landowners, and interested
members of the public;
• encourage refuge planning that considers an ecosystem approach;
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 4
• demonstrate support for management decisions and their rationale by
sound professional judgement, biological initiatives, and public
involvement;
• provide long-term continuity in refuge management; and
• provide a uniform basis for budget requests for operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement programs.
1.2 Legal, Policy, and Administrative Guidance
This Section outlines current legal, administrative, and policy guidelines for
the management of national wildlife refuges. It begins with the more
general considerations such as laws and executive orders for the Service,
and moves toward those guidelines that apply specifically to the Muleshoe
and Grulla NWRs.
This unit also includes sections dealing with specially designated sites such
as historical landmarks and archaeological sites, all of which carry with
them specific direction by law and/or policy. In addition, consideration is
given to guidance prompted by other formal and informal natural resource
planning and research efforts.
All the legal, administrative, policy, and planning guidelines provide the
framework within which management activities are proposed and
developed. This guidance also provides the framework for the enhancement
of cooperation between the Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs and other
surrounding jurisdictions in the ecosystem.
Administration of national wildlife refuges is governed by the designated
purpose of the refuge unit as described in establishing legislation or
executive orders, Service laws and policies, and international treaties. A list
of most of the pertinent statutes establishing legal parameters and policy
direction for the National Wildlife Refuge System is included in Appendix G,
along with a summary of those laws that provide special guidance for the
Service and national wildlife refuges. Many of the summaries have been
taken from The Evolution of National Wildlife Law by Michael J. Bean. For
the bulk of applicable laws and other mandates, legal summaries are
available upon request.
Key concepts and guidance of the System are covered in the NWRS
Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Title 50 of
the Codes of Federal Regulations, Executive Order 12996 (Management and
General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual, and most recently, through the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 amends the
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 by including a unifying mission
for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible uses on
refuges, and a requirement that each refuge will be managed under a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP or Plan). The Refuge System
Improvement Act states that wildlife conservation is the priority of System
lands and that the Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuge lands are
maintained. Each refuge must be managed to fulfill the Refuge System
mission and the specific purposes for which it was established. The Act
requires the Service to monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 5
plants in each refuge. Additionally, the Act identifies and establishes the
legitimacy and appropriateness of six wildlife-dependent recreational uses.
These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
environmental education and interpretation. As priority public uses of the
Refuge System, these uses will receive enhanced consideration over other
uses in planning and management. Furthermore, this Act requires that a
CCP be in place for each refuge by the year 2012 and that the public have an
opportunity for active involvement in plan development and revision. It is
Service policy that CCPs are developed in an open public process and that
the agency is committed to securing public input throughout the process.
This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are different from other
multiple-use public lands in that they are closed to all public uses unless
specifically and legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is
determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound
professional judgement of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere
with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or
the purposes of the refuge. Sound professional judgement is further defined
as a decision that is consistent with the principles of fish and wildlife
management and administration, available science and resources, and
adherence with law. Priority public uses, and other uses, can be allowed on
refuges if they are compatible with the purpose of the refuge and funding is
available to support them. Uses may be allowed through a special
regulation process, individual special use permits, and sometimes through
State fishing and hunting regulations.
1.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission and Goals
Since the early 1900s, the Service mission and purpose has evolved, while
holding on to a fundamental national commitment to threatened wildlife
ranging from the endangered bison to migratory birds of all types. The
earliest national wildlife refuges and preserves are examples of this.
Pelican Island, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of
colonial nesting birds such as herons and egret, which were then under
threat of extinction due to the demands for their plumes for the millinery
trade. The National Bison Range was instituted for the endangered bison in
1906. Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established in Oregon in 1908
to benefit all migratory birds with emphasis on colonial nesting species on
Malheur Lake. Thus began the commitment of public lands for the
preservation of migratory birds and other wildlife. The Service’s
responsibility broadened during the 1930s. As a result of drought, drainage
of wetlands for agriculture, and unregulated hunting, waterfowl populations
nationwide became severely depleted. Passage of the Migratory Bird
Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act in 1934 made funds available to
purchase acreage for waterfowl habitat. During the next several decades,
the special emphasis of the Service (then called the Bureau of Wildlife and
Sport Fisheries) became restoration of critically depleted migratory
waterfowl populations.
The passage of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 refocused the activities
of the Service as well as other governmental agencies. This Act mandated
the conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and
plants both through federal action and by encouraging the establishment of
state programs. In 1974, the Bureau of Wildlife and Sport Fisheries was
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 6
renamed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to broaden its scope of wildlife
conservation responsibilities to include endangered species, as well as game
and nongame species. Lands continued to be added to the Refuge System
for various wildlife protection purposes including endangered species
conservation. Several additional environmental laws and conservation-related
laws were passed throughout the 1970s. The Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980 emphasized the conservation of nongame species
and broadened management responsibilities for non-game migratory birds
on national wildlife refuges.
The Service has no "organic" act to focus upon for the purposes of generating
an agency mission. The agency mission has always been derived in
consideration of the various laws and treaties that collectively outlined
public policy concerning wildlife conservation.
The Mission of the Service is:
“working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people.”
The goals of the Service, which are aimed at fulfilling this mission, are: 1)
sustaining fish and wildlife populations including migratory birds,
endangered species, anadromous fish, and marine mammals; 2) conserving a
network of lands and waters including the National Wildlife Refuge System;
3) providing Americans opportunities to understand and participate in the
conservation and use of fish and wildlife resources.
By law and treaty, the Service has national and international management
and law enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and
endangered species, fisheries and many marine mammals. The Service
assists state and tribal governments and other Federal agencies in helping
to protect America’s fish and wildlife resources, and the National Wildlife
Refuge System plays an important role in fulfilling many of these
responsibilities.
1.4 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals
The National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is the world’s largest
collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for the conservation of
wildlife and ecosystem protection. The Mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge 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 American”
(National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law
105-57).
Goals of the System are to 1) preserve, restore, and enhance threatened and
endangered species in their natural ecosystems; 2) perpetuate the migratory
bird resource; 3) preserve a natural diversity and abundance of refuge flora
and fauna; provide the public an understanding and appreciation of fish and
wildlife ecology; 5) provide visitors with wildlife-dependent recreation.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 7
Over 540 National Wildlife Refuges and 38 wetland management districts
covering over 94 million acres are part of the national network today. With
over 77 million acres in Alaska and the remaining 17 million acres spread
across the other 49 states and several island territories, over 34 million
visitors annually hunt, fish, observe and photograph wildlife, or participate
in environmental education and interpretative activities on refuges.
Individual national wildlife refuges are acquired under a variety of
legislative acts and administrative orders and authorities. These orders and
authorities usually have one or more purposes for which land can be
transferred or acquired. These System units provide important habitat for
many native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, and
plants. Most national wildlife refuges are strategically located along major
bird migration corridors ensuring that ducks, geese, and songbirds have rest
stops on their annual migrations.
Individual refuges provide specific requirements for the preservation of
trust resources such as migratory birds. For example, waterfowl breeding
refuges in South and North Dakota provide important wetland and
grassland habitat to support breeding populations of waterfowl as required
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Other refuges in Louisiana and Texas (such as
Muleshoe and Grulla) provide migration and wintering habitat for these
populations. The network of lands is critical to these birds’ survival. A
deficiency in one location can affect the species and the entire network’s
ability to maintain adequate populations.
Other refuges may provide habitat for threatened and endangered plant or
animals. Refuges in these situations ensure that populations are protected
and habitat is suitable for their use. Refuges, by providing a broad network
of lands throughout the United States, help prevent species from being
listed as threatened or endangered by providing secure habitat for their use
and providing recovery habitats in portions or all of a species range.
Resource management programs on refuges include water, grassland, forest,
natural area, and cropland management; historical/archaeological resource
management; wilderness management; and wildlife law enforcement
activities. National wildlife refuges are extensively used for biological
research to benefit wildlife and to improve our understanding of the
environment. Scientific programs of wildlife management, wetlands
management, forestry, agriculture, and soil conservation are combined for
the enhancement and management of wildlife populations. In addition to
protecting the Nation’s natural resources, national wildlife refuges offer the
public a wide variety of recreational and educational opportunities through
fishing, hunting, wildlife trails, wildlife observation, nature photography,
visitor centers, and environmental education programs, all of which attract
millions of visitors each year.
Fulfilling the Promise
This 1999 report resulted from the first-ever System Conference held in
Keystone, Colorado in October 1998, and attended by every refuge manager
in the country, other Service employees, and leading conservation
organizations. The report contained 42 recommendations packaged with
three Vision statements dealing with Wildlife and Habitat, People, and
Leadership. The recommendations in the Fulfilling the Promises report
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 8
have been incorporated into the development of goals and objectives in this
draft plan, to the fullest extent possible.
1.5 Refuge Purpose Statement(s)
Formal establishment of a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System is
usually based upon a specific statute or executive order specifically
enumerating the purpose of the particular unit. However, refuges can also
be established by the Service under the authorization offered in such laws
as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.
In these cases, lands are identified by the Service that have the right
elements to contribute to the recovery of a species or the maintenance of
habitat types. Often, the Service works in cooperation with private
nonprofit organizations in efforts to acquire suitable lands. Each refuge in
the System is managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System as well as
the specific purposes for which the refuge was established. Purpose
statements are used as the basis for determining primary management
activities, and for determining allowable uses of refuges through a formal
“compatibility” process.
Muleshoe NWR was established on October 24, 1935 by Executive Order No.
7214 , “...for the use of the ....as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory
birds and other wildlife...”. This acquisition was implemented under the
authority of the:
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 712d) also established that
the refuge is: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, ...for any other
management purposes, ...for migratory birds.”
Consolidated Farm & Rural Development Act... “for conservation
purposes...”(7 U.S.C )
Grulla NWR was established on November 6, 1969 by Public Land Order
No. 4742, transferring the land from the BLM. It was established under the
authority of the:
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222, as amended; U.S.C.
715), implementing the Migratory Bird Treaties... “for a migratory bird
refuge primarily for the benefit and use of the lesser sandhill crane.”
The Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460-1) states that the refuge is...
“suitable for incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational
development, the protection of natural resources, and the conservation of
endangered or threatened species.”
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 9
Figure 1. Central Flyway route.
1.6 Refuge Overview: History of Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management
With the alarming depletion of the migratory bird populations during the
late 1920s and early 1930s, efforts were made by the Service (formerly
Bureau of Biological Survey) to protect, through acquisition, those areas
where numbers of migratory waterfowl naturally concentrated (USFWS,
1935). The plains of west Texas and eastern New Mexico have historically
been the favored wintering grounds for the bulk of the North American
lesser sandhill crane population as well as large concentrations of ducks and
geese.
The management activities of these refuges
contribute to the objectives of the Central Flyway
Management Program. The refuge serves the
objectives of its establishment by providing a
protected roost site for cranes and quality winter
habitat to sustain the condition of migratory
waterfowl for spring migration and reproductive
success. The Cental Flyway (Figure 1) is an
extensive geographical area that reaches from
Alaska and Central Arctic Canada to South
America. Many factors within the lands of the
Cental Flyway can affect the migratory bird
resource. Conversely, management activities that
occur on these refuges can have wide ranging
effects on the bird populations of the entire Central
Flyway. Maintaining the health and condition of
the birds wintering at Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs
affects their spring migration and reproductive
success each year. Factors influencing the bird use
of this area include the activities of other countries,
local farming practices on neighboring farms, the
activities of federal and state agencies, private
organizations, local governments, the influence of
treaties affecting wildlife and wildlands, and
finally, natural factors such as climate.
1.6.1 Muleshoe NWR
Muleshoe NWR, established in 1935, is the oldest national wildlife refuge in
Texas (Map 1). Located in the High Plains of west Texas at an elevation of
3,750 feet above MSL, it is one of a vital chain of refuges providing
significant habitat for birds migrating within the Central Flyway. The
refuge consists of 5,809 acres broken by two caliche rimrock outcrops.
Nearly 4,800 acres are covered with native grasses and scattered mesquite.
Three saline lakes on the refuge provide nearly 1,000 acres of wetlands
when full.
Early refuge documents indicate that considerable complaint had come from
this region because of damage by waterfowl to the grain and other crops. It
was believed that the acquisition of refuge lands and the subsequent
planting of grain crops would furnish a feeding ground for waterfowl and
eliminate to some extent at least the cause of the complaint (USFWS 1935).
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 10
Paul’s Lake (photo by Don Clapp)
Lower Goose Lake in December
(photo by Don Clapp)
White Lake (photo by Don Clapp)
Over 20 areas in the Texas Panhandle were considered by refuge site
examiners; the Muleshoe Lakes area ranked as one of the best for
acquisition and development by the Bureau. It lies directly in the heart of
the country that reported the most damage from feeding activities of
migratory birds, and was highly desirable for the purpose of establishing
feeding fields for the birds. It also had the most permanent water supply
and developmental possibilities of any of the areas considered in this
particular region. Establishment of a refuge in this region of reported crop
damage by birds was especially desirable from the standpoint of increasing
the respect for game laws and reducing the number of birds killed (USFWS
1935).
One of the primary purposes of the establishment of the refuge was to
provide lands that could be put to feed crops for the waterfowl and thus
reduce the amount of crop injury that resulted from having them depend
entirely on feeding in fields that were grown for commercial purposes. In
this respect, it was thought that there would be a much better attitude
among the farmers and local sportsmen toward respect for game laws and
enforcement (USFWS 1935).
Justification for the project (acquisition of the refuge) included: providing a
necessary link in Migratory Waterfowl Conservation Program; providing
winter refuge area for resting and feeding; providing crop areas that would
be used expressly for feed for wild fowl thus reducing crop damage to crops
grown for commercial purposes; and providing increased employment in the
development of the area.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (then called the Bureau of Biological
Survey) selected the Muleshoe Lakes as a desirable site for a migratory bird
refuge due to the three permanent lakes (White Lake, Goose Lake, and
Paul’s Lake) that seldom froze and provided a natural concentration area for
large numbers of migratory waterfowl, particularly during the winter
months.
The acquisition of land progressed quickly after President Roosevelt signed
the Executive Order establishing the refuge in 1935. The first tract
purchased was 738 acres from George and Mattie Robison and Annie
Robison on August 17, 1936. This is now the northwest part of the refuge,
including where the refuge headquarters is located. The second purchase,
which comprised all of the refuge land located east of highway 214 including
Paul's Lake, was completed on December 23, 1936, when 1,417 acres was
purchased from F.A. and Mattie Paul and J.H. Paul. The third tract was
purchased on February 6, 1937, from Henry and Vivian Wilson and
consisted of 2,214 acres of land that is located at the southeast part of the
refuge including White Lake. The fourth and final land acquisition occurred
on 1938, when 1,440 acres was acquired from Isaac and Crawford Enochs.
This area is the southwest part of the refuge. These land acquisitions
resulted in a refuge that now encompasses a total of 5,809 acres.
Refuge lands were first placed under the protection of a caretaker in May of
1937. The refuge's first manager, James Walton, took charge on August 24,
1937. The original plan of development and management for the Muleshoe
Migratory Waterfowl Refuge (USFWS 1938) included provisions for water
developments, including a system of dikes, dams and diversions to assure
that there would be a permanent source of water on the refuge even in times
of extreme drought; raising crops to provide feed for wintering
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 11
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 12
WPA workers planting trees (courtesy of Muleshoe
NWR)
waterfowl on the refuge; planting trees and shrubs in uplands; and
managing for upland game birds.
A Work Progress Administration (WPA) project was established February 1,
1938, and work started on the headquarters buildings and other refuge
facilities. By June of 1938, there were 112 WPA laborers working at the
refuge. Work was frequently hampered by problems getting WPA workers
to the refuge from the towns of Muleshoe and
Morton due to wet, slippery road conditions.
Between May 1, 1938 and May 24, 1942, all
of the buildings (managers quarters, vehicle
storage building, and refuge office), which
still exist today; along with major road
improvements; and dikes across each of the
three refuge lakes, were all completed by
WPA labor. Refuge records indicate that
WPA workers also planted approximately
80,000 tree and shrub seedlings on refuge
lands during the spring of 1938. All
seedlings were obtained from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service. Nearly 50,000 were
desert willow; the remainder were wild choke cherry, wild plum, mulberry,
Russian Olive, and sumac. Laborer numbers had dropped drastically by
1939 and only about 10-15 individuals worked in 1942, when the WPA
project was terminated due to lack of manpower.
The dikes, which divided the refuge’s three lakes into six impoundments in
the late 1930s, were constructed to hold more water for the large wintering
waterfowl numbers. Water is very much the limiting factor in the Service’s
ability to provide wetland habitat in appropriate quality and quantities for
wintering and migrating birds. Attempts to locate a reliable water source
for these lakes during the past 60 years have been unsuccessful.
In the early years (1930s and early 1940s), refuge lakes held water
throughout much of the year and wintering waterfowl numbers often ranged
from 300,000 to 700,000. Geese were never present in large numbers like
ducks, but several thousand usually used the lakes. Sandhill crane
numbers on the refuge were sporadic (between 1,500 and 3,500 birds) at
that time due to water depths that did not offer optimum roosting
conditions.
Refuge personnel spent many hours during the refuge’s early years
conducting depredation control activities by using depredation techniques to
haze wintering waterfowl from adjacent landowner's crops.
In January 1945, the refuge was documented as being the site of the first
know case of avian cholera in wild free flying waterfowl. It was believed
this first outbreak was the result of infected domestic chickens being
disposed of in roadside ditches near the refuge. The first major cholera
outbreak recorded on the refuge was in 1948 when 9,000 ducks died of
cholera. Other reports regarding large cholera outbreaks on or near the
refuge occurred in 1949, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1960, 1980, and 1981.
Outbreaks still occur on the refuge and cholera outbreaks occur nearly every
year somewhere in the Panhandle killing thousands of birds.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 13
Sorgum planted in East Farming
Unit in 1966 (courtesy of Muleshoe
NWR)
Through the 1940s, crane use increased, and by 1949 the species had
become an abundant winter resident as lake depths had decreased. The
expansion of irrigated agriculture in the High Plains has continued to lower
the Ogallala Aquifer, which has caused many of the playa lakes to dry up.
The loss of the playa lake habitat initially led to a decrease in waterfowl use
of the refuge. However, lower lake levels provided ideal roosting sites for
wintering sandhill cranes. In addition, agricultural operations in the
surrounding areas converted to growing winter wheat and grain sorghum
(milo) which is utilized as a food base for wintering cranes, and has resulted
in population increases. The surrounding grain fields usually had an
abundance of food. The peak was reached in 1981 when 250,000 cranes
were recorded on the refuge.
Since the early 1980s, crane numbers on the refuge and in the surrounding
area have declined. The major reasons are the lowering of the water table
and past drought conditions affecting lake levels, as well as the loss of grain
fields that the crane depended upon for winter forage. Many acres of the
surrounding area are being converted back into grassland and dryland
agriculture due to less available irrigation water. As this transition occurs,
the crane use in the area will continue to decrease. The Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) was established by the federal government during
the late 1980s. This program paid farmers to plant grass instead of grain in
wind-eroded farm lands. Recent annual peak populations have remained
around 10,000 cranes.
Muleshoe NWR and the surrounding area supported native shortgrass
prairie before the area was settled in the late 1800s. The grass was used by
native wildlife, especially the American bison and black-tailed prairie dogs.
Prior to settlement, a large prairie dog town supposedly stretched from
Lubbock, Texas to Amarillo, Texas. Cattle grazing provided the first
economic use of the this land and the entire area was grazed. In many
areas, overgrazing had allowed wind and water to erode the lands so
drastically that much of the native grasses had disappeared. By the late
1800s, farming was beginning to displace large portions of the original High
Plains natural prairie. Areas not suitable for farming were used as range
for domestic livestock. Ranches were primarily cattle operations, usually in
large holdings. Species such as mesquite, prickly pear, redberry juniper,
and cholla were quick to invade and become established on the disturbed
rangeland. Limited agriculture developed as more people moved into the
area. The rich soil encouraged agriculture, but the dry climate and strong
winds held back development. With the onset of irrigation capabilities in
the late 1940s, most of the lands were plowed under for row crop production.
Farming on the lands acquired by the Service was minimal. Only two tracts
(225 acres) had been farmed; one field directly northeast of the refuge
headquarters and a smaller acreage just west of Lower Paul's Lake. It was
thought that by producing forage crops on refuge lands, crop depredation on
adjacent commercial farm lands would decrease (USFWS, 1935). A small
farming program continued on the refuge until 1969. Without the ability to
irrigate crops, farming attempts were not very productive.
The refuge has historically had some form of a grazing program since its
early years. Refuge records show that in the late 1930's when the refuge
was established, refuge grasslands were severely over-grazed by previous
landowners. During the early refuge years Managers rested the over-grazed
refuge grasses for a few years before establishing a refuge grazing program
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 14
in 1942. A local livestock owner that had previously grazed the refuge lands
when they were privately owned was selected as the grazing permittee and
allowed to graze cattle on the refuge year round.
In the early 1980's, the refuge initiated a rest rotation grazing program that
was used until the year 2000. Light to moderate grazing was allowed by
cattle on these grasslands during May through October. Livestock were
rotated among several pastures to provide the best utilization of available
grasses.
The refuge also began a burning program in the early 1980's; from two to
five hundred acres of alkali sacaton were burned per year. The purpose of
the burning was to burn mature sacaton growing in clumps and creating
bare areas in order to create a more diverse plant community. Controlled
burning was last conducted on the refuge in 2000.
This refuge maintains one of the last shortgrass prairie environments on the
southern High Plains of Texas with over 5,000 acres of shortgrass
rangelands scattered with mesquite (McMahan et al., 1984). Muleshoe NWR
is part of the High Plains Natural Area, designated as a National Natural
Landmark of the Great Plains Natural Region (designated August 11, 1980)
and serves as a cornerstone to efforts promoting good land stewardship for
the protection and restoration of the natural resources of the area.
The refuge has changed very little since the “early” days. Wildlife is still
abundant during winter months, only now it is sandhill cranes instead of
ducks that attract visitors to this winter haven. Only three new buildings,
an office and shop in 1982 and a storage building in 1979, have been added
in the years since the WPA days.
The refuge's management goals and objectives have evolved over the years
to include: providing migration and wintering habitat for naturally
occurring wildlife species threatened with extinction; provide habitat for
sandhill crane and other marsh and water birds, shore birds, raptors, and
other wildlife; provide environmental education and enhance the public's
awareness of wildlife and the environment.
The refuge allows bird watching, photography, and camping. Hunting and
boating on the lakes is prohibited. During the past few years, public use has
averaged about 12,000 visitors a year. Virtually all of these visits are for
wildlife observation.
1.6.2 Grulla NWR
Grulla NWR is located in Roosevelt County, New Mexico near the small
village of Arch, approximately 25 miles west northwest of Muleshoe NWR
(Map 2). The refuge contains 3,236 acres, of which 906 are grassland and
2,330 are saline lake bed. Grulla was officially established as a national
wildlife refuge on November 6, 1969 by Public Land Order No. 4742
transferring the land from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Since
Grulla NWR is located three miles south and east of the community of Arch,
New Mexico (USFWS, 1966), it was recommended that Salt Lake be
renamed Arch NWR to eliminate confusion with the multitude of other Salt
Lakes occurring in the same vicinity. However, it was named Grulla, a
Spanish word for crane.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 15
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 16
Salt Lake after summer rains (photo by Don Clapp)
Previous to Service ownership, these Public Domain lands had been
scheduled for disposal under the terms of the Classification and Multiple
Use Act (88-607) by the BLM. Vegetation on the site is typical of the
grasslands of eastern New Mexico and west Texas. Dominant vegetative
types in the area included alkali sacaton, seasonal grama grasses, saltbush,
and yucca. The lands surrounding the refuge were mixture of pasture and
irrigated farmland. At the time of acquisition, cultivated crops included
sorghums, corn, barley, and alfalfa; the major cash crop was stripper cotton.
Grazing and cattle production was a significant economic base, although the
stocking rate recommended by the BLM was from three to five head per
section. Seasonal stocking of the grassland areas was determined primarily
by the amount of precipitation received. No BLM gazing permits were in
effect on these lands at the time of refuge acquisition. There were no
buildings, water impoundments, control structures, or diversion structures
on acquired lands. Roads and trails existed
on the southern perimeter of the area, but all
were unimproved. There were fences along
the east and portions of the south
boundaries, but it was recognized that new
fencing would be required to exclude
livestock and control vehicle access.
This area was recommended for acquisition
because it provided a unique, specialized and
strategically located habitat type necessary
to accomplish the distributive management of
lesser sandhill cranes on their wintering
grounds. Salt Lake is normally a dry playa
that contains shallow water only after locally
heavy rains. Ducks utilized this area as a migration resting site after
feeding in adjacent grainfields when water was present in the lake. The
lake bed was also used as a roosting ground for large numbers of wintering
lesser sandhill cranes, especially during periods of severe weather when
freshwater or less brackish areas are frozen over.
This area was classified by the BLM as available for disposal, but disposal
could have jeopardized the continued use of the lakebed as a crane
wintering ground. A May 23, 1967 Memo concerning the Service’s
Application for Withdrawal, documented that the requested withdrawal
would insure the lands remain in public ownership and minimal
management and development activities would be permitted.
The wintering population of the North American lesser sandhill crane is
normally volatile and shifts according to the availability of feed and the
presence of hunting pressure. Patterns in the sandhill crane wintering and
migration movements tend to shift eastward into central Texas and
Oklahoma where crop depredation has historically been a serious problem.
The eastward movement of the birds has been, in part, attributed to
harassment and hunting pressure, particularly on roost areas which are
unprotected from human disturbance. Salt Lake provides a uniquely
specialized and strategically located habitat component, which is necessary
to distribute these birds on their wintering grounds. The availability of this
type of land is limited at present to a few smaller tracts in private
ownership, scattered from Portales, New Mexico, to Lubbock, Texas. By
protecting this roosting habitat, the cranes concentrate in close proximity to
large feeding areas and disperse over both grasslands and croplands,
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 17
Any fence along Salt Lake is nearly impossible to
maintain (photo by Don Clapp)
lessening serious depredation problems. Another factor influencing the
retention of these lands in public ownership was the ability to sustain a
huntable crane population in eastern New Mexico consistent with the
objectives of the Central Flyway Management Plan. This plan allows
harvest of cranes in those Texas and eastern New Mexico counties which are
between the migration route of the whooping crane and wintering grounds
of the greater sandhill crane (USFWS, 1966). For these reasons, these lands
were retained in public ownership through a land transfer from the BLM
and established as a national wildlife refuge to serve as a migratory bird
resource.
Wetlands on Grulla NWR consist of 2,330 acres of the lake bed of Salt Lake.
This lake intermittently catches runoff from rainfall and is dry much of the
time. No other management is possible due to the limited availability of
water and the fact the refuge does not own all of the lake bottom. Part of
the bed of Salt Lake on Grulla NWR is classified as “Saline Lands” which
means that they must be retained in public ownership as long as they are
classified as such.
Grasslands cover the remaining 906 acres of Grulla NWR. Most of this
habitat is composed primarily of pure stands of native grass species;
however, there are areas with only a sparse covering of grassland plants and
areas with bushy overstory. Blue grama and buffalo grass dominate except
on the high lime soil adjacent to Salt Lake where alkali sacaton is dominant.
Cattle from adjacent private lands graze most of the refuge grasslands.
Fencing is not possible due to the irregular nature of the present boundary
which extends into the lake bed in some areas and runs on the shoreline in
other areas. Approximately 200 acres on the
east side of the refuge was fenced in 1985 and
trespass grazing is restricted from this area.
Wildlife use at Grulla NWR depends heavily
on the amount of water in Salt Lake.
Although the flat lake bed is often dry or
nearly dry for several consecutive years, large
concentrations of sandhill crane, waterfowl,
and shorebirds use the lake when water is
available, or when surrounding playa lakes
are frozen. The record peak of 85,000 cranes
occurred on the refuge in December of 1975.
Numbers of these species are very small
during the summer or when the lake is dry.
The number of raptors and other birds that
are not directly dependent on water in the
lake is more stable.
The boundary of this refuge is very irregular and runs through the lake bed
in several places. Only one access point is currently available to the public
and the Service; all other access points require permission with adjacent
landowners. Since the boundary is not adequately fenced, trespass cattle
overgraze part of the refuge. Due to its remote location and lack of resident
staff, some vandalism and ORV trespass also occur. The refuge provides
outstanding wildlife habitat and viewing opportunities when Salt Lake
holds water; however, these opportunities are limited by local precipitation.
The public use facilities are minimal with a parking area, interpretive site,
and overlook at the existing refuge entrance.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 18
The operation of Grulla NWR has little impact on the surrounding area,
except for the farming areas within 30 miles. With no employees stationed
at the refuge and limited public access, impacts are limited to include
depredation by sandhill cranes on agricultural crops, primarily milo,
trespass grazing by cattle from adjacent private lands, destruction of soil
quality on private lands adjacent to the refuge by alkali dust blown from the
lake bed, and sandhill crane hunting around the refuge boundary.
Both Refuges
In the 1980s and 1990s, conservation efforts began to focus outside refuge
boundaries to a larger area of concern encompassing the surrounding lands
of a region. In the High Plains, these surrounding lands were primarily in
private ownership and had been converted to irrigated and dry land
agriculture. The once contiguous short and mixed grass prairie habitats
had become increasingly fragmented. The condition of the range varied
tremendously depending on grazing pressure, the water resources had
become depleted and unpredictable, and fish and wildlife populations began
declining. Numerous playas and saline lakes have been lost through
agricultural practices involving pumping water out of them, farming, or
overgrazing.
Conservation efforts also began focusing on species other than migratory
waterfowl. While Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs were established as habitat
for migrating waterfowl, these areas were providing habitats for sandhill
cranes and other migratory, resident, and threatened or endangered species
that in many cases have now become management priorities. Private land
stewardship initiatives like the High Plains Partnership (HPP) and Playa
Lakes Joint Venture have recently become the focus of agencies like the
Service as the key to protecting and possibly restoring water resources and
habitat values of the native short and mixed grass prairies and preventing
fish and wildlife declines in the High Plains region.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 19
2.0 PLANNING PERSPECTIVES, CONSIDERATIONS, AND ISSUES
The refuge represents one segment of a multifaceted system of lands
dedicated to the conservation and management of wildlife resources. The
development of this CCP has incorporated the directives, policies, and
regulations of the Service, the Refuge System, and the purpose for which the
refuge was established to assist in providing guidance to the refuge for long-range
management decisions.
2.1 Planning Process and Public Involvement
This CCP establishes the goals, objectives, and management strategies for
both Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs. It is guided by the established purposes
of each refuge, the goals of the System, Service compatibility standards, and
other Service policies, legal mandates, and laws directly related to refuge
management. The plan is in compliance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It addresses several bird
conservation initiatives (such as the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and Partners in Flight), private land initiatives, and the
Service’s ecosystem management plans (as discussed below, in sections 2.2
through 2.4).
The plan is developed with specific activities to be implemented during a
short time-frame. Activities proposed for implementation over the longer
term, 10 to 15 years, are sometimes stated broadly with the intent that
detailed step-down plan will be developed. Step-down plans for particular
management programs such as grazing, public use, and prescribed fire will
include implementation, monitoring and evaluation criteria. This CCP will
direct the preparation or revision of step-down plans and justify budget
approval for specific programs over the next 15 years.
The CCP and step-down plans provide the Refuge Manager a rationale and
justification to guide management decisions affecting the refuges’ natural
resources. It is the intent of the planning process that management actions
developed in both the CCP and the step-down plans be documented,
reviewed, and evaluated within a reasonable time-frame. To optimize the
effectiveness of the plans, amendments will be incorporated based on
management outcomes and current Service policy.
To begin the CCP process, a comment period notification was published in
the Federal Register in June, 1998. In an effort to involve the local
community and officials, the Service distributed a fact sheet at the refuge
headquaters to interested parties in June 1999. The fact sheets described
the CCP process and goals, objectives, and long-range plans of the refuge.
The fact sheets, draft documents, and other relevant information have been
available for public review at the refuge headquarters. The Service did not
receive any comments as a result of the fact sheet distribution and it was
determined that a scoping open house for Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs was
not necessary. These actions satisfied the scoping requirements under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Issues identified
during the planning process are outlined in section 2.7.
The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
(Draft CCP/EA) was released in October 2003. The Service published a
formal notice in the Federal Register requesting comments and advice from
the public. The Draft CCP/EA was sent to more than 70 individuals, private
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 20
businesses, consulting companies, non-governmental organizations, State
and Federal agencies, and City, County, State, and Federal officials, as wells
as local public libraries and media outlets (see Appendix I). A 45-day public
review period was provided, with an open house held at the refuge
headquarters on November 5, 2003. Comments received during the public
review period were considered, and to the degree possible, incorporated into
the final document (see Appendix H).
The CCP must be formally revised within 15 years (or earlier, if it is
determined that conditions affecting the refuge have changed significantly).
Implementation of the Plan will be monitored to ensure that the strategies
and decisions noted within are accomplished. Data collected in association
with routine inspections or programmatic evaluations will be used to
continually update and adjust management activities.
Adaptive Management
The Service acknowledges that much remains to be learned about species,
habitats, and physical processes that occur on the refuge, and about the
ecological interactions between species. When faced with uncertainty
resulting from complex ecological interactions or gaps in available data the
most effective approach to resource management over the long term is an
adaptive one. Adaptive management refers to a management style in which
the effectiveness of management actions is monitored and evaluated, and
future management is modified as needed, based on the results of this
evaluation or other relevant information that becomes available. The
Service has been practicing adaptive management on the refuges since their
establishment and plans to continue this practice. Accordingly, the
management scenario proposed in this CCP provides for ongoing adaptive
management of the refuges is described more fully in Chapter 6, Plan
Implementation.
NEPA and This Document
As the basic national charter for the protection of the environment, NEPA
requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of all actions
they undertake. Under NEPA and implementing regulations, action refers
to a policy, plan, program, or project that is implemented, funded,
permitted, or controlled by a Federal agency or agencies. Agencies must
also consider the environmental effects of all reasonable and feasible
alternatives to a proposed action and possible alternatives. If adverse
environmental effects cannot be entirely avoided, NEPA requires an agency
to show evidence of its efforts to reduce these adverse effects and to restore
and enhance environmental quality as much as possible. The EA that
addresses the environmental effects of implementing this CCP is attached.
2.2 The Ecosystem Approach to Management
In 1994, the Service adopted an ecosystem approach to more effectively
achieve its mission of fish and wildlife conservation for future generations.
The ecosystem approach is defined as “protecting or restoring the natural
function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem while
recognizing that all components are interrelated”.
Ecosystem management includes preservation of the natural ecological
integrity, ecosystem health, and sustainable levels of economic and
recreational activity. This approach emphasizes the identification of goals
that represent resource priorities on which all parts of the Service will
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 21
Figure 2. Edwards Plateau Ecosystem boundary
collectively focus their efforts. These cross program partnerships within the
Service and partnerships with outside entities assist in the identification of
common resource goals and contribute to the accomplishment of those goals
in an effective and timely manner.
The Service has defined 53 ecosystems within the United States and U.S.
Carribean Islands, based US Geological Survey watershed boundaries. All
of the Service’s field units (National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish
Hatcheries, Law Enforcement, Ecological Services Offices, Fishery
Resources Offices) within an Ecosystem Unit are involved in preparing a
resource management plan for the Unit. The Ecosystem Approach also
mandates cooperation between the Service and the various entities that
control land or make decisions about land management within the
Ecosystem Unit, including other federal agencies, state agencies,
municipalities, private interests, organizations and individual landowners.
In order to implement the ecosystem approach, the Service has established
ecosystem teams consisting of members representing the various field
stations and programs within the Service in any given area. These teams
are helping the Service present a more unified approach and will work
closely with traditional partners, as well as expanding partnerships with
others. The refuge plays an integral role in the coordination of, and is an
active participant in, projects identified by the ecosystem team as priority
projects in order to accomplish the overall goals of the team. Management
decisions incorporate pertinent biological and socioeconomic parameters
within the ecosystem. Each team developed an ecosystem plan with input
from its partners. This plan is used to implement collaborative projects
across Service programs and with partners. The ecosystem that the
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs fall within is known as the Edwards Plateau
Ecosystem (Figure 2).
2.3 The Edwards Plateau Ecosystem
The Edwards Plateau Ecosystem includes the plateau of central and west-central
Texas, extending into New Mexico, and the playa lakes region of the
southern High Plains. This dynamic and varied ecosystem contains geologic
and hydrologic systems that support highly diverse floral and faunal
communities. The playa lakes and Gulf of Mexico estuaries provide habitat
for a significant portion of the Central Flyway
waterfowl and sandhill crane populations, as well
as migratory songbirds. The ecosystem also
provides freshwater to the Gulf of Mexico
estuaries areas.
The proposed management priorities for the
Edwards Plateau Ecosystem focus on trust
resources, including traditional recreational
opportunities and more recent directions involving
ecological integrity, water conservation issues,
and private lands initiatives. The refuge staff and
the Service are integral to the implementation of
this Ecosystem Plan. Many of the goals and
objectives of the Ecosystem Plan have been
specifically incorporated into this CCP, where
appropriate. The Edwards Plateau Ecosystem
Plan (USFWS, 1994) has identified the following
goals:
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 22
Goal 1: Conserve the full range of natural biological variations,
including landscapes, communities, populations, and species.
Goal 2: Promote conservation of water quality and quantity for
human and natural resources benefits.
Goal 3: Provide high quality recreational experiences to the extent
these activities support the resources and priorities
identified by the team.
Goal 4: Promote an awareness, understanding, and appreciation of
natural resources and the human role in the environment.
In developing goals and objectives for the refuges in this CCP, each of these
ecosystem goals was considered and addressed to the greatest extent
feasible within the purposes of the refuges. While management activities on
the refuges can potentially play an important role in achieving each of these
goals, specific objectives to some of these goals mention refuge programs
directly supporting the goals. Refuge activities or programs sited in the
Ecosystem Plan include the following:
Ecosystem Goal 1, Objective#2: Provide technical assistance to landowners
that support reliable wildlife management practices that are economical,
legal, and biologically sound; includes reference to development of a fire
management program at the refuge. This type of assistance is addressed in
strategies identified under CCP Goal 1, Objectives 5 and 7.
Ecosystem Goal 1, Objective #3: Conserve and monitor significant and
unique natural resources in the Edwards Ecosystem; calls for initiating
plant and animal community/population surveys on the refuge. Such
surveys are mandated under CCP Goal 1, Objectives 1, 2, 3, and 6.
Ecosystem Goal 3, Objective #2: Assist private landowners in developing
additional and non-traditional economic wildlife opportunities from
recreational activities on their land; discusses the Refuge hosting workshops
and demonstration areas on wildlife management techniques in cooperation
with TPWD and others. Strategies described under CCP Goal 4, Objective 3
and CCP Goal 5, Objective 5 work toward meeting this ecosystem goal.
Ecosystem Goal 4, Objective #1: Promote an awareness, understanding, and
appreciation of natural resources and the human role in the environment;
mentions developing and disseminating education and outreach materials to
various audiences. This need is addressed in strategies identified under
CCP Goal 1, Objective 3; CCP Goal 4, Objective 3; and CCP Goal 5,
Objective 5.
The ecosystem is primarily influenced by human development, which affects
the preservation of natural resources. Human habitat modifications have
resulted in the reduction, and in some areas, extirpation of native plants
and animals. The introduction of a nonnative plant, salt cedar (Tamarisk
spp.) used for bank stabilization in the 1940s, has significantly altered both
the stream channel morphology and the structure of riparian plant
communities. Alteration of natural river flow regimes through the
construction of dams for consumptive uses, flood control, and controlled
releases have further altered habitats and impacted native aquatic
communities. Land use practices over the past century, primarily farming
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 23
Figure 3
and ranching, have significantly altered surface soils and the vegetation of
the area. Continued development of groundwater resources threatens
wildlife habitats throughout the Ecosystem.
There are complex resource management issues associated with this
ecosystem. A diversity of human cultures competing for limited access to
water rights and growing resource demands have depleted, and at times,
contaminated ground and surface water. Impacts from previous water and
land management practices for agricultural needs have seriously altered the
Edwards Plateau Ecosystem by reducing native habitats and species
diversity. Impacts from oil and gas development, mining, and urbanization
further increased the need for more responsible utilization of land and water
resources that support the remaining native communities.
2.4 Area of Ecological Concern
While there is a larger defined area known as the Edwards Plateau
Ecosystem, this CCP will focus primarily on Service lands within an Area of
Ecological Concern known as the Pecos and Staked Plains region (or the
Llano Estacado) or the Texas High Plains. Of particular interest is the area
where portions of the Pecos and Staked Plains physiographic region, Short
Grass Prairie BCR, Playa Lakes Region, and the Edwards Plateau
Ecosystem overlap (Figure 3). An area of ecological concern can be defined
as “an essentially complete ecosystem (or set of interrelated ecosystems) of
which one part cannot be discussed without
considering the remainder” (USFWS, 1985).
The High Plains, a native short and mixed grass
prairie ecosystem, once encompassed over 350,000
square miles in 10 states, and stretched along the
eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains from Canada
to southwestern Texas. It is drained by three major
river systems: the Missouri, the Arkansas, and the
Red Rivers. The Pecos and Staked Plains (or Llano
Estacado), is the largest nonmountainous geological
region in North America (Rose and Strandtmann,
1986). It is a physiographic region that marks the
southern end of the High Plains and covers the
western Panhandle of Texas, the west end of the
Panhandle of Oklahoma, and extensive areas in
eastern New Mexico. It is comprised of about
20,000,000 acres and is characterized by a flat,
featureless, relatively high plateau devoid of trees.
This plain is one of the largest flat areas of its size
in the world. It is predominantly shortgrass prairie
dominated by grama and buffalo grasses, but there
are also extensive areas of shinnery, a midgrass
prairie with low shrubs. The elevation is 3,000 to
4,500 feet above mean sea level (MSL), sloping
gently toward the southeast. The surface is
interrupted at various locations by thousands of small ephemeral lakes or
playas, dune fields, draws, and drainages which are tributaries to the
Canadian, Red, Brazos, and Colorado Rivers. There are over 20,000 playa
lakes scattered throughout the region that collect rainwater. Some are very
large, and almost permanently filled with water.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 24
This shortgrass prairie is bisected by the Canadian River breaks in the
northern Panhandle and gradually blends into the Edwards Plateau and
Trans-Pecos subregions in the south. The eastern edge is sharply delineated
by the cap rock escarpments which form a natural boundary between the
upper shortgrass plains and the taller mixed grass rolling plains found in
lower elevations toward the east. Trans-Pecos shrub savannah becomes
more dominant towards the south and, chaparral and pinyon-juniper occur
in the mesas and Plains toward the west.
The North American grassland began to develop approximately five million
years ago under the conditions dictated by a cool, wet climate. However, for
the past 12,000 years, these conditions have steadily and progressively
shifted to the warmer, drier climate of today. As the mid continental
grasslands developed under these more modern mesic conditions, two
significant factors contributed to the successful stage of the prairie
ecosystem. First, the expanse of grassland sustained large herds of grazing
animals with some estimates as high as 50 million bison, 50 million
pronghorn, and one billion or more prairie dogs. The prairie community
became adapted to periodic grazing, and in some cases, dependent on this
type of disturbance. Secondly, grasslands were subjected to periodic
burning either by man or by natural causes such as lightning. The High
Plains was a shortgrass prairie that had developed under an influence of
factors such as grazing by native herbivores, periodic fire, and climate
conditions that were characterized by a small amount of effective
precipitation.
The vegetation on the High Plains is variously classified as mixed prairie,
shortgrass prairie, and in some locations as tallgrass prairie. There are
distinct differences among the plant communities found on the hard lands,
mixed lands, sandy lands, draws, and caliche breaks. On most upland sites
throughout the High Plains, the blue grama and buffalo grass series was the
dominant shortgrass community type. However, a variety of other mid and
shortgrasses such as sideoats grama, sand dropseed and threeawn were also
present. Western wheatgrass, vine-mesquite grass, and silver bluestem
often occurred on more favorable sites. The cottonwood-tallgrass series
which contained big bluestem, switchgrass, eastern grama grass, and Indian
grass was present but was restricted to moist creek bottoms and swales in
the central and eastern Panhandle. Mesic canyons within the Canadian
breaks and the eastern caprock escarpment provided a localized habitat for
the Rocky Mountain, oneseed, and redberry juniper-midgrass communities.
Junipers have spread out of some of the breaks onto the plains proper.
Forbs, legumes, and shrub species were also present in the shortgrass
prairie, but were generally not as plentiful as in the higher rainfall areas to
the east. Moderate amounts of mesquite and yucca have invaded some of
the area. Sand sage and shinnery oak are common on the sandy lands. The
few drainages and stream areas are lined with cottonwoods, soapberry, and
hackberries as the dominant woody plants (TPWD, 2000).
By the late 1800s, farming was beginning to displace large portions of the
original High Plains natural prairie. By the early 1900s, much of the
original shortgrass prairie had been converted to farming which increased
with the onset of deep well irrigation. The Ogallala Aquifer is a primary
source of water for many of the region’s municipal and agricultural
endeavors. Areas not suitable for farming were used as range for domestic
livestock. Ranches were primarily cattle operations, usually in large
holdings. Species such as mesquite, prickly pear, redberry juniper, and
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 25
cholla were quick to invade and become established on the disturbed
rangeland.
The principal large wildlife species such as pronghorn (antelope), bison,
prairie gray wolf, Plains grizzly bear, and Plains elk have been extirpated.
There have been few listed species and few Endangered Species Act (ESA)
conflicts in the region. However, habitat fragmentation and poor range
conditions of remaining native grasslands can be a factor in declining fish
and wildlife species. Several species are being considered for listing. To
prevent further declines in at risk species, efforts are being made to protect
the remaining native habitats, particularly through efforts with private
landowners. This region has traditionally contained over 90 percent in
private ownership.
Today, prairie restoration through practical stewardship practices is being
carried out on some public and private lands. Although the shortgrass
prairie of the High Plains is lacking in its original diversity and complexity,
remnant populations of both flora and fauna are being gradually revived in
some areas (TPWD, 1999).
Limited water supply and potentially increasing demands in the Texas High
Plains make water resource management a high priority for the area of
concern. The future availability of water remains the number one concern
for the region. The efficiency of use has increased, but the amounts utilized
is greater than the supply is recharged. The High Plains Ogallala Area
Regional Water Management Plan was initiated in 1994 by regional water
users. This plan has been instrumental in shaping statewide regional water
planning as required by recently enacted legislation (Senate Bill 1),
outlining water planning guidelines that each region was required to
develop to be assure that future state water needs are met (Texas Tech,
2000).
2.5 Relationship to Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
There are several ongoing migratory bird conservation initiatives that all
refuges should participate in to the extent applicable and practical. The
following documents influence the future management of Muleshoe and
Grulla NWRs, as well as the Area of Ecological Concern. The goals and
objectives identified in this document for both refuges contribute to the
implementation of following initiatives (see strategies under CCP Goal 1,
Objectives 2, 5, 4, 6, and 7; Goal 3, Objective 4; and Goal 5, Objective 1).
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs are located in the Central Flyway, a route
traveled annually by numerous species of waterfowl and migratory birds.
Three hundred and twenty bird species have been documented on these
refuges (see Appendix A for a complete list). Thirty two of these are
waterfowl. These refuges provide wintering habitat and a stopover point for
waterfowl species within the Cental Flyway. More information on the
Central Flyway Council, which predates many of the following Conservation
Initiatives, can be found at http://centralflyway.org/.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Waterfowl populations in North America had plummeted to record lows by
1985. Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North
Americans and the need for international cooperation to help in the recovery
of shared resources, the Canadian and United States governments
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 26
developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations to levels seen in the
1970s through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The
strategy was documented in the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan (NAWMP or Plan) and was signed in 1986.
The plan was originally signed by the United States Secretary of the
Interior and the Canadian Minister of the Environment with an initial goal
of restoring waterfowl population numbers to levels observed in the 1970s.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee realized that
to make the plan effective it would have to be updated regularly to consider
changes in the environment, society, and political policy. In 1994, the
NAWMP was updated and became truly continental in scope when the
Secretario de Desarrollo Social Mexico joined the United States Secretary of
the Interior and the Canadian Minister of the Environment as a signatory of
the plan.
The most recent update of the plan was in 1998. The updated goals seek the
protection of 12.2 million acres of wetland ecosystem habitat and the
restoration and enhancement of 15.2 million acres of wetland habitat.
Waterfowl population goals continue to be the restoration of population
numbers as seen in the 1970s.
The plan’s success depends upon partnerships involving federal, state
provincial, and local governments, businesses, conservation organizations,
and individual citizens. These partnerships are called joint ventures.
Through these joint ventures, NAWMP is able to achieve its objectives with
the assistance of its partners to collectively accomplish what is often
difficult or impossible to do individually.
Implementation of the plan is at the regional level, through 12 regional
habitat “Joint Ventures” in the United States. The Muleshoe and Grulla
NWRs are within the Playa Lake Joint Venture area. The playa lakes on
the refuge provide vital habitat for migratory birds and resident wildlife.
They are important for resting, breeding, nesting and/or winter residency
for many species. The Playa Lakes of Texas are the second most important
winter region for waterfowl in the Central Flyway. Additional information
on NAWMP and joint ventures can be found at
http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/jv.htm.
Partners in Flight
Partners in Flight (PIF)/Companeros en Vuelo/Partenaires d’Envol was
launched in 1990 in response to the growing concerns about declines in the
populations of numerous neotropical migrant landbird species, and to
emphasize the conservation of birds not covered by existing conservation
initiatives. The initial focus was on species that breed in the Nearctic
(North America) and winter in the Neotropics (Central and South America),
but the focus has since expanded to include all land birds of the continental
United States.
PIF is a cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state, and
local government agencies, philanthropic organizations, professional
organizations, conservation groups, industry, the academic community, and
private individuals.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 27
The goal of PIF is to focus the combined resources of agencies, academia,
and private organizations on the improvement of monitoring and inventory,
research, management, and education programs relating to landbirds and
their habitats. Implicit in the plan is the need to identify, protect, manage
and restore essential habitat for declining species.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs are within PIF Physiographic Area #55, the
Pecos and Staked Plains, which covers the western panhandle of Texas, the
west end of the panhandle of Oklahoma, and extensive areas of eastern New
Mexico (shown in Figure 3). These high dry plains are covered with a
shortgrass prairie dominated by grama and buffalo grasses. There are also
extensive areas of shinnery, a midgrass prairie with low shrubs. The area
grades into taller grass to the east, to Trans-Pecos shrub savannah to the
south, and more chaparral and pinyon-juniper in the Mesas and Plain to the
west. Priority bird populations and habitats in this physiographic area
include: for Grassland/Shrub - Lesser prairie chicken, mountain plover,
long-billed curlew, Ferruginous hawk, scaled quail, burrowing owl, and
Cassin’s sparrow; and for Wetland/River Systems - snowy plover and
interior least tern. Most of these species occur or have potential habitat on
Muleshoe/Grulla NWRs and are further discussed in sections 3.4 and 3.5 of
this document. Additional information on PIF and species priorities for the
area can also be found at http://www.partnersinflight.org and
http://cbobirds.org/pif/physios/index.html.
U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership involving
organizations throughout the United States committed to the conservation
of shorebirds. The organizations and individuals working on the Plan have
developed conservation goals for each region of the country, identified
critical habitat conservation needs and key research needs, and proposed
education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and
the threats they face. The Plan has three major goals at different scales. At
a regional scale, the goal of the Plan is to ensure that adequate quantity and
quality of habitat is identified and maintained to support the different
shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate through each region. At a
national scale, the goal is to stabilize populations of all shorebird species
known or suspected of being in decline due to limiting factors occurring
within the U.S., while ensuring that common species are also protected from
future threats. At a hemispheric scale, the goal is to restore and maintain
the populations of all shorebird species in the Western Hemisphere through
cooperative international efforts.
The Plan is designed to complement the existing landscape-scale
conservation efforts of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
PIF, and the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan. Each
of these initiatives addresses different groups of birds, but all share many
common conservation challenges. One major task is to integrate these
efforts to ensure coordinated delivery of bird conservation on the ground in
the form of specific habitat management, restoration, and protection
programs. Additional information on this plan can be found at
http://www.manomet.org/USSCP.html.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 28
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
In July of 1998, the North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan
was initiated to advance the conservation of colonial-nesting waterbirds and
their habitats in North America. A partnership of non-governmental
agencies, researchers, private individuals, academics, and federal and state
government agencies was assembled to gather information and developing
the plan. The mission was to create a cohesive multinational partnership
for conserving and managing colonial nesting waterbirds (seabirds, wading
birds, terns, and gulls) and their habitats throughout North America. The
goal was to produce a plan whose implementation results in maintaining
healthy populations, distributions, and habitats of colonial nesting
waterbirds in North America throughout their breeding, migratory, and
wintering ranges. In 2000, the focus of this conservation planning effort
expanded beyond colonial waterbirds to include non-colonial waterbirds and
secretive marshbirds not covered by other conservation plans, such as rails,
bitterns, grebes, etc. The name of the plan changed accordingly to the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The plan is still under
development, but when completed the plan will be used in future refuge
planning.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
The primary role of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative
(NABCI) is to coordinate, not duplicate, the efforts of the four major land
bird plans: North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners In
Flight, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North America Waterbird
Conservation Plan. Many of the birds targeted by these plans share the
same habitats. By leveraging the plans limited resources, both human and
financial, we will improve the outlook for bird conservation across all of
North America. The NABCI, a coalition of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
governmental agencies and private organizations, is the most inclusive
framework for bird conservation ever assembled on this or any other
continent.
The purpose of the NABCI is to ensure the long-term health of North
America’s native bird populations by increasing the effectiveness of existing
and new bird conservation initiatives, enhancing coordination among the
initiatives, and fostering greater cooperation among the continent’s three
national governments and their people. All of this will be done with
appreciation of the cultural and biological differences that make each
country unique.
This conservation approach is expressed through NABCI’s goal of delivering
the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally based, biologically
driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. “Regionally based” partnerships
involve all stakeholders across ecoregions and are the proven means of
effectively delivering bird conservation. “Biologically driven” means that
there must be explicit linkages among population objectives, habitat goals,
and conservation actions. It also means that evaluation and adaptability
are critical components of successful conservation efforts. “Landscape-oriented”
recognizes the response of bird populations to habitat conditions
across broad ecoregions and the need for conservation to operate at multiple
geographic scales.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 29
The NABCI vision is one of habitat partnerships, based upon the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan’s joint venture model, covering the
continent coast-to-coast. It is hoped that each existing and new partnership
will consider delivering conservation to all birds in all habitats and that
these partnerships eventually move toward conservation of biological
diversity using Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) as the ecological unit in
which to achieve their goals
The refuges are within the Shortgrass Prairie BCR (shown in Figure 3).
The Shortgrass Prairie lies in the rainshadow of the Rocky Mountains,
where arid conditions greatly limit the stature and diversity of vegetation.
Some of the continent’s highest priority birds breed in this area, including
the mountain plover, McCown’s longspur, long-billed curlew, ferruginous
hawk, burrowing owl, and lesser prairie-chicken. Reasons for the precarious
status of these birds are poorly understood but could involve a reduction in
the diversity of grazing pressure as bison and prairie dogs have largely been
replaced by cattle. For migrants, its is possible that conditions of wintering
grounds could also be having a negative impact. The Playa Lakes area in
the southern portion of this region consists of numerous shallow wetlands
that support many wintering ducks, migrant shorebirds, and some
important breeding species, such as the snowy plover. Additional
information on the BCRs can be found at
http://www.nabci-us.org/.
2.6 Planning Perspectives
This CCP identifies goals and objectives for the management of the refuge
and strategies to achieve those goals and objectives. The CCP establishes a
practical foundation for preparing realistic and justifiable budgetary
request. Its implementation will ensure consistency of management over
time while providing the flexibility needed to address particular issues as
they arise.
This comprehensive planning effort will integrate the following perspectives
so that management direction over the next 15 years will produce holistic
management approaches for Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs:
1. A broad perspective for overall environmental contextual issues
including endangered species, ecological integrity, water issues,
interjurisdictional cooperation, and socioeconomic considerations.
2. A focused perspective for the Refuge System related to policy issues
that affect the Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs programs (compatibility,
endangered species management, etc.).
3. A local perspective for refuge related activities and programs affecting
land and species management (habitat management, land protection,
endangered species management, research, contaminants, recreational
use, etc.).
4. Concurrent development, approval and implementation of the station’s
FMP. The prescribed fire objectives in the FMP will be supportive of
refuge goals and objectives and serve to further endangered species and
ecological integrity perspectives.
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 30
An understanding of these perspectives and the relationship between them
lead to the formulation of an integral set of refuge goals, objectives, and
management actions for the next 15 years.
2.7 Issues and Challenges
The following is a list of major issues and challenges related to the
management of Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs, many of which were derived
from ongoing management concerns since the refuge’s establishment. The
sources of these concerns and issues include internal scoping, responses to a
questionnaire prepared for the process, and input from refuge neighbors and
partners including TPWD. Goals and objectives have been designed to effect
habitat restoration and protection of existing habitat for the benefit of a
diversity of wildlife and plants. The questions under the issues that follow
are addressed in the text of the CCP and/or within the goals and objectives
section.
Muleshoe NWR:
Issue 1. Private Land Initiatives
Much of the High Plains grasslands are in private ownership. To provide
contiguous quality habitats that can support diverse native biological
communities, the Service needs to encourage landowners to evaluate their
existing range practices and experiment with management options that
would enhance habitats for wildlife while still serving the purposes of
private ownership. Although lands in private ownership are managed
primarily for economic benefit, including grazing and agricultural
operations, the use of prescribed fire will be explored as opportunities arise
to promote diversity and return native biological communities toward more
natural conditions.
There are many opportunities to enhance the ecological integrity of the High
Plains ecosystems by providing viable recommendations from proven
rangeland management practices for grazing and grassland management to
local landowners.
• Should the refuge coordinate with the NRCS to be included in the
partnership efforts with private landowners to improve grassland
management for the restoration of the native prairie habitats?
• How should the refuge encourage participation in private land
initiatives with the local landowners?
• How can the refuge maintain and improve its relationship with
adjacent landowners?
• Should the refuge establish areas demonstrating rangeland practices,
including prescribed fire, that enhance grassland diversity and benefit
wildlife?
Issue 2. Water Management
Local and regional water use has, over time, lowered the groundwater
aquifer which has affected the groundwater resources throughout the area.
The State of Texas ruled that the water flowing into the refuge is dispersed
groundwater and not subject to a claim of water rights. Two of the three
lakes at the Muleshoe NWR depend entirely upon rainfall for surface water
runoff. The third lake, Paul’s Lake, normally holds water year round as it is
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 31
fed by a spring on adjacent private land. It is not likely that this land could
ever be acquired, although the possibility of acquiring an easement to
maintain this water source should be pursued. Nearly all wells drilled on
the refuge since its establishment in 1935 have been non-productive and no
productive wells have been found on adjacent private land for a radius of
several miles. Even if water was available to pump into refuge lakes, the
lake beds are not conducive to holding water for any length of time. It is
unlikely that any additional water sources could be developed for the refuge.
Key issue questions include:
• Should the refuge request technical advice from the water resources
branch of the Service on the appropriate locations of developing wells
and assist with procedures for obtaining permits to develop new wells
and acquire rights to pump groundwater?
• Should the refuge staff pursue the development of appropriate
easements for protecting springs on private lands that supply the
refuge wetlands?
• Should the refuge investigate other water sources (wells and springs)
that may be used to supply water to refuge wetlands.
Issue 3. Environmental Education and Community Outreach
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 encourages
managers to consider incorporating compatible environmental education
and interpretation opportunities for the public into refuge programs. The
refuge has many opportunities to increase community involvement and
assistance in natural resource programs, enhance compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities, and expand wildlife education and
community outreach. There are several areas where, through the
enhancement of wildlife compatible recreational opportunities and expanded
wildlife education programs, the refuge could increase the public’s
appreciation of wildlife and thereby increase community involvement in
natural resource programs. Community outreach and environmental
education would be instrumental in building a supportive constituency and
improving the public’s understanding, appreciation, and stewardship of our
natural resources. This would potentially increase visitation and increase
revenue through visitor spending in the nearby towns.
• How should the refuge pursue funding resources necessary to support
the primary components of the National Wildlife Improvement Act of
1997?
• How can the Service improve the recognition of the refuge?
• How can the Service increase the public involvement in natural
resource programs?
• Should grazing continue to be implemented as a management tool?
• How can the refuge demonstrate the benefits of prescribed burning to
the economic and personal goals of the private community?
• How should the refuge expand its current outreach to the larger nearby
towns in New Mexico (Clovis and Portales) and Texas (Plainview and
Lubbock)?
• What environmental education, interpretation and outreach programs
should be implemented?
• What new, creative, and innovative literature can be developed for the
refuge?
• What interpretive signage can be provided for the public by the
Service?
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 32
• What educational services or programs should the refuge offer to the
communities?
• What universally accessible facilities are needed on the refuge?
Issue 4. Resource Information
There are several resource areas where information and/or management
direction are needed. These areas include the management of black-tailed
prairie dogs and archaeological resources.
Currently, the black-tailed prairie dog populations have declined from
historic levels. This species is considered a key indicator of the health of the
prairie grassland habitats. It is a candidate species, which means that the
Service has sufficient information to propose listing as a threatened or
endangered species, but the listing action has been precluded by other
higher priority listing activities. There is an opportunity to develop a
grassland management plan as part of the High Plains Partnership (HPP)
addressing specific management strategies to enhance grassland habitat
components, protect species that are currently threatened or endangered,
and prevent further declines in species being considered for listing status.
• What should the refuge do to protect and manage black-tailed prairie
dogs?
• How can grazing continue to be implemented as a management tool to
restore grassland diversity while still protecting species diversity?
• How can prescribed fire be integrated with other management
activities to improve habitat for the black-tailed prairie dog?
• What are the fire effects specific to the refuge, including impacts of
timing, location, and duration; and how do those factors impact plant
succession?
During the 1970s, an exposed mammoth tusk was discovered in one of the
refuge’s dry lakes. The area has a unique geology and analysis of pollen
samples taken from lake sediments indicates new evidence regarding the
age of the glacier lake basin sediments. There is an opportunity to pursue
cooperative agreements with Eastern New Mexico University to complete
analysis and publication of existing sites.
• What Service priority is placed on the archeological resources of the
area?
• What baseline surveys are needed to identify archaeological sites?
• What level of protection should these sites be given from degradation or
disturbance?
• Should the Service pursue funding to assist with further archaeological
and geologic investigations?
• How should the refuge acquire funding to encourage and partially
support research on the geology and archaeology of the area?
Issue 5. Wildlife Depredation
Sandhill cranes will forage on grain crops grown on surrounding private
lands. During most years, the cranes arrive when the milo has already been
harvested so the birds forage on waste grain. Damage primarily occurs
when wheat crop growth is retarded due to lack of moisture during early
fall; then as a result of late moisture, the shoots are young and tender when
the cranes arrive. During most years, there is enough moisture to plant the
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 33
wheat early in the fall so the plants are large enough that the cranes do less
damage to the crop. In the past, farmers have received assistance in the
form of scare devices from Muleshoe NWR. Through coordination with local
landowners, an opportunity exists to be prepared for the times when the
cranes foraging on the late planted crops can damage the production.
• How can the refuge improve communication with local landowners and
neighbors regarding crop depredation by birds?
• What strategies can be developed to decrease depredation on
surrounding croplands when crops are planted late in the season?
• What role should the refuge play in the issue of crop depredation on
private lands?
• Can prescribed fire be used to attract cranes and still meet other fire
management objectives?
Issue 6. Grassland Management
Native short and mixed grass prairie ecosystem of the High Plains
developed under an influence of factors such as grazing by native
herbivores, periodic fire, and climate conditions which were characterized by
a small amount of effective precipitation. Throughout the last century,
improper grazing and inadequate burning activities have resulted in
declines in grassland quality for native wildlife and migratory birds.
Properly managed grazing and prescribed fire serve to maintain and
encourage native grasses and forbs, and to cycle nutrients through the
ecosystem. Key issue questions include:
C Should habitat plans be developed to address conservation needs for
restoring native grassland?
C What strategies should the refuge implement to restore, maintain, and
protect grasslands to benefit native plant and animal communities?
C Should grazing continue to be used as a management tool?
C What are the minimum, appropriate tools necessary to better
inventory, monitor and evaluate resources?
C Should a permanent monitoring program be established to evaluate the
transition from a degraded grassland habitat to a restored grassland
habitat?
Issue 7. Funding and Staffing
Current base funding provides for minimal refuge operations that focus on a
few maintenance projects and is inadequate to upgrade heavy equipment.
The refuge is responsible for protecting the resources and maintaining fee
title transfer inventory lands and conservation easements.
There are many opportunities for the refuge to conduct more biological
surveys, improve the refuge infrastructure, restore habitats, and provide
programs that encourage visitation. The refuge needs to conduct weed
control and other minimal management activities to maintain fee title and
easement lands. Implementation of any of these programs beyond those of
minimal management activities is dependent on additional funds and staff.
The Muleshoe NWR will host a comprehensive fire management program in
conjunction with a restrictive grazing program. Grulla NWR and inventory
lands will be managed less extensively due to limiting factors such as size,
small staff, limited habitat, and distance. Since the operational involvement
of regular on site field station employees at the Muleshoe NWR is presently
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 34
limited due to staff size, most operational aspects of the fire management
program will be charged primarily to the District Fire Management Officer
(DFMO) and staff located at Witchita Mountains NWR in southwestern
Oklahoma.
• What funding is required in order to achieve the goals and objectives of
this plan?
• What specific positions should be identified for the near term that will
assist in plan implementation?
• What staff positions will be required to meet the long-term goals of the
refuge?
• Are current refuge facilities and equipment adequate?
• What avenues should the Service pursue to enhance existing
management and public use programs?
Grulla NWR:
Issue 1. Water Management
Salt Lake on Grulla NWR holds water only occasionally. Normal rainfall
provides insufficient runoff for this large basin to maintain water on a
regular basis. Water that does find its way to the lake is lost through
evaporation and seepage through the sand bottom. There is limited
potential for cost efficient water developments. Although a couple of wells
adjacent to Grulla NWR on private lands are capable of pumping large
amounts of water it is unlikely that a productive well could be developed on
the refuge. Like Muleshoe NWR lakes, the Salt Lake bed at Grulla NWR
would not hold water for any length of time nor would its light soils be
suitable for dike construction. Some adjacent land may be available for
acquisition or trade.
• Should the Service pursue acquisition of adjacent parcels and
investigate management options to pump the well and maximize the
ponding of this water to create wetland habitat in a small
impoundment?
• Where should the refuge develop wells for supplemental water sources?
• Can the Service get water rights to pump groundwater from newly
developed wells?
• Can the refuge get assistance from the water resources branch of the
Service to provide technical advice on the appropriate locations of
developing wells and process the permits with the New Mexico State
Engineers Office to develop new wells?
Issue 2. Boundary Management and Access
The refuge boundary of Grulla NWR is irregular and runs through the Salt
Lake bed making fencing difficult and providing only one access point for
the public or Service personnel to enter refuge lands. Trespass of cattle and
people is an ongoing problem resulting from the partially unfenced
boundary. Cattle from adjacent private lands roam onto the refuge;
resulting in many areas being overgrazed. Many of the boundary signs are
also knocked down since the cattle use the signs as scratching posts.
Trespass also occurs by people riding off-road vehicles on the dry lake bed
and hunters unaware of the boundary. Logistically, fencing is not currently
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 35
possible because the refuge is surrounded by private land with limited
access points and parts of the refuge boundary run through the lake bed.
Adjacent landowners have been contacted and are willing to participate in
agreements that would provide sufficient solid ground along the lake bed to
install fencing. While purchase of interest in land (i.e. fee simple or less
than fee simple) would most easily facilitate solutions to the access problem,
there are other approaches such as agreements with adjacent land owners
that should be explored. Better access is needed to the lake area for wildlife
surveys, boundary posting, and fencing. Fencing and posting the refuge
boundary would protect native grassland communities from overgrazing,
restoring some of the native ecological integrity, and protect wildlife
populations from disturbance. Land acquisition from willing sellers should
continue to be discussed, however, additional policy and NEPA compliance
would be necessary beyond this CCP in order to authorize expansion of the
refuge boundary.
• What are the best strategies to assist improving staff access to the lake
area? What kinds of agreements would be possible between the Service
and private land owners?
• Should the Playa Lakes Joint Venture be used to facilitate private land
agreements and/or possible purchase of interest in lands from willing
sellers using North American Waterfowl Conservation Act (NAWCA)
funds?
• How can the refuge acquire funding to purchase private land to provide
access points to refuge lands?
• What funding sources are available for the refuge to fence and post
boundary segments most conducive to trespass?
• How can the refuge improve communication and encourage
opportunities to work with adjacent landowners for a land exchange?
Issue 3. Resource Information
Available resource data for Grulla NWR consists of wildlife observations
conducted infrequently. Only occasional visits are made to observe range
conditions and wildlife use. More information is needed to make informed
management decisions. Resource data would provide baseline information
and rationale for decisions affecting biological resources. Appropriate data
would augment planned management programs to protect, maintain, and
restore native habitats particular wintering waterfowl habitats
• How can the refuge acquire additional manpower (direct hire or
contracting) to develop a complete data base of biological information?
• What funding sources are available to contract or hire seasonal
positions to obtain the resource data needed?
• In what areas could access be improved to allow better logistics to
implement surveys?
• What fire effects data are required to enhance long-term management
of the refuge?
In recent years, an archaeological site involving 500 year old bison bones
was discovered in Salt Lake on the Grulla NWR and evidence of ancient
culture sites have been found on its lake shores. The refuge may also have
additional prehistoric and historic cultural sites that are currently
undocumented. There is an opportunity to pursue cooperative agreements
Muleshoe and Grulla NWRs Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan Page 36
with Eastern New Mexico University to complete analysis and publication of
existing sites.
• What Service priority is placed on the archeological resources of the
area?
• What baseline surveys are needed to identify archaeological sites?
• What level of protection should these sites be given from degradation or
disturbance?
• Should the Service pursue funding to assist with further archaeological
and geologic investigations?
• How should the refuge acquire funding to encourage and partially
support research on the geology and archaeology of the area?
Issue 4. Public Involvement
Grulla NWR is a very low profile refuge. Few people are aware of the
wildlife viewing opportunities available when sufficient water provides
habitat to attract large numbers of migratory birds on Salt Lake. The
primitive status of Grulla NWR and minimal access points extremely limit
the potential for wildlife viewing at this refuge.
• Should the Service pursue eventual discussions leading to an expansion
of the refuge boundary in order to improve access points?
• What funding mechanisms are available to improve the existing
interpretive area and replace interpretive signs?
• What is the best way to facilitate the development of overlook sites
around the lake for wildlife viewing if additional access points are
provided throug