Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Alamosa - Monte Vista
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
CCPs provide long-term guidance for management decisions and
set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish
refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future
needs. These plans detail program planning 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.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
and
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Prepared by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex
9383 El Rancho Lane
Alamosa, Colorado 81101
and
Division of Refuge Planning
Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, Colorado 80225
Summary and Vision
The Monte Vista and Alamosa National Wildlife Refuges are located in the San
Luis Valley (SLV), a high mountain basin located in south-central Colorado.
Both Refuges were established under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act
“. . . for use as inviolate sanctuaries, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” (16 U.S.C. 715D)
The Monte Vista NWR (14,800 acres) lies on the west side of the San Luis Valley,
about eight miles south of the town of Monte Vista on State Highway 15. Monte
Vista National Wildlife Refuge was approved for acquisition on June 10, 1952 by
the Migratory Bird Conservation Committee. Establishing and acquisition
authorities include: Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Public Land Order
2204 dated September 1960.
About 15 miles to the east is the Alamosa NWR, (11,169 acres) which is three miles
east of the town of Alamosa off of State Highway 160. Alamosa National Wildlife
Refuge was approved for acquisition on June 27, 1962 by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Committee. Establishing and acquisition authorities include:
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, Public Land Order 3899 dated
December 1965.
The SLV consists of a flat and broad depression between mountain ranges
converging to the north and is the first of a series of basins along the Rio Grande.
The mountain ranges to the east reach altitudes over 14,000 feet and those to the
west range between 13,000 and 14,000 feet. The length of the Valley from north
to south is about 80 miles, and its greatest width is about 50 miles. The climate of
the San Luis Valley is marked by cold winters and moderate summers light
precipitation and much sunshine. This arid valley receives an average of seven
inches of precipitation a year, most of which is in the form of rain in mid-summer.
The growing season around the Alamosa NWR averages about 90 days. July and
August are usually the only frost-free months. Winds are light except for the
spring and early summer months when speeds of 40 miles per hour can commonly
occur with higher gusts.
Vision
Lands of the Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and those owned by our partners will be managed in a way that contributes
to the migratory bird resource in the San Luis Valley to the greatest extent
possible to benefit people of the Valley and the United States. Management
will emphasize protection, enhancement, restoration and, where appropriate,
creation of a variety of wetland and riparian habitats in this water rich, yet
arid mountain valley. Local residents and visitors will view Refuge lands
with a sense of pride and value their relationships and accomplishments
with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The purpose for managing habitats on the Alamosa and Monte Vista National
Wildlife Refuges (Refuge Complex) is to provide healthy plant communities in a
variety of successional and structural stages which best support migratory birds.
Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges were established under the
authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “. . . for use as inviolate
sanctuaries, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” Based
on these establishment purposes, the Service has developed habitat and public
use goals. The continuing achievement of these goals will fulfill the Refuges’
purposes.
Sandhill cranes
The goals of the CCP are:
Goal 1: Provide short-emergent vegetation in conjunction with various
hydrologic conditions for migrating and breeding water birds, raptors,
and passerines on the refuge complex.
Goal 2: Provide short-emergent vegetation in a range of structures necessary to
meet the requisites of nesting waterfowl, water birds, raptors, passerines,
and the habitat needs for small mammal populations on the refuge
complex.
Goal 3: Maintain areas of saltgrass in suitable condition for migrating and
breeding water birds and passerines on the refuge complex.
Goal 4: Provide tall-emergent vegetation with other suitable habitat conditions
for breeding water birds and marsh passerines on the refuge complex.
Goal 5: On Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, provide agricultural
grains in adequate amounts for migrating sandhill cranes and
waterfowl.
Goal 6: Provide submergent wetland vegetation for foraging migrant
and breeding water birds, molting waterfowl, foraging
raptors, aerial foraging birds, and nesting grebes and
diving ducks.
Goal 7: Provide shallow (< 1 foot) seasonal water in conjunction with other
habitat conditions for migrating and breeding water birds and aerial
foraging birds.
Goal 8: Enhance the Rio Grande corridor and its tributaries on Refuge lands to
provide habitat for river, riparian-dependent, and other wetland species.
Goal 9: Provide native shrub (primarily greasewood and rabbitbrush on the
Monte Vista NWR and four-wing saltbrush on Alamosa NWR)
communities on the Refuge Complex for the benefit of nesting,
migrating and wintering migratory birds and other wildlife species
dependent upon them.
Goal 10: Provide native short-grass communities on the Complex but
primarily on Alamosa NWR for the benefit of nesting, migrating
and wintering migratory birds and other wildlife species dependent
upon this habitat.
Goal 11: Actively participate in protecting the San Luis Valley Ecosystem
(Upper Rio Grande Ecosystem) and achieving the goals contained
in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the North
American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) through
coordination with local, regional, and national partners.
Goal 12: Control noxious weeds on refuge complex roads, levees, and ditch
banks to improve the quality of adjacent habitat and to slow or cease
the spread of these species to neighboring private lands.
Goal 13: Foster understanding, appreciation, and advocacy of wetlands
within the San Luis Valley Ecosystem (Upper Rio Grande
Ecosystem).
i
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
History of San Luis Valley and the Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. Purpose of and Need for Plan
Purpose of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Purpose of and Need for Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
NWRS Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
National Wildlife Refuge System Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
History of Refuges Establishment, Acquisition, and Management . . . . 13
Legal and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Refuge Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Refuge Management Direction: Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Plans Affecting San Luis Valley and Management of Refuges . . . . . . . . 19
Step-Down Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Description of Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Habitat Protection Vision (15 years and beyond) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Planning Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
III. Alternatives, Including the Service’s Proposed
Action
Description of Each Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
No Action (Current Management) Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Rest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Prescribed Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Prescribed Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Elk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Proposed Alternative (Ideal Management Alternative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Rest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Prescribed Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Prescribed Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Elk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
ii
III. Cont’d.
Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . 55
Habitat Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Public Use Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Funding and Personnel Needed to Implement the Plan . . . . . . . . . 73
Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Partnership Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . 77
Summary Comparison of Alternatives (Matrix) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
IV. Affected Environment
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Soils and Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Plant Communities (Habitat Types) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Shorebirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Marshbirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Colonial Water Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Water Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Raptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Songbirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Corvids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Resident Fish and Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Amphibians and Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Recreational Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Social and Economic Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Population and Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
V. Environmental Consequences
No Action (Current Management) Alternative
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Naturalness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Proposed Alternative (Ideal Management Alternative)
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Naturalness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
VI. List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
iii
VII. Consultation and Coordination with Others
Summary of Public Involvement/Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Maps
1. Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Monte Vista NWR Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Alamosa NWR Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Mountain Prairie Region Ecosystem Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. San Luis Valley Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Monte Vista NWR Hunting Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7. Alamosa NWR Hunting Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8. Monte Vista NWR Habitat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
9. Alamosa NWR Habitat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Appendices
A. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
B. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
C. RONS Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
D. MMS Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
E. Compatibility Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
F. Species Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
G. Section 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
H. Compatibility Lawsuit Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
I. Synopsis of Goal Setting Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 1
I. Introduction
Introduction
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Service) is the principal Federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and
their habitats. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife
Refuge System which encompasses nearly 540 national wildlife refuges,
thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas. National
wildlife refuges are established for specific purposes and provide habitats for
more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects.
Environmental Setting
The Monte Vista and Alamosa National Wildlife Refuges are located in the
San Luis Valley (SLV), a high mountain basin located in south-central
Colorado (Map 1 - Vicinity Map). The Monte Vista NWR (14,800 acres) lies on the
west side of the San Luis Valley, about eight miles south of the town of Monte
Vista on State Highway 15 (Map 2 - Monte Vista NWR Base Map). About 15
miles to the east is the Alamosa NWR, (11,169 acres) which is three miles east of
the town of Alamosa off of State Highway 160 (Map 3 - Alamosa NWR Base
Map). These refuges are located within the Upper Rio Grande Ecosystem of
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Map 4 - Ecosystem Map).
The SLV consists of a flat and broad depression between mountain ranges
converging to the north and is the first of a series of basins along the Rio
Grande. The mountain ranges to the east reach altitudes over 14,000 feet and
those to the west range between 13,000 and 14,000 feet. The length of the
Valley from north to south is about 80 miles, and its greatest width is about
50 miles. The climate of the San Luis Valley is marked by cold winters and
moderate summers light precipitation and much sunshine. This arid valley
receives an average of seven inches of precipitation a year, most of which is
in the form of rain in mid-summer. The growing season around the Alamosa
NWR averages about 90 days. July and August are usually the only frost-free
months. Winds are light except for the spring and early summer months
when speeds of 40 miles per hour can commonly occur with higher gusts.
The San Luis Valley is part of the much larger Rio Grande Rift Zone which
extends from southern New Mexico northward through the San Luis and
Upper Arkansas Valleys to its northern termination near Leadville,
Colorado (Map 5 - San Luis Valley). The SLV is bordered on the east by the
linear Sangre de Cristo Mountains, which resulted from extensive block
faulting during the Laramide Orogeny. The western side of the SLV is
flanked by the San Juan Mountains, the result of extensive tertiary volcanism.
In sharp contrast with the steeply faulted eastern side of the Valley floor, the
Oligocene volcanic rocks of the San Juans gently dip eastward into the Valley
floor where they are interbedded with Valley-fill deposits (USDI, BLM 1989).
The SLV has two major aquifers, the shallow unconfined and the deep confined.
These aquifers consist mainly of unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel.
The unconfined aquifer is separated from the confined aquifer by clay layers
and lava flows. Wells drilled into the confined aquifer frequently produce
free flowing artesian wells. Unconfined groundwater occurs throughout the
Valley floor. The confined aquifer underlies most of the Valley, extending
from north of Mosca south to Romeo and from Monte Vista to east of Alamosa.
Both of the refuges overlay the confined aquifer. The aquifers provide water
that is adjudicated for wildlife and irrigation uses on the refuges. For example,
the Mumm artesian well provides about one quarter of the water used on
Alamosa NWR.
2 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 3
4 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 5
6 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 7
History of the SLV and the Refuge Complex
For over a century, the SLV has been irrigated to produce hay, small grains
(wheat and barley) and vegetables (potatoes, peas, lettuce). About 30 percent
of the SLV is currently irrigated with water from the Rio Grande river and
well water for agricultural purposes. The construction of over 2,000 miles of
ditches and pumping of groundwater needed to support agricultural
irrigation has likely diminished the quality and quantity of many naturally
occurring wetland areas. We assume wetlands originally associated with
creek and river systems in the Valley have been diminished by irrigation
diversions by agricultural and wildlife managers. However, irrigation
practices have also resulted in the creation of thousands of acres of wet
meadows. These shallowly-flooded native plant meadows are usually
annually hayed and grazed but still provide foraging habitat to migratory
birds.
What we know about the landscape of the refuge complex prior to European
settlement is primarily from descriptions provided by the first refuge
manager (P. Bryant, pers comm.), settlers from the early 1900s (E. Olson,
pers comm.), the original Refuge Master Plan (USFWS 1962), and the map
produced by the 1874, 1875, and 1877 Wheeler expedition and the Rio Grande
County Soil Survey. From these sources of information we believe that the
area we now call Monte Vista NWR was largely devoid of palustrine
emergent wetlands (wetlands permanently or semipermanently flooded)
(wetland definitions by Cowardin, et al. 1979). When these wetlands did
occur they were in the floodplains of Spring Creek, Rock Creek and possibly
Cat Creek. The natural flows in these creeks have been drastically reduced
in the last 50 to 150 years, and in the case of Spring Creek, almost dried
completely due to the construction of irrigation canals and extensive
groundwater withdrawal. Therefore, the availability of naturally palustrine
emergent wetlands on the Monte Vista NWR has been reduced. Another
type of wetland may have existed on the refuge prior to its establishment.
Wetlands with saturated soils, perennial wetland vegetation and intermittent
or temporary flooding may have occurred but they were probably dependent
upon groundwater levels which were higher than current levels. These and
other kinds of wetlands may have occurred. The dominant plant community
is believed to have been desert salt shrubland primarily consisting of
rabbitbrush, greasewood, salt grass, and alkali sacaton (Rocchi, et al. 2000).
A need is recognized to continue to gather information on the extent, type,
and location of historic wetlands on and near the Monte Vista NWR.
After 1882 and before the Monte Vista Refuge was established (1952), much
of this shrubland habitat was converted to wet meadows for grazing and
production of hay, and croplands via irrigation by private landowners. After
the Refuge was established, the improvement of water management facilities
began in order to emphasize wildlife habitat production on these irrigated
lands. Low level levees have been built throughout the 14,800 acres to
maintain irrigation of shallow water wetland vegetation, to compensate for
the loss of wetland habitat throughout the SLV and to fulfill refuge purposes.
The majority of these wetlands rely upon the delivery of surface water
through a series of canals, ditches, and borrow areas. Water is the primary
instrument to produce and maintain wildlife habitat on the Refuges, and
without it, wetland-dependent wildlife would be greatly reduced in the SLV.
8 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
The Rio Grande is the largest and most significant river in the San Luis
Valley, starting in the San Juan Mountains above Creede, Colorado and
flowing southeast through the towns of South Fork, Del Norte (where it
officially enters the SLV), Monte Vista, and Alamosa and then south to the
New Mexico state line. This major river is critical not only for the people and
resources of the San Luis Valley but for these same entities as it flows south
through the states of New Mexico and Texas and then along the border with
Mexico. Similar to other river systems in arid environments that support
extensive irrigation, the Rio Grande now has an extensive network of
storage dams and diversions for irrigation and other purposes along its
entire length. In the SLV storage dams are located in the headwaters and
upper reaches and extensive direct diversions (approximately 4,000 to 4,500
cubic feet per second sustained at peak of irrigation season) that occur
between South Fork and the Alamosa NWR. These and other uses and
modifications in the Rio Grande have resulted in, but are not limited to:
fewer over-bank flooding events, depressed flows during the spring and
early summer (runoff period), and more prolonged flows throughout the
remaining of the year due to water returning to the river from irrigated
lands (Gerstle 2001). These factors in combination with alterations in
groundwater and aquifers have impacted the type, quantity, quality, and
persistence of wetland habitats in the SLV.
The Alamosa NWR lies in the Rio Grande floodplain and is part of what was
referred to as the “Alamosa Marshes,” one of the largest wetland complexes
in the SLV documented in the 1878 Wheeler expedition maps (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1878). Soon after, in the late 1800s, the area now known
as the refuge was managed as cattle ranches and several irrigation ditches
were established to irrigate meadows for the production of livestock forage.
After this land was converted to a national wildlife refuge in 1962, similar
irrigation practices were continued. These combined irrigation practices
have probably resulted in water being kept longer in some wetlands than
historically. Other changes in refuge habitat are the result of modifications of
the Rio Grande hydrology; for example, it is speculated that flooding on the
Alamosa NWR occurred more frequently and over most of the refuge.
Relatively few wetland impoundments were artificially created because
oxbow and other wetland depressions still existed although water was no
longer naturally supplied by the Rio Grande. Few improvements were made
in the original water management infrastructure used by cattle ranchers, and
water is still moved through this system to irrigate wetland vegetation
throughout the refuge. This plan assumes that the most dramatic changes in
the Alamosa NWR have been the alteration of hydrology in the Rio Grande
and the 1983 construction of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Closed Basin
Conveyance Channel which bisects the refuge.
This plan reflects the current stage in the evolution of management direction,
perception and goals of Monte Vista and Alamosa National Wildlife Refuges.
The goals of these two refuges have changed over time in response to
changes in ecological and agricultural conditions, human activities and our
knowledge of biology, geology, hydrology and sociology.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 9
If history is a guide, any specific goals assigned to these refuges have a life
span defined by their applicability to current conditions, and knowledge and
state of the wildlife management profession. Monte Vista NWR was
originally established under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in response to
local interest in protecting wintering duck habitat along Spring Creek and
drawing ducks causing depredation on privately-owned grain fields onto a
federally owned refuge (USFWS 1962). After almost 10 years of
management as a national wildlife refuge and the resulting conversion of
ranching, farming and dairy operations to dramatically less intensive, annual
utilization of vegetation tremendous numbers of waterfowl started using the
refuge for nesting. This coincided with growing continental concern over
plummeting duck populations. Management adapted waterfowl production as
a goal to meet demands of that period in time. Refuge managers also realized
that of the 230,000 acres of wetlands in the San Luis Valley (USFWS 1992)
only a small percentage could be managed to support dense stands of
vegetation not harvested annually. This wetland type and condition has been
shown to be very productive for ground-nesting water birds and was
considered and important enough habitat type to reproduce on public or
private lands when possible.
During this period of succession and manipulation of refuge habitats nesting
conditions for several colonial water bird and other non-game water birds
became favorable and important to bird conservation in Colorado.
Management goals were broadened to protect and encourage these habitats.
From the time of establishment to the late 1970s, groundwater levels
declined, which terminated flows in Spring Creek and other valley springs.
Increasing managers focus and reliance on surface water management to
maintain wetland habitat. In more contemporary times, our partners and the
Service have encouraged our conservation efforts to focus on the broad array
of migratory birds and, in particular, their habitats. Also, we have embraced
the fact that conservation of migratory birds must take place landscape wide,
not just on refuges. And it must be conducted in the context of human use,
occupation and impacts to those same lands. As a consequence, the goals of
Monte Vista and Alamosa National Wildlife Refuges described in this
document reflect our best attempt to describe habitat and public use goals
appropriate for this period of time knowing full well they will change with
environmental conditions, social demands and growing knowledge.
In 1992 Monte Vista NWR was included in a lawsuit filed by National
Audubon Society et al. versus Babbitt alleging the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service had violated the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, the
Refuge Recreation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Administrative Procedures Act by allowing incompatible uses in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Monte Vista NWR was included because of its use
of livestock grazing in habitat management. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
settled the lawsuit with the plaintiffs out of court in October 1993. The
agreement as it specifically related to Monte Vista NWR required the
Service to take six specific actions (see Appendix H).
10 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
This lawsuit and the resulting settlement have had a substantial influence on
day-to-day operations of both refuges. As part of the settlement, it was
agreed that a 5 year research study would be conducted which would
evaluate habitat management tools including grazing. Dr. Leigh Fredrickson,
a wetland ecologist from the University of Missouri’s Gaylord Memorial
Laboratory, was selected to conduct the project and research began on both
Refuges in 1996. Additionally it was agreed that in the short-term there
would be no cattle grazing on the Complex unless it was part of the research.
The outcome of the research project is fundamentally important to all future
habitat management of the refuges. Monitoring of habitat management
actions is now more than just a common sense good idea but mandated
especially if grazing is used as a habitat management tool.
In order to conserve migratory birds and their habitats in the San Luis
Valley, refuge planning and operations are intertwined with a large number
of partners that share many conservation goals. These partnerships have
proven extremely productive yet equally time consuming to maintain. Two
challenges now faced are how to coordinate this plan with the array of other
planning efforts underway and secondly how to provide staff time to
participate and in some cases lead these efforts.
Both National Wildlife Refuges in the San Luis Valley serve as imperfect
models of how areas set-aside for wildlife management complement
migratory bird habitat in a setting dominated by agriculture. Much needs to
be learned. Our knowledge of historical and prehistorical environmental
conditions is scant and largely dependent upon anecdotal and qualitative
information. In this desert environment, the variety and abundance of life is
influenced by the presence of water more than any other factor. This factor
has likely been altered more than any other in the San Luis Valley and
confounds many efforts to speculate about site specific environmental
conditions.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 11
II. Purpose of and Need for
Plan
Purpose of Action
The purpose for managing habitats on the Alamosa and Monte Vista
National Wildlife Refuges (Refuge Complex) is to provide healthy plant
communities in a variety of successional and structural stages which best
support migratory birds.
Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges were established under
the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “. . . for use as
inviolate sanctuaries, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” Based on these establishment purposes, the Service has developed
habitat and public use goals. The continuing achievement of these goals will
fulfill the Refuges’ purposes.
Need for Action
Denver Post staff writer Jim Hughs best captured the San Luis Valley’s
relationship with water in his article “Emotions Run Deep in the Valley,”
when he wrote:
“Sin agua no hay vida.” Ever since Spanish settlers first
arrived in the San Luis Valley, this has been the undisputed
motto here, a truism proven by fields whose promise is
turned into reality by massive pivot sprinklers: Without
water, there is no life . . . . Water here means survival for
those who can get it, riches for those who control it and
bankruptcy or moving trucks for those left without it.
Disputes over water are frequent and often intense . . . . So
common and so fierce is the push-and-pull over water rights
here that it has, in many ways, become “The Issue,” the
defining topic central to the way valley residents think about
their communities and about their relationship to the rest of
the state and the West.
Social, legal, and physical influences define the environment in which the
Service is attempting to provide healthy migratory bird habitat. Each of
these influences require deliberate participation by refuge staff to reach
migratory bird goals and refuge purposes. Tools we must employ include: use
and maintenance of water rights for habitat management. Water
management is a primary instrument to produce and conserve wildlife
habitat on the refuges and in the San Luis Valley. These actions must be
taken to perpetuate wetland-dependent wildlife in the SLV.
Purpose of and Need for Plan
The purpose of developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is to
provide the refuge manager and public with a 15 year management plan for
the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their related
habitats, while providing opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses. The CCP, when fully implemented, should achieve Refuge
purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, where
appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each Refuge and the Refuge
System: help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; and meet other mandates.
12 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
NWRS Mission, Goals, and Guiding Principles
The mission of the System is “to administer a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate,
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within
the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).
Goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System are:
a. To fulfill our statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further
the System mission.
b. Conserve, restore where appropriate, and enhance all species of fish,
wildlife, and plants that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered.
c. Perpetuate migratory bird, interjurisdictional fish, and marine
mammal populations.
d. Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants.
e. Conserve and restore, where appropriate, representative ecosystems
of the United States, including the ecological processes
characteristic of those ecosystems.
f. To foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife,
and plants, and their conservation, by providing the public with
safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use.
Such use includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
There are four guiding principles for management and general public use of
the Refuge System established by Executive Order 12996 (3/25/96):
 Public Use. The Refuge System provides important opportunities for
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
 Habitat. Fish and wildlife will not prosper without high quality
habitat, and without fish and wildlife, traditional uses of refuges
cannot be sustained. The Refuge System will continue to conserve
and enhance the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat
within refuges.
 Partnerships. America’s sportsmen and women were the first
partners who insisted on protecting valuable wildlife habitat within
wildlife refuges. Conservation partnerships with other Federal
agencies, State agencies, Tribes, organizations, industry, and the
general public can make significant contributions to the growth and
management of the Refuge System.
 Public Involvement. The public should be given a full and open
opportunity to participate in decisions regarding acquisition and
management of our National Wildlife Refuges.
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become the symbol of
the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 13
National Wildlife Refuge System Policies
To manage each refuge to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the
specific purposes for which that refuge was established.
Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate
general public use directly related to the mission of the system and the
purposes of many refuges.
Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general
public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge
planning and management.
When a wildlife-dependent recreational use is compatible within a refuge,
that activity should be facilitated, subject to such restrictions or regulations
as may be necessary, reasonable and appropriate.
History of Refuges Establishment, Acquisition, and
Management
Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges were established under
the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “. . . for use as
inviolate sanctuaries, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” Additionally, Public Land Order 2204, dated September 19, 1960,
withdrew 800 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land
Management for inclusion in Monte Vista NWR. Public Land Order 3899,
dated December, 1965, withdrew 86 acres of public land (BLM) for inclusion
in Alamosa NWR. Both orders withdrew these lands from all forms of
appropriation under public land laws, including mineral laws (Title 30,
U.S.C., Chapter 2). However, mineral leasing laws pertaining to drilling are
applicable if known geological resources, such as oil and gas, exist.
14 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Legal and Policy Guidance
Management actions on national wildlife refuges are circumscribed by many
mandates (laws, Executive Orders, etc.) the latest of which is the Volunteer
and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. The regulations that
affect refuge management the most are listed below.
Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act (1998): The
purposes of this Act are to encourage the use of volunteers to assist in the
management of refuges within the Refuge System; to facilitate partnerships
between the Refuge System and non-Federal entities to promote public
awareness of the resources of the Refuge System and public participation in
the conservation of the resources and; to encourage donations and other
contributions.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Sets the mission
and administrative policy for all refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge
System; mandates comprehensive conservation planning for all units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land
management agencies to: accommodate access to and ceremonial uses of
Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely
affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate,
maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.
Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority
public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four
principles to guide management of the system.
Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public
accommodations and services.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires
Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and
repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.
Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated
management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species; and an
interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State
agencies.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) as amended: Protects
materials of archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or
destruction and requires Federal managers to develop plans and schedules to
locate archaeological resources.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult
with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy
changes necessary to protect and preserve Native American religious
cultural rights and practices.
Executive Order 11988 (1977): Requires Federal agencies to provide
leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the
impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial
values served by the floodplains.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 15
Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers
(404 permits) for major wetland modifications.
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the
preservation of historic and archaeological data in Federal construction
projects.
Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to
physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal
government to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.
Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out
programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.
National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the
environmental impacts of any major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or
funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended: Establishes as policy
that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of
the nation’s prehistoric and historic resources.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966): Defines the
National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any
use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for
which the refuge was established.
Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when
such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when
sufficient funds are available to manage the uses.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife
Service to enter into agreements with private landowners for wildlife
management purposes.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the
opening of part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for
acquisition by purchase, rental, or gifts of areas approved by the Migratory
Bird Conservation Commission.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory
birds as a Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and
other regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or non-Federal, to
the hunting of migratory birds.
Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities
on Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects
taken or collected without a permit.
16 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Refuge Purpose
Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges were established under
the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “. . . for use as
inviolate sanctuaries, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” Based on their establishment purposes, the Refuges have adopted a
number of habitat and public use goals. The continuing achievement of these
goals will fulfill the Refuges’ purposes.
In addition to purposes provided by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report for the Bureau of
Reclamation Closed Basin Project describes the role Alamosa NWR plays in
mitigating wetlands lost through construction and operation of the project.
The Bureau of Reclamation has purchased 800 acre-feet of water and
appurtenant land, and provides a variable amount of water out of the Closed
Basin Conveyance Channel to include in the operation of Alamosa NWR as
partial wetland mitigation for the Closed Basin Project.
Refuge Vision Statement
Lands of the Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and those owned by our partners will contribute to the migratory bird
resource of the San Luis Valley to the greatest extent possible. We will
emphasize protection, enhancement, restoration and, where appropriate,
creation of wetland and riparian habitat. Conservation efforts will
complement the SLV ecosystem through community-based actions.
Naturalness will be honored by using tools and techniques which will be as
unobtrusive as practical.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 17
Refuge Management Direction: Goals
Part of the out-of-court 1992 compatibility lawsuit settlement was the
initiation of a research project to evaluate land management tools and their
effectiveness in meeting Refuge goals. Therefore, updated habitat
management goals were needed; and in 1996, a meeting was held to begin the
process of writing appropriate and measurable goals and objectives for the
Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs (See Appendix I). Meeting attendees
included non-government organizations, including litigants of the lawsuit,
and representatives from State and Federal natural resource agencies.
During the first meeting, October 1996, the group decided to develop habitat-based
goals versus wildlife population goals. Additionally, 11 habitat types
were identified for the Complex. In order to set habitat goals and objectives,
it is necessary to understand the linkage between life requisites of wildlife
species and habitat dynamics. A comprehensive suite of information, such as
the nutritional and cover requirements for all the species using the Complex,
was not available. However, the group used field and research experience to
identify major life-history events, uses of various habitat types for cranes,
waterfowl, and shorebirds, and the chronology of those uses (Appendix I).
Over a series of meetings, this and other information was used to develop
“interim” habitat goals for the Complex. These goals have been refined by
Refuge and Regional staff during this comprehensive conservation planning
process and are presented below. The specific objectives for each goal are
presented later in this document.
These goals will guide refuge management and decision-making over the
next 15 years.
Habitat Goals
Goal 1:
Provide short-emergent vegetation in conjunction with various hydrologic
conditions for migrating and breeding water birds, raptors, and passerines
on the refuge complex.
Goal 2:
Provide short-emergent vegetation in a range of structures necessary to meet
the requisites of nesting waterfowl, water birds, raptors, passerines, and the
habitat needs for small mammal populations on the refuge complex.
Goal 3:
Maintain areas of saltgrass in suitable condition for migrating and
breeding water birds and passerines on the refuge complex.
Goal 4:
Provide tall-emergent vegetation with other suitable habitat conditions for
breeding water birds and marsh passerines on the refuge complex.
Goal 5:
On Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, provide agricultural grains in
adequate amounts for migrating sandhill cranes and waterfowl.
Goal 6:
Provide submergent wetland vegetation for foraging migrant and breeding
water birds, molting waterfowl, foraging raptors, aerial foraging birds, and
nesting grebes and diving ducks.
18 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Goal 7:
Provide shallow (< 1 foot) seasonal water in conjunction with other habitat
conditions for migrating and breeding water birds and aerial foraging birds.
Goal 8:
Enhance the Rio Grande corridor and its tributaries on Refuge lands to
provide habitat for river, riparian-dependent, and other wetland species.
Goal 9:
Provide native shrub (primarily greasewood and rabbitbrush on the Monte
Vista NWR and four-wing saltbrush on Alamosa NWR) communities on the
Refuge Complex for the benefit of nesting, migrating and wintering
migratory birds and other wildlife species dependent upon them.
Goal 10:
Provide native short-grass communities on the Complex but primarily on
Alamosa NWR for the benefit of nesting, migrating and wintering
migratory birds and other wildlife species dependent upon this habitat.
Goal 11:
Actively participate in protecting the San Luis Valley Ecosystem (Upper
Rio Grande Ecosystem) and achieving the goals contained in the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan and the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) through coordination with local, regional,
and national partners.
Goal 12:
Control noxious weeds on refuge complex roads, levees, and ditch banks to
improve the quality of adjacent habitat and to slow or cease the spread of
these species to neighboring private lands.
Public Use Goal
Goal 13:
Foster understanding, appreciation, and advocacy of wetlands within the
San Luis Valley Ecosystem (Upper Rio Grande Ecosystem).
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 19
Plans Affecting San Luis Valley and Management of Refuges
The Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 calls for our plans to be consistent with
State plans “to the extent practicable.” Therefore the following plans were
consulted in an effort to be consistent with other agencies plans in the SLV.
North American Colonial Water Bird Conservation Plan - This Plan was
developed to aid in fulfilling a specific mission: “to create a cohesive, multi-national,
partnership for conserving and managing colonial-nesting water
birds and their habitats throughout North America.”
Intermountain West Joint Venture Implementation Plan - Final December
1995. The goal of the Intermountain West Joint Venture is “to strive for the
long-term conservation of wetland habitats and their associated wildlife
values.” It does so by supporting the restoration and maintenance of
migratory bird populations; fostering the protection, restoration, and
enhancement of wetlands, and associated uplands; and by promoting
understanding of waterfowl and wetland habitat issues, functions, and
values. This Plan is a component of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and was developed by an implementation plan committee.
Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan - Revised February 8, 2001.
This Plan was developed to conserve shorebirds and shorebird habitat in
Region 6. This Plan was developed as part of the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan.
Upper/Middle Rio Grande Ecosystem Plan (USFWS, Regions 2 and 6) -
1996. The Monte Vista/Alamosa NWR Complex lies within the Upper Rio
Grande Valley. The Refuge staff are active partners in the ecosystem team
and are the only representatives from Region 6. The Upper/Middle Rio
Grande Ecosystem encompasses Federal, State, local and tribal entities.
However, the purpose of this Plan is to only direct the efforts of the USFWS
in an ecosystem approach for achieving its mission of fish and wildlife
conservation. With input from the other programs, the main goal is “to
protect, restore, and maintain viable levels of biotic diversity within the
Upper/Middle Rio Grande Ecosystem.”
Southern Prairie/Mountain Ecosystem Team (USFWS, Region 6) - October 27,
1999. This team does not have an official plan but has developed five priority
issues for their ecosystem approach to habitat and wildlife conservation.
Whooping Crane Recovery Plan - 1994. Prepared by the Whooping Crane
Recovery Team. The goal of the Plan is to provide decision-makers with
direction on how to remove the whooping crane (Grus americana) from the
endangered species category to the threatened category.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan - This Plan to recover the
endangered race of the southwestern willow flycatcher is currently being
written by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The draft recovery plan was
released for public review in June 2001.
Management Plan of the Pacific and Central Flyways for the Rocky
Mountain Population (RMP) of Greater Sandhill Cranes - July 1998.
Prepared by the Subcommittee on the Rocky Mountain Population of
Greater Sandhill Crane, Pacific Flyway Study Committee and Central
Flyway Technical committee. The goal of this Plan is to provide an outline for
managing “the RMP for numbers and distribution that will provide maximum
direct benefits to the public and for the intrinsic values of the birds themselves.”
20 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
USFWS, Region 6: Nongame Migratory Birds Conservation Plan - Revision
March 3, 1994. This Plan is designed to aid conservation of nongame bird
species in Region 6 of the USFWS. It supports the goals of the nongame
migratory bird program which are to “protect and maintain all native
nongame species at viable population levels, and protect their habitats.”
Colorado Statewide Waterfowl Management Plan, 1989-2003. Written in
1989 by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. This Plan outlines the management
and conservation needs and efforts for waterfowl in the State.
The San Luis Valley Community Wetlands Strategy - Final September 2000.
Prepared by the San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee in
cooperation with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. This strategy is
an “organizational tool to identify opportunities to make wetland protection
programs work better; it is a process for bringing people together to help
identify specific wetlands problems and realistic, equitable, solutions that
achieve future wetlands protection goals.”
San Luis Valley Water Bird Plan - Final September 8, 1995. The goal of this
Plan is “to provide and protect a habitat base of sufficient quality and
quantity to maintain healthy viable populations of water birds in the San
Luis Valley.” This Plan was produced by a joint effort of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land
Management.
Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Black Tern in North
America - 1999. This document addresses the biology, management and
statues of the Black Tern, which is currently listed as threatened or
endangered in six states and is a species of management concern within the
Intermountain West. The Plan was produced by the USFWS.
Rock Creek Heritage Project - Project Overview, July 2000. This project is a
“landowner initiative” focused on protecting approximately 15,000 acres of
agricultural lands in the Rock Creek watershed and lands that surround and
buffer the Monte Vista NWR.
Monte Vista NWR Interim Elk Population Management Plan - March 21, 1997.
This Plan outlines an “approach to dealing with a growing conflict with elk in
the vicinity of Monte Vista NWR.” It is a joint effort between the USFWS,
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Forest
Service.
Los Caminos Antiguos (LCA) Partnership Agreement - February 24, 2000.
The Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR Complex has joined in partnership with
numerous other agencies, municipal governments and tourism and
community development organizations for “collaborative leadership,
sustainable funding, and support of the Los Caminos Antiguos Scenic and
Historic Byway.”
Great San Luis Valley Trails and Recreation Master Plan - 1998. This Plan
provides tools for “preservation, protection and stewardship of our open
space, wildlife habitat, parks, and trails, plus timely plans for creating
recreation opportunities.” It is a coalition of local, regional, State and Federal
government agencies, local businesses and private citizens.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 21
Step-Down Management Plans
Step-down management plans describe management strategies, procedures,
methods, and tasks for specific resources or functions. Often these plans
require compatibility determinations, environmental assessments, or other
justification before they can be implemented. The preparation and execution
of these plans is dependent upon funding and the availability of staff or
technical expertise. Plans will be completed or revised, as needed, within 2
years of funding and necessary staff becoming available.
Plan Completed
Year
Approved
Needs
Revision
Need to
Complete
Disease Management Plan ? - very old X
Fire Management 2001
Hunting X
Integrated Pest Management 1996
Inventory and Population Monitoring 1964 X
Law Enforcement X
Predator Management 1992
Prescribed Burning (Annual) 2001
Public Use Management X
Safety ? X
Signs X
Habitat Management Plan X
Water Rights (Protection and
Acquisition)
X
Water Management Plan 2001
Weed Control (Annual) 2001
22 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Description of Planning Process
Comprehensive conservation planning efforts for Alamosa/Monte Vista
NWR began in November 1997 with a meeting of regional management and
planning staff and field station employees at Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR. At
that meeting, a core planning team was designated with the major
responsibilities of gathering information and writing the Plan. A review team
was set up to provide guidance and direction to the core planning team. A
working group was also organized to provide interchange of information
between Service personnel, outside agencies, and interested stakeholders of
the Refuge.
On March 24 and 26, 1998, open house scoping sessions were held at the
Alamosa/Monte Vista Refuge office. The open house provided participants an
opportunity to learn about the Refuge’s purposes, mission and goals, and
issues currently facing management. People attending were provided the
chance to speak with Service representatives and to share their comments.
During the planning process, the review and working groups have had access
to information on objectives and alternatives being considered. Written
comments have been exchanged and verbal conversations have been held.
This Draft CCP/EA is the first opportunity that these groups and the public
have had to review the entire planning effort and the Plan. A 30-day
comment period is provided.
The CCP will guide management on the Refuge for the next 15 years. Plans
are ultimately signed by the Regional Director, Region 6, thus providing
Regional direction to the station project leader. A copy of the Plan will be
provided to all those interested.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 23
Habitat Protection Vision
The purpose of this section is to identify and inform the public of the
Service’s vision in habitat protection adjoining both Monte Vista and
Alamosa Refuges. Before any action is taken by the Service in protecting
additional habitat by bringing that land into the Refuge System, public input
and environmental analysis will be completed. By highlighting and
identifying the habitat needs of the San Luis Valley, it is the hope of the
Service to continue helping our partners in protecting these valuable
resources. The refuge involvement with the Service’s Partners for Fish and
Wildlife (PFW) program would continue. The Refuge would also continue to
be an active partner in Colorado Wetlands Program led by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife.
To date, existing wetlands of the San Luis Valley have been relatively
unchanged by the rapid housing development that has occurred throughout
much of the State. However, ranches along many smaller drainages in areas
near Del Norte and Monte Vista have been recently subdivided and housing
and other developments are occurring all along the Rio Grande from South
Fork to Alamosa NWR. Large ranches in the Valley have been subdivided
for a number of reasons, including the demographic trend in western states
of people moving from urban areas to more rural settings, income from
traditional ranch operation being below what is generated from sale for
residential development, scenic values of the properties, and the reasonably
close proximity to communities with services and vast tracts of public lands.
This trend is clearly demonstrated in “Mapping and Modeling Ranchland
Loss in the Intermountain West” (Ferriday and Jones 2002). This
unpublished report describes a project conducted by American Farmland
Trust and The Nature Conservancy that modeled and mapped conversion of
“prime ranchland” to low density residential development. The model was
based on the population growth and other indicators over the next 30 years.
The report concludes that high mountain valleys of Colorado, including
counties in the San Luis Valley, and Montana have the most threatened
prime ranchland. If these trends are correct there is a significant threat to
migratory bird habitat in valleys of these western states.
The next area that may be converted to residential housing is a riparian
corridor which will directly impact the Monte Vista NWR. Immediately
north of Monte Vista NWR is Rock Creek which originates to the west in the
San Juan mountains. It enters the Refuge’s north-central side and flows
through the Refuge for about three miles, although the flows have been
altered by irrigation. Water in the Rock Creek channel on the Refuge is
entirely comprised of return flows from irrigation in the watershed.
Many of the landowners along this Creek, adjoining and to the west of the
Refuge, have been approached by development interests. Currently, these
lands are managed for hay and livestock production through the use of flood
irrigation. This management provides extensive areas of water bird foraging
and resting habitat which compliments the Refuge’s habitat. There is local
concern that developing the riparian corridor for residential housing will
reduce its value to migratory birds, adversely impact water flows, decrease
scenic values and open space, and substantially complicate refuge
management by causing water and people management conflicts.
24 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
For these reasons, the Service will support the efforts of the Rock Creek
Heritage Project. This community based effort, led by the American
Farmland Trust, is attempting to permanently protect 15,000 acres of the
Rock Creek watershed from residential development. This Creek originates
on Rio Grande National Forest in the San Juan Mountains, approximately 15
miles west of Monte Vista NWR. As it runs eastward it flows across
approximately 10 miles of privately owned ranches before the channel enters
the north-central portion of the Refuge. Protection of this scenic watershed
from development will benefit the Refuge, migratory birds and other values
by:
1) maintaining current migratory bird habitat values, especially in the
wetland areas below the Monte Vista Canal which are used heavily by
foraging waterfowl that nest on the Refuge;
2) protecting the “Lower Rock Creek Potential Conservation Area” as
identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, mostly for its
scattered population of the globally imperiled slender spiderflower
(Cleome multicaulis);
3) preventing degradation of water quality before coming on to the Refuge;
4) preventing the myriad of management complications that arise from
having residential areas adjacent to intensively managed wildlife areas,
i.e., wildfire liability, additional smoke management concerns from
prescribed fires, mosquito complaints, feral animals, etc.; and
5) preserving open space and agricultural lifestyles that contribute to the
quality of life for local residents.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 25
Several tracts that are associated with Alamosa NWR are proposed for
future study as a protection strategy; they are as follows:
! The Service proposes to protect approximately 950 acres adjoining the
Rio Grande and Alamosa NWR. This area makes up approximately 8
percent of the total acreage of Alamosa Refuge. The property known as
the Lillpop Ranch is located at the northwest side of the Refuge within
sections of 12, 13, 24. Protection of this area is directed at the riparian
habitat along the Rio Grande which is essential for the life requirements
of the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. The riparian habitat
would be purchased in fee-title from a willing seller.
The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in relatively dense riparian
tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other
wetlands, including lakes (e.g., reservoirs). Most of these habitats are
classified as forested wetlands or scrub-shrub wetlands. Habitat
requirements for wintering are not well known, but include brushy
savanna edges, second growth, shrubby clearings and pastures, and
woodlands near water. The southwestern willow flycatcher has
experienced extensive loss and modification of breeding habitat, with
consequent reductions in population levels. Destruction and modification
of riparian habitats have been caused mainly by: reduction or elimination
of surface and subsurface water due to diversion and groundwater
pumping; changes in flood and fire regimes due to dams and stream
channelization; clearing and controlling vegetation; livestock grazing;
changes in water and soil chemistry due to disruption of natural
hydrologic cycles; and establishment of invasive nonnative plants.
Concurrent with habitat loss have been increases in brood parasitism by
the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), which inhibit reproductive
success and further reduce population levels (USFWS 2001).
If additional amounts of breeding habitat are protected within each of
the identified 10 management units to support the target number of
flycatchers, the southwestern willow flycatcher may be reclassified. It is
the goal of the Service to remove the southwestern willow flycatcher
from the list of threatened and endangered species.
• A portion of the Rio Grande is considered important nesting habitat for
the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. Protecting the Rio
Grande riparian area would allow restoration of the riparian vegetative
community for this species. This riparian area was recently verified as
habitat for the endangered flycatcher (Owen and Sogge 1997). This eight
mile stretch of Rio Grande contains riparian habitat in a range of
condition, all of which is currently grazed. Different grazing management
will likely benefit willow flycatcher habitat throughout this reach of the
river. The western boundary of Alamosa NWR is formed, in part, by the
Rio Grande. However, in some cases the river is entirely on neighboring
private land, in some stretches the Refuge boundary runs down the
center of the River, and in some cases portions of the riparian zone is on
privately owned land. This boundary has resulted in several areas where
fence maintenance is almost impossible due to constant bank erosion and
regular destruction of water gaps. This condition allows the neighbors
livestock to enter and graze in the riparian areas of the Refuge until
discovered and moved
26 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
• Adams Lake, a productive wetland area, is about four miles west of the
western boundary of Alamosa NWR. It is a privately owned
semipermanent wetland. This wetland is a very important site for many
species of migratory birds, especially nesting white-faced ibis (species of
special concern), black-crowned night herons, snowy egrets, eared and
western grebes, and several species of diving ducks. The San Luis Valley
supports the largest breeding colonies of white-faced ibis in Colorado.
Nesting colonies use Russell Lakes State Wildlife Management Area,
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, and Adams Lake. The annual use
of each of these sites is dictated by water conditions in the Valley.
Frequently, suitable nesting conditions will be available in only one or
two of these sites in a given year. As an example, during 2000, production
at Russell Lakes was substantially below normal, while noticeably better
at both Monte Vista NWR and Adams Lake (refuge files). Due to the
extremely low levels of runoff during the year, all sites were below
average. Ibis are very sensitive to water level changes and any
disturbance during the nesting period. Protection of Adams Lake and its
water supply proportionally increases the probability of reproduction of
white-faced ibis and continued recruitment into the population.
• Alamosa Marshes neighboring west of the Refuge proposal would
protect a portion of one of the few remaining naturally occurring
wetlands in the San Luis Valley. “Alamosa Marshes” were identified by
the Wheeler expedition of 1873. From the map produced of this
expedition, it appears these wetlands are formed by the confluence of
Rock Creek, the Alamosa River and La Jara Creek with the Rio Grande.
The wetlands of the current Alamosa NWR are functionally part of this
extensive marsh system that stretches 15 miles southwest of Alamosa
NWR and the Rio Grande. Although it is extensively grazed, it receives
significant use from migratory water birds, especially for foraging and
during spring migration. The potential for water bird habitat is enormous
but only with modification of current grazing practices. The western
boundary of this focus area is formed by a county road and is arbitrary
from an ecological perspective.
• La Jara Creek focus area centers around the three miles of La Jara
Creek adjoining the south end of Alamosa NWR. This reach of the Creek
contains extensive stands of willow intermingled with temporary and
seasonal wetlands. This project has outstanding potential for restoration
of endangered southwestern willow flycatcher habitat as well as
numerous species of passerine and water birds. A protective management
would compliment efforts to restore the endangered flycatcher habitat
along the Rio Grande. The entire property is part of a larger cattle ranch
under one ownership. As with the Alamosa Marshes project, the western
boundary of the proposal is ecologically arbitrary but is defined by a
county road and landownership.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 27
The Great Sand Dunes Park and Preserve Act of 2000 approved acquisition
of 92,617-acre Baca National Wildlife Refuge and will convert Great Sand
Dunes National Monument to Great Sand Dunes National Park. The
boundary for the Baca NWR includes the 3,200-acre White Ranch. The
Preliminary Project Proposal for the White Ranch was approved for
inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System in 1996. This Ranch was
purchased by the Bureau of Reclamation to mitigate wetlands lost by the
construction and operation of the Closed Basin Project. Actual conversion
from administration by the Bureau of Reclamation to U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service was delayed due to water management problems and unresolved
questions concerning funding for maintenance and operations. Acquisition of
the Baca Ranch and establishment of Baca NWR will allow the Service to
better control surface water to the White Ranch, thus allowing this land to
be managed for wetland mitigation. Questions regarding management
funding are still under discussion. Detailed management plans for these new
Refuge lands will be developed through a separate CCP process.
State or federally-owned public lands adjoining or in association with either
Refuge will be evaluated for protection by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
if the administering agency considers the land surplus to its needs. The
Bureau of Land Management has declared its holdings adjacent to Alamosa
NWR as surplus to its needs. This upland habitat is not unique in the San
Luis Valley but should be studied for additional protection for the more
sensitive habitats on the Refuge from the impacts of possible development.
In addition, the Colorado State Land Board owns approximately the same
acreage adjoining the Alamosa NWR and these BLM lands. State-owned
lands should also be studied for purposes of buffering sensitive Refuge
habitats from adverse impacts.
28 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Habitat Protection Vision (15 years and beyond)
The above discussion outlines habitat protection as it directly relates to
operation and maintenance of the existing national wildlife refuges. In order
for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to maximize its effectiveness in
preserving the migratory bird resource, it must look well beyond the
boundaries of the existing Refuges; not just to assure protection of the
230,000 acres of wetlands in the San Luis Valley, but to be able to respond
when any migratory bird or endangered species habitat type comes under
threat from development, water exportation or other unforeseen threats.
Although still in a very rural setting, the San Luis Valley is not immune from
the pressures of residential development that are plaguing the State of
Colorado. Statistics gathered for Great Outdoors Colorado by Ciruli and
Associates in 1998 (ciruli.com) indicate dramatic changes may be underway.
For example, when compared to the rest of the state, the San Luis Valley
experienced the most dramatic percentage increase in issuance of building
permits; 1,159 percent between 1990 and 1996. This is compared to 261
percent statewide. In addition, between 1992 and 1996 the San Luis Valley
experienced a 98 percent increase in the number of domestic well permits,
compared with the statewide increase of 39 percent. Again, the highest
percentage increase seen in the state during that period. These indicators
support previously mentioned modeling efforts of American Farmland Trust
and The Nature Conservancy.
These statistics reflect a residential building boom resulting from a poor
agricultural economy, especially compared to the residential building
industry. If these trends continue, and there is no evidence they will not, the
200,000 acres of privately owned wetlands that are not protected by the
Clean Water Act and thousands of acres of riparian habitat are ultimately in
jeopardy. This trend is visible along the Rio Grande from South Fork to Del
Norte. In recent years, large housing developments and large areas of low
density housing have impacted valuable riparian habitat. Several drainages
near Monte Vista have fallen to residential development since 1996, including
San Francisco Creek and Raton Creek.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will continue building partnerships and
developing protection plans to minimize degradation of migratory bird and
endangered species habitat. The agency can work directly with county and
state governments in development of their land-use planning and will
continue to work with current partners in ongoing land protection efforts.
The Service encourages the public to consider how best the agency can assist
in these local efforts. One option that has proven very successful in the upper
mid-west is the establishment of wetland management districts. These large
geographic areas encompass hundreds of thousands of acres of glaciated
wetlands. The establishment of these districts allows the Service to purchase
wetland easements from willing landowners and protect these valuable
habitats in perpetuity. This concept can be applied to all or part of the San
Luis Valley with several other benefits. The first is protection of agricultural
lands, with their associated wildlife benefits, from conversion to residential,
commercial or municipal uses. In addition, it gives landowners one more tool
to keep family farms and ranches in the family due to the tax benefits
potentially derived with sale or donation of an easement.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 29
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will assist in the Rock Creek Heritage
Project, mentioned above, by any means possible within the project
boundary that have high migratory bird values. This will complement the
joint efforts of Ducks Unlimited, the Trust for Public Lands, Bureau of Land
Management, Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Rio Grande
Water Conservation District, Rio Grande County, City of Monte Vista,
Natural Resource Conservation District, Colorado State Extension Service,
Colorado Cattleman’s Agricultural Land Trust, Rio Grande Headwaters
Land Trust, San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Group, and approximately 12
major landowners.
Many of our partners have encouraged the Service to consider expanding its
habitat protection program beyond the boundaries of the existing National
Wildlife Refuges. There are numerous alternatives for this concept. The
program can target a number of habitat types valley-wide or just focus on
one. It could rely solely on acquisition of development rights or consider fee-title
acquisition if the situation warrants. Ideally, any new habitat protection
program would be able to legally tie water to the land being protected for the
duration of the easement, but this presents a conflict with the Colorado State
Constitution in some cases. For these and other reasons, a separate planning
effort will be undertaken in the future to garner public interest and ideas for
a larger easement-based habitat protection program in the Valley.
30 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Planning Issues
As part of the comprehensive planning process, in March and April of 1998,
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service gathered public opinions regarding the
Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuges and how they are
managed. This was done by meeting with interested groups and public
agencies and by distributing an Issues Workbook to the people attending the
Monte Vista Crane Festival or just stopping by at the Refuge headquarters.
In addition, open houses were held at the Monte Vista and Alamosa Refuges
to gather input and answer questions.
Although this was not a scientific survey, it still provides insight to the
Refuge staff as to aspects of the Refuges and their management that concern
people or give them enjoyment and satisfaction. These insights were used to
prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan that is responsive to the
public’s concerns while carrying out Complex mandates and Service goals.
The following summarizes the responses to the Issues Workbook questions.
When considering these responses, it is important to remember that they did
not result from a scientifically designed workbook. Therefore, they only
represent the opinions of those people who attended the Crane Festival or
otherwise had some special interest in the management of the Complex.
Wildlife
The Alamosa and Monte Vista Refuges were established to provide wildlife
habitat. The public fully supports this mission. Comments focused especially
on threatened and endangered species, waterfowl and other water bird
management, and resident species.
Ranches within the Alamosa and Monte Vista area, that included grazing on
a complex of wetland and riparian vegetative resources, have been recently
subdivided into housing and other developments thus reducing wildlife
habitat in the vicinity of the Complex. This development is also occurring all
along the Rio Grande from South Fork to Alamosa NWR. This type of
development is especially severe between South Fork and Del Norte,
Colorado where numerous, relatively large residential subdivisions have
been established along the Rio Grande. Large ranches have been subdivided
in smaller ranchetts as part of the demographic trend in western states of
people moving from urban areas to more rural settings. Developers seek out
these properties for their scenic value, proximity to communities with full
services, and accessibility to vast acreage of public lands. Many ranchers are
deciding to sell their property to developers as income from traditional
ranching operations fall far below that from sale for residential development.
In many cases, all or portions of existing ranches are being subdivided in
order to pay inheritance tax liabilities.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 31
Naturalness
Refuges, as islands of naturalness in areas dominated by human activities
and structures, are very important to visitors. Management techniques,
including structures, should be as unobtrusive as possible. Naturalness is
typified by a variety of vegetation communities, open water areas, lush
growth, and presence of wildlife. The Complex should consist of diverse
native vegetation with special emphasis on protecting wetlands, including
riparian areas. The presence of weeds diminishes the aspect of naturalness.
While naturalness and natives are appreciated, the methods used to
eliminate invasive exotics are not.
Water
How water is managed to accomplish wildlife and public use objectives was
of concern to a number of respondents. As any place in the west, water is a
major concern in the San Luis Valley. The average annual precipitation is
seven inches. The Service acquired groundwater rights and rights to use
water from the Rio Grande when lands were purchased for both Refuges. It
also subsequently established rights under State law to use groundwater.
Wells supply about 8,200 acre-feet per year to Monte Vista NWR and 1,541
acre-feet to Alamosa NWR. An average of about 8,500 acre-feet of water per
year is diverted from the Rio Grande River to Monte Vista NWR, and an
average of about 13,750 acre-feet is diverted to Alamosa NWR. The use of
Rio Grande River water is governed by a 1939 compact between the States
of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
The adequacy of Service water rights to provide for wildlife is especially
important to the residents of the San Luis Valley. Some residents expressed
concern about whether the Refuges have adequate water and water rights to
achieve wildlife habitat objectives.
There is concern that the Complex has increased the consumptive use of
water. The Service continues to use water for irrigation, but the crop is now
wetland vegetation rather than hay, and it is not regularly harvested.
Alamosa NWR also receives water from the Closed Basin Project as
mitigation for the Project’s impacts to wetlands; this water provides
additional water management flexibility which was not available to the
landowners who originally appropriated the Complex’s water rights.
Public Use
Recreational use of the Refuges is considered highly desirable, but the types
and amounts of public use provided on the Complex must be compatible with
the wildlife and its habitat and the purposes for which the refuges were
established. Support was expressed for all the wildlife-dependent priority
public uses provided for on the Complex, i.e., hunting and fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. However, there was an expressed need to scrutinize hunting
and the Crane Festival with regard to their compatibility with wildlife.
Interest was also expressed in some non-wildlife dependent activities, such
as walking and biking.
32 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
Weeds
Invasive plant problems have increased annually since the 1960s. They are
problematic for several reasons, and are particularly troublesome for Refuge
neighbors who are required by State and local laws to control weeds on their
lands. County weed districts are not authorized to enforce noxious weed laws
on Refuge lands, further complicating the Refuge’s relationship with some of
its neighbors since they see the Refuge as a source of weeds for which they
have no recourse.
A unique characteristic of refuge management is the practice of allowing the
wetland plants grown during the summer to remain through the winter to
provide nesting habitat for migratory birds. Frequently, this means Refuge
meadows are left standing during the summer without being annually grazed
or mowed. Over the decades these practices have resulted in large, robust
stands of desired native plants. But, over the last 30 years, all too often,
noxious weeds that benefit from the same management practices
increasingly accompany these desired plants. This can, and does, decrease
the quality of wildlife habitat on some Refuge units.
Biological control of undesirable plants has been used as a management tool
since 1989 when 100 stem-mining weevils were initially released on Monte
Vista and Alamosa Refuges to help control Canada thistle. Additional
releases of gall flies and stem-mining weevils for Canada thistle control have
been made, 18 in all since 1989. None of these introductions have resulted in
establishing a population capable of affecting the life cycle of the weeds. No
USDA approved biological controls are currently available for tall whitetop.
Some respondents expressed concern about the use of intrusive weed control
methods and their appropriateness on wildlife refuges. These methods may
disturb and potentially harm some wildlife, thus compromising wildlife
objectives. Current management uses herbicide application and mowing,
emphasizing control in areas along Refuge boundaries and water courses
exiting the Refuges. In addition, preventative measures include shaping of
spoil banks, seeding disturbed sites, and spraying disturbed sites to favor
establishment of desirable plant communities.
Currently, experimentation with livestock, herbicides, tillage, and water
manipulation is being conducted to determine the effect on seed production,
stem density, and root mass of tall whitetop. Results from these
investigations will enable management to better control noxious weeds
without compromising the purposes for which the Refuges were established.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 33
Elk
Since the late 1980s, increasing numbers of elk have used Monte Vista NWR.
A small resident population became established on the east side of the refuge
while a larger group (up to 900 animals) have started using the western 1/3 of
the refuge starting with the fall hunting season on public lands adjacent to
the west. Elk on the Refuge present good public viewing opportunities but
also present several problems. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is extremely
concerned about rapidly growing elk populations throughout the state. This
is also the case in Game Management Unit 80 of which Monte Vista NWR is
part. Since no recreational hunting of elk occurs on the refuge, it has become
a haven for elk during the hunting season protecting a variable segment of
the population from harvest. Growing numbers of elk on the refuge have
resulted in increased conflicts with landowners neighboring the refuge and
increased incidence of elk/vehicle collisions on State Highway 15 and several
county roads crossing the refuge. The Colorado Division of Wildlife is
financially liable to damage to privately owned fence and forage crops caused
by elk. In addition, trails and bedding areas impact vegetation that could be
used, or is being used, by ground-nesting birds. This is more of a concern on
the eastern side of Monte Vista NWR where a resident population has
become established in the most valuable dense nesting cover on the Refuge.
Although little habitat damage has occurred by this small group it will
undoubtedly become significant as the herd grows. For these reasons, the
Refuge attempts to control resident and transient elk.
Some respondents expressed a desire to allow public elk hunting on Refuge
lands, especially in light of the Division of Wildlife’s difficulty in meeting elk
harvest objectives. Other respondents expressed safety concerns including
the proximity of private landowners, density of public roadways, and the
presence of Refuge staff, contractors and cooperators on the land combined
with the range and power of elk hunting rifles.
On the Alamosa NWR elk numbers during peak use have reached
approximately 100 to 120 animals in the last few years with about 20 to 30
animals during the summer. Currently, these animals are not causing
depredation problems on adjacent private lands nor habitat damage on the
refuge. However, there is potential for rapid expansion of elk numbers on the
Alamosa NWR, which is occurring in other areas in the San Luis Valley. The
number of elk to the north (near the Great Sand Dunes National Park) and
south (La Sauces area) of the Alamosa refuge are increasing and some of
these animals, especially from La Sauces and Fort Garland, may begin to
move onto the refuge. Consequently the refuge staff is communicating and
cooperating with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) relative to
population monitoring and decisions regarding potential elk population
control or dispersal methods.
Plan Amendment and Revision
The CCP will be reviewed at least annually to decide if it requires any
revisions. Whenever this review or other monitoring and evaluation
determine that we need changes to achieve the Complex’s purposes, vision,
and goals, we will modify the Plan and associated management activities. The
CCP will be revised when significant new information becomes available,
ecological conditions change, major Refuge expansion occurs, or when we
identify the need to do so during plan review. This should occur every 15
years, or sooner if necessary.
34 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
III. Alternatives, Including the
Service’s Proposed Action
Description of Each Alternative
The following management alternatives were considered. They represent
different ways of accomplishing the Refuge Complex’s purposes and the
goals laid out earlier in this document.
No Action (Current Management) Alternative
This alternative would continue current management practices. The largest
distinction between the current alternative and the preferred is to change
from a predominantly reactionary mode of management to a more pro-active
style. Refuge management of weeds serves as an example. Invasive weeds
have been an increasing problem on both refuges for 30 years. Inconsistent
and low funding have resulted in short-term planning and low to no
monitoring. This has resulted in a weed management program designed to
mitigate annual valid concerns of County Weed Boards versus methodical,
long-term planning and implementation. The current management
alternative does not allow for the staff to implement control techniques or to
experiment with various technique, thus promoting reactionary management.
Water Management
About 50 percent of the San Luis Valley’s wetlands have been destroyed
since European settlement (Hopper 1982). The SLV and Complex receive
only seven inches of annual precipitation. Additionally, the aquifers
underlying both Refuges and the river systems have been dramatically
altered by human demand for and use of water. The refuge staff applies
water to irrigate wetlands and crops, in an attempt to meet the needs of
migrating and nesting birds.
Colorado has adopted the doctrine of prior appropriation for allocation of
water. The United States acquired relatively senior Rio Grande and
groundwater water rights and shares in ditch companies when lands were
acquired for the Complex. Water rights for Complex wells were adjudicated
in Water Court. Water management on the Complex is conducted in
accordance with Colorado water law.
An assumption of this alternative is that approximately 95 percent of the
wetlands supporting shallow emergent and semipermanent vegetation on
both Refuges are created and maintained through the application of
irrigation water and pumped and free-flowing artesian wells. In the Valley,
water is diverted from the Rio Grande and made available to water users
through canals. A system of ditches delivers water from the canals to the
Refuges. Water rights owned by the United States and associated with
Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs will continue to be used to irrigate shallow
water wetlands and wet meadows to replace wetlands lost over time and
continue to provide wetland habitat managed specifically for wildlife in the
San Luis Valley.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 35
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
The Complex uses its irrigation systems much like the private landowners
who preceded it. Although the intent is not hay and crop production, but
rather wet meadow habitat to support wetland-dependent wildlife species.
The general assumption is that, historically, wetlands were flooded with
snow melt and groundwater from March through July and then dried as a
function of evapotranspiration, infiltration, and surface drainage. With regard
to water management, many exceptions to this historic schedule exist and
deviation from that timeline occur on certain portions of the Refuges to
accommodate various situations; for example, to meet the needs of certain
species, compliance with state water law, control of noxious weeds,
maintenance of water control infrastructure, and specific experiments to
alter vegetation.
Water is to be applied, in priority order, to those Refuge wetland types most
critical to the San Luis Valley Ecosystem (Upper Rio Grande Ecosystem).
Valley-wide, farming and ranching practices have provided substantial
quantities of grazed and hayed wetlands suitable as foraging habitat for a
wide array of water birds. Consequently, little Refuge water is targeted for
this habitat type. However, wetland and riparian areas with tall dense stands
of cover (not heavily grazed or hayed) are assumed to be uncommon in the
Valley; therefore, maintenance of these habitat types which provide critical
habitat to water birds, resident mammals, resident and neotropical
songbirds, and a wide array of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates have
higher priorities.
In a typical water year, numerous techniques are employed to deliver and
manage water. When water rights and budgets allow, pumped and artesian
well water supply water to key wetlands from mid-February to mid-April,
prior to the irrigation season, for spring migrating sandhill cranes and other
migrating birds as well as breeding waterfowl and water birds. This produces
habitat that existed when large spring fed creeks, like Spring Creek and
Diamond Creek (west of La Jara, Colorado), used to flow. From mid-April
through June, canal water and pumped and artesian well water maintain
wetland vegetation. Refuge managers periodically allow drought and flood
cycles associated with snowpack and subsequent canal flows to create a
diverse array of wetland habitats. During the period July through mid-
September, pumped wells, artesian well water and Closed Basin mitigation
water maintain selected wetlands for waterfowl broods and other young
water birds and migrating shorebirds. Pumped and artesian wells are also
used from September through November to provide habitat for fall migrating
waterfowl and water birds and to provide wildlife viewing and waterfowl
hunting opportunities for the public. No open water is actively maintained
through water diversion on the Refuges from November to mid-February to
discourage concentrating wintering waterfowl and subsequent outbreaks of
avian cholera. On the Monte Vista NWR, in November through December
water from the Empire and Monte Vista canals is diverted into recharge pits
designed to supplement groundwater tables. This water also saturates the
soil, which allows for more effective irrigation of the wet meadow habitats in
the subsequent spring.
Sprinkler irrigation of the 510 cropland acres on Monte Vista NWR occurs
from May through September. This results in a 40 to 60 percent savings of
water over flood irrigation.
Both Refuges exist in an arid and altered environment. Maintenance of the
existing water rights is fundamentally important to management of at least
95 percent of the short-emergent and semipermanent wetlands on both
refuges, therefore the Complex will continue to emphasize beneficial use of
water under those rights.
36 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Rest
Availability of dense stands of wetland vegetation during the early spring
months is an important component of water bird production on both
Refuges. This has been documented for ducks on Monte Vista NWR
(Gilbert, et al. 1996), but likely applies to other species nesting in associated
habitats, such as American bittern, sora and Virginia rails, northern
harriers, and short-eared owls. Production of this dense undisturbed
vegetation distinguishes these Refuges and other lands managed in the
Valley for water birds from the vast majority of lands in agricultural
production. Although irrigation practices are fundamentally the same on
agricultural lands and lands that are used by nesting water birds, utilization
of resulting vegetation is dramatically different. Farmers and ranchers
depend upon harvest of vegetation for their livelihood. However, successful
production of water birds is primarily reliant upon stands of vegetation
largely excluded from harvest. Because of this, both Refuges are important
islands of nesting cover within the Valley and the flyway.
Stands of dense vegetation are achieved through careful water manipulation
and rest from management practices that result in defoliation, such as
grazing, fire, herbicide, and mowing. Although the use of rest has
tremendous benefits for a wide variety of birds, it is not feasible nor
desirable to maintain all of the Complex’s wetlands in a constant densely
vegetated state. In the cool climate of this mountain valley, decomposition
occurs slowly and organic matter allowed to accumulate over too many years
will shade the soil and suppress new growth of desired vegetation.
Therefore, it is necessary to periodically disturb dense stands of vegetation
to accelerate the break down of organic matter, hasten mineral cycling, and
create vegetative structural diversity.
Long-term rest (more than 1 year) would continue to be used over the next
15 years. Rest periods are essential for plant revitalization and recovery, and
provide plants the opportunity to store food reserves and establish root
networks as well as developing adequate above ground biomass to provide
cover for wildlife. Approximately 45 percent of the Complex has been rested
from 4 to 7 years. Several factors, such as timing and amount of water
applied, affect the length of time needed to rest or until rest is needed again.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 37
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning has been used as a management tool on the Complex
since 1981. Burning is primarily used to set back plant succession in
wetlands and uplands and to provide a mosaic of vegetation composition and
structure for wildlife species with a wide array of nesting and feeding
requirements. Habitats are periodically burned to remove excessive litter
buildup, stimulate vegetation growth, enhance nutrient cycling, increase soil
temperatures, and control weeds. Prescribed burning is also used in some
cases to reduce extremely dense or weedy vegetation so that other
management tools can be used in that area. Burning, however, is used with
the entire Complex and Valley in mind; it is used only when the habitat it is
impacting is being adequately provided elsewhere on the Refuges or in the
SLV.
Wildfires within the Complex would continue to be suppressed using the
most effective methods.
Prescribed Grazing
Currently, the only cattle grazing on the Complex is part of a research effort
examining various habitat management tools; this project is part of an out-of-court
lawsuit settlement. In 1992, several national wildlife refuges
throughout the country were sued by the Audubon Society and other non-government
organizations due to concern that the refuges were being used
or managed in ways that were not compatible with each refuge’s particular
purpose. The Monte Vista NWR was included in the lawsuit because of cattle
grazing in the growing season and concern that the tool was detrimental to
Refuge habitats and incompatible with the Refuge purpose, namely
waterfowl production. The case was settled out of court in 1993. As part of
the settlement, it was agreed that refuge managers would not use any
grazing on the Complex until the completion of a 5 year research study which
would evaluate habitat management tools including grazing. Dr. Leigh
Fredrickson, a wetland ecologist from the University of Missouri’s Gaylord
Memorial Laboratory, was selected to conduct the project and research
began on the both Refuges in 1996. This study will end in 2002, at which time
the Refuge staff will reexamine grazing and its ability to meet Refuge goals
and objectives.
From 1996 until present, cattle grazing has only occurred on the Complex to
meet the needs of the research. The grazing prescription being examined in
the study is similar to the one used when the Refuge was sued, a holistic
grazing regime (Savory 1988). Grazing occurs during the growing season and
animals are moved every 1 to 6 days to a new site. A grazed site is then
rested from 25 to 35 days before it is grazed again. Sites may be grazed two
to three times during May 15 to September 1. Some work examining grazing
has been completed and the subsequent thesis has been written (Diebboll
1999) with manuscripts in press. The remaining research, including two more
graduate studies, will end in 2002.
38 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Farming
The farming program on the Monte Vista NWR is primarily used to provide
high energy food for migrating cranes and waterfowl. However, the food
and cover provided by farm fields also benefit resident wildlife such as deer,
rodents and pheasants. No farming is conducted at Alamosa NWR due to a
lack of suitable soils.
Farming has been used as a management tool on the Monte Vista Refuge
since 1952. Initial Refuge farming involved 900 acres of cropland, annually
planted with primarily small grain crops. Currently, 510 acres are farmed on
a 5 year crop rotation schedule; 40 percent is planted to small grains for feed;
40 percent is planted to alfalfa to increase soil fertility and improve soil tilth,
and 20 percent is left fallow to control weeds. The alfalfa is hayed twice
annually to control weeds and alfalfa weevils; once in the spring after
meadowlarks, waterfowl, pheasant, and other ground nesters are finished
nesting, and once in the summer.
Currently, 462 of the 510 acres in the 5 year crop rotation are irrigated via
sprinklers versus flood irrigation. Sprinkler irrigation eliminates the need for
leveling fields prior to planting, thereby reducing soil compaction and bare
soil. Each center pivot sprinkler area contains five pie-shaped fields planted
to alternate crops. The 400 additional acres of cropland that were previously
farmed are now planted to perennial grass/legumes and are not part of the
current crop rotation. These areas are still flood irrigated about once every
year to keep plants alive.
Currently, farming practices try to use organic methods whenever possible
to decrease the environmental risks associated with the use of petrochemical
based herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Alfalfa is grown in a crop
rotation to improve soil fertility, add organic matter, and fix nitrogen.
Pollution of the groundwater and the surface water by agricultural chemicals
is lessened. Crop predators are not poisoned; instead a balanced population
of bees, butterflies, birds, and other wild animals is encouraged to limit crop
depredation by pests. From 1990 to 1998 organic farming methods were
solely used but they were not completely effective due to increasing invasion
of noxious weeds, primarily Canada thistle and wild oats. Therefore, current
management uses some agricultural chemicals. Thus, crop management now
utilizes a mix of organic and non-organic agricultural practices.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 39
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Habitat Protection
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service acquires lands and/or interests in lands,
such as easements or leases, consistent with legislation or other
Congressional guidelines and Executive Orders for the conservation of fish
and wildlife and to provide wildlife-oriented public use for educational and
recreational purposes.
The Service’s habitat protection policy is to acquire land only when other
protective means (i.e., zoning or regulation to achieve program goals) are not
appropriate, available or effective. When lands are to be acquired, the
minimum interest necessary to reach management objectives is acquired or
retained. When the Service must acquire land, it acquires fee-title (control of
all property rights) only if control of lesser property rights through
easements or leases will not achieve objectives.
Funding for acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp
sales, entrance fees to certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms
and ammunition, and appropriations under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act.
The Refuges are located in the San Luis Valley which comprises the Upper
Rio Grande Ecosystem as designated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
This Ecosystem has discernable physical limits. The Refuge Complex uses
various conservation programs to protect or enhance habitat components
critical to migratory water birds.
Acquisition of inholdings on Alamosa NWR would continue to be pursued as
opportunities arise. Easements and fee-title acquisitions would continue to
be acquired to prevent uses that degrade wildlife habitat and buffer critical
habitats on the Refuge. These efforts would continue as opportunities arise
and be concentrated on lands within one-half mile of the current boundaries
of the Refuges in order to protect them from the adverse impacts of housing
development.
The San Luis Valley of Colorado is well known for its wetland resources. The
National Wetland Inventory data indicates approximately 230,000 acres of
wetland habitat currently exists. Although most of these wetlands are
supported by irrigation practices, they still provide valuable wildlife habitat.
Currently, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is an active partner in the
Colorado Wetlands Program. It is a large Statewide partnership with the
goal of protecting, restoring, and enhancing wetland habitat. This initiative is
a voluntary approach to wetland conservation. It is aimed at conserving all
biologically significant wetlands of Colorado and associated wildlife including
birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The initiative was started in 1996
with the reorganization of the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the
development of the Intermountain West Joint Venture of the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan. In the San Luis Valley, this
initiative has built on existing programs by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management and The
Nature Conservancy. Although much remains to be done to improve wetland
management on these “conservation units,” most wetland habitat in the
Valley is privately owned.
40 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
The Complex staff would continue to assist private landowners to manage
riparian habitat and create, protect, enhance and, where appropriate, create
wetlands throughout the SLV through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program (PFW). Partnerships would continue to be developed with entities
such as the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited to
supplement Service funding of the program.
Implementation of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in the San
Luis Valley began April 1, 1990. Since its inception in the SLV, the PFW
Program has been instrumental in restoring and enhancing numerous acres
of wetland and wet meadow habitat, cottonwood/willow riparian habitat, as
well as associated upland habitat. Portions of the SLV support excellent
habitat for breeding waterfowl and water birds. However, the vegetation
and water conditions conducive to waterfowl and water bird breeding habitat
(dense vegetation cover) are assumed under represented Valley. Therefore,
the PFW Program has focused its attention almost exclusively on restoring
and enhancing wetland/wet meadow and riparian systems to increase the
habitat quality for waterfowl, water birds, passerines, and other resident
wildlife species.
To date, over 220 Wildlife Extension Agreements (WEA) with landowners
have incorporated over 12,000 total acres into the San Luis Valley’s PFW
Program. Of these, approximately 8,500 acres are wetland/wet meadow,
3,160 acres of associated uplands, and over 400 acres of cottonwood/willow
riparian habitat. Landowners enter into WEAs for a minimum of 10 years,
although some have signed agreements for 20 years.
The cost/benefit return of the PFW Program in the SLV has been, and
continues to be, exceptional because the PFW staff constructs the majority
of the projects themselves and the flat topography of the SLV is ideal. The
majority of restoration and enhancement activities are accomplished for $200
to $300/wetland acre with some projects being even more cost efficient.
The PFW Program is achieving its goal of increasing production of waterfowl
and water birds in the SLV. Additionally, numerous other wildlife species
have benefitted from these restoration and enhancement activities. Project
areas receive a lot of use by breeding and wintering raptors and prairie
nesting songbirds such as western meadowlarks and vesper sparrows. Small
mammals, amphibians and reptiles, as well as a suite of invertebrates, have
also benefitted substantially.
The White Ranch property near Hooper, Colorado was purchased by the
Bureau of Reclamation as mitigation for the Closed Basin Project with the
intent of establishing this property as a National Wildlife Refuge. Although a
Preliminary Project Proposal has been approved by the Director it is
contingent upon adequate operation and maintenance funding from the
Bureau of Reclamation and development of a water supply to meet the
Bureau’s wetland mitigation obligation. It has recently been slated for
inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System through The Great Sand
Dunes Park and Preserve Act of 2000. This legislation likely assures this
property will become part of the 92,617 acre Baca National Wildlife Refuge.
This Act will result in conversion of the Great Sand Dunes National
Monument into a National Park and establish the Baca NWR with
acquisition of the Baca Ranch. The White Ranch is located well within the
boundaries of the Baca NWR. Detailed management plans for these new
Refuge lands will be developed through a separate CCP process.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 41
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Public Use
Public access to the Refuges is provided and would continue. Monte Vista
NWR has a larger network of roads open to the public, including several
county roads which bisect the Refuge, and a 2.5-mile auto tour route.
Alamosa NWR is a larger contiguous land base with fewer public accessible
roadways, having only a 3-mile auto tour route and a spur off a county road
to the Hansen Bluff overlook. Both auto tour routes are near areas regularly
used by water birds and other wildlife. Two wildlife observation trails also
exist on the Alamosa Refuge; a 2-mile (one way) trail along the Rio Grande
and a 1-mile walk along wetland edges near the Bluff Overlook. One, short
wildlife observation trail exists off of the auto tour route on Monte Vista
refuge. Visitor numbers are directly related to wildlife activities such as
courtship behaviors, crane staging, etc. Uses that are not wildlife-dependent
are discouraged or even prohibited.
Hunting Waterfowl and small game hunting would continue to be supported
and encouraged. Camping areas for hunters would be provided. Hunter
numbers are not regulated except during weekends of the first split of the
waterfowl season for which hunters must successfully draw a permit in a
limited drawing. Contracted elk hunting occurs on the Monte Vista NWR
only as a tool to manage the number of resident and transient elk using the
refuge. Public elk hunting opportunities are not provided, primarily due to
safety concerns and potential damage to sensitive habitat such as nesting
areas. Safety concerns include the proximity of private landowners, public
roads and the presence of Refuge staff on the land combined with the range
and power of elk hunting rifles.
Fishing The shallow water in Refuge wetlands does not support a viable
fishery. Wetlands either dry up or freeze solid annually which eliminates all
fish that have entered the system. Therefore, fishing is not allowed on the
Refuges. However, the Complex hosts an annual “Kids Fishing Day” event.
This is a multi-agency collaboration held on the Monte Vista Refuge annually
during National Fishing Week. A small (<2 acres) pond on the Refuge is
stocked with trout donated by the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery. The
event is designed to teach children the fun of fishing, angling techniques, and
habitat conservation. In addition, a special-needs kids fishing day is also
provided in which children with disabilities are allowed to fish the pond.
After the kids events have taken place, senior citizens are allowed to fish
until the wetland is dewatered (usually within one week of the Kids Fishing
Day Event) and remaining fish are caught and donated to local retirement
homes or netted and taken to neighboring Home Lake, a State-managed
area. The event usually reaches approximately 250 to 700 children annually.
Local merchants donate over $1,000 in prizes annually for this event.
Creation and management of a viable fishery on the portions of the Rio
Grande flowing through the Alamosa NWR will not be pursued for a variety
of reasons. The major limiting factors are the inability of this stretch of river
to support native fish species due to its ephemeral flows and the disturbance
to wildlife using this riparian area that would be associated with a fishery for
exotic species.
42 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Wildlife Observation The Refuge staff is an active participant in the Monte
Vista Crane Festival; providing technical support, as well as providing
viewing areas, conducting special tours and assisting in setting a direction
for the Festival. The Crane Festival is the largest wildlife related public
event in Colorado (estimated 10,000 visitors in 1999). The Crane Festival
Committee, a local non-profit organization consisting of private citizens and
business people, has requested greater participation and support from the
Service in running this popular 3- to 4-day event.
Refuge roads and one walking trail provide easily accessible wildlife viewing.
Wildlife Photography Photography would continue to be allowed, with no
additional Refuge support provided to photographers.
Interpretation A visitor contact station is part of the Complex’s main office
at the Alamosa NWR and is usually staffed daily during normal working
hours. At Monte Vista NWR, the visitor contact station is only open
seasonally and operated by the Friends of the San Luis Valley National
Wildlife Refuges or by other volunteers. Self-guided auto-tour routes with
interpretive signs are available to visitors on both Refuges. Additionally, on
the Alamosa NWR, there is a drive to the panoramic “Bluff Overlook” which
affords a magnificent view of Refuge wetlands, the Rio Grande, and the
Sangre de Cristo mountains to the east.
An Outdoor Recreational Planner will be hired. Approval for this position
has already been secured with the recruitment process just beginning. This
person will be responsible for developing and administering interpretive
environmental education and visitor services programs that will include
development of a cadre of knowledgeable volunteers to staff facilities,
conduct Refuge tours, and deliver interpretive talks at both Refuges. The
Outdoor Recreational Planner will also pursue funding for projects such as:
• Replace and/or develop interpretive signs at both Monte Vista and
Alamosa Refuges to meet FWS standards and be accessible to all
users.
• Develop interpretive nature trails at the Monte Vista NWR;
potential sites include Spring Creek (groundwater hydrology) and
Unit 6.
• Replace and improve visitor contact area exhibits at Alamosa NWR.
• Develop interpretation for the Rio Grande nature trail at Alamosa
NWR.
• Develop and implement orientation and direction signs at entrances
and for all road systems on both Refuges.
It should be noted that detailed plans for expanded outdoor recreation,
interpretation, and educational programs cannot be developed until the
Outdoor Recreational Planner is hired and specific tasks are discussed. The
above only represents ideas for what may be accomplished.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 43
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Environmental Education Volunteer and/or contractor led environmental
education programs for local schools are provided, both as Refuge field trips
and classroom presentations. Future funding for these programs is being
severely restricted and likely will not be available in subsequent years.
Monte Vista NWR is one of several areas in the SLV where Project Wild
outdoor classroom activities are held. Sites incorporate specific wetland
habitat based curriculum. In addition, the Refuge is developing education
kits designed to provide a Refuge based curriculum for use by teachers in a
classroom setting. Four kits will be available addressing endangered species,
wetland habitats, animal adaptations, and the Refuge Complex. These efforts
have been largely put on hold until the Outdoor Recreational Planner is
onboard. Educational programs will emphasize the importance of water to
the functioning of the natural and economic resources of the SLV ecosystem
and the importance of wetlands to wildlife and humans. Local school systems
and visitors to the Valley would be the target audience. Once the ORP
position is filled, the Service’s participation in the Outdoor Classroom
program and interaction with the local media will be expanded and improved.
The local news media has already expressed interest in having a regular
program highlighting Refuge activities and news.
Universal Access and Design Although efforts have been undertaken to
make the Refuges accessible to all users, the Refuges are still short of this
goal. Accessibility issues and needs will be addressed on a project-by-project
basis as funding allows.
The new walking trail planned for Monte Vista NWR will be accessible to all
users.
All new interpretive and educational programs will comply with the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) which prohibits discrimination based
on disability in federally funded programs and activities. This means that
program design will incorporate accommodations such as large and high
contrast print, plain simple language, and inclusion of both visual and audible
components.
Wherever full accessibility is not feasible, efforts will be made to provide an
equivalent experience.
44 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002
No Action Alternative
(Current Management)
cont’d.
Cultural Resources
Humans have used the land we now call Alamosa and Monte Vista National
Wildlife Refuges for approximately 11,000 years. Fourteen documented
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites occur on Monte Vista NWR and
eleven on Alamosa NWR. All but four sites (three on Monte Vista and one
on Alamosa) have been determined as non-eligible for nomination to the
National Register of Historic Places. The remaining four sites require
further investigation and data collection before eligibility can be determined.
These sites are being protected in accordance with the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1996. Extensive archaeological sites exist in the
headwaters of