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 frostfree 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 habitatbased 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, multinational, 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 feetitle 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 midSeptember, 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-ofcourt lawsuit settlement. In 1992, several national wildlife refuges

throughout the country were sued by the Audubon Society and other nongovernment 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 Spring Creek on Monte Vista Refuge and along Hansen’s

Bluff on Alamosa Refuge.

Very little interpretation of cultural resources is available on the Refuges.

Further archaeological inventories and interpretation will be carried out as

funding and space allow; no specific plans exist for these efforts. Currently,

levels do not allow compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended.

Any Native American burial sites found during the inventory or at any other

time will be managed in accordance with the Native American Grave

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 45

No Action Alternative

(Current Management)

cont’d. 

Elk Management

Large numbers of elk on the Monte Vista refuge present several problems

as described in the “Planning Issues” section. The resident population on

the east side of Monte Vista refuge had grown to about 80 animals by 1995.

This population was rapidly increasing and experiencing little mortality

except that from collisions with motor vehicles on County Road 6 East and

U.S. Highway 160. The basic problem of having a large ungulate population

with no management capability is addressed by conducting a “dispersal hunt”

as defined by Colorado state law. One of the goals of elk management is to

keep the population of resident animals to very low levels. 

Current elk management is in accordance with Colorado Division of Wildlife

regulations, including experimental dispersal hunting of resident elk on

Monte Vista NWR. Hunts are generally initiated once transient (wintering)

elk numbers exceed 100 on the west end of Monte Vista NWR. They are

conducted by a contract hunter from August 15 to February 28 and include

only resident cow elk.

It should also be noted that although migratory bird habitat protection is

refuge management’s primary reason for limiting the elk population on

Refuge lands, these actions also assist in public safety and complement the

Colorado Division of Wildlife’s elk management objectives. 

Other elk management efforts include an agreement with the Bureau of

Land Management and the Division of Wildlife to close Bronson Peak Road

during the elk season to prevent a firing line along that road which can trap

elk on the Monte Vista Refuge. The Service also provides logistical support

to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, including staff, vehicles, and fuel. Fences

are currently being removed or modified to reduce injury to elk. Farming

practices have been modified to eliminate peas because they seem to attract

elk to the Refuge. Refuge staff monitor elk activity on the Refuge so that

they may take action as needed to discourage residency. They also conduct

law enforcement to ensure that all regulations pertaining to elk are adhered

to.

Public hunting will not be allowed for safety reasons. Safety concerns include

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.

Auto pull-outs for safe elk viewing are under construction.
46 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Proposed Alternative Proposed Alternative

In contrast to the current management alternative this proposed alternative

is designed to allow a more pro-active approach through better management

planning, monitoring of actions and more consistent outreach and service to

the public. An alternative such as this is necessary if the refuge operations

continue to participate in the large array of resource issues currently facing

wildlife in the San Luis Valley.

Under this alternative the process will continue to determine if current goals

are appropriate. In the case of habitat goals information will continue to be

gathered on: 

1) the historic and pre-historic environmental conditions of the San Luis

Valley,

2) impact of habitat management practices.

3) current needs of migratory birds and what the best role is for both

refuges in providing habitat, and

4) how to better control noxious weeds and prevent their spread.

Water Management

Under this Alternative, Refuge staff would continue to utilize surface and

well water to create a variety of wetland habitats on both Refuges as

described under the No Action Alternative.

Additional efforts will focus on improving efficiency of water application,

monitoring of water usage, better understanding of water rights, historical

processes, subsurface and surface interactions, and improving knowledge of

groundwater and its role in maintaining wetlands. Increased monitoring of

habitat response to water application will facilitate an adaptive habitat

management program. 

Manipulation of water would still remain the focus of this Alternative.

However, a recognized need exists to better understand the role of

groundwater and its influence on wetland habitat. This information is needed

for wetland management purposes and for any stream restoration projects

undertaken. The restoration of stream channel and hydrology of Spring

Creek on Monte Vista NWR has been contemplated. The creek bed itself has

been dramatically altered. Approximately four miles of the Creek was

channelized prior to Refuge establishment. In addition, dramatic alteration of

groundwater, both off and on the Refuge, has resulted in the elimination of

all natural flows in Spring Creek. This spring once flowed from 1 (Siebenthal,

1910) to an average of 4 cubic feet per second (Monte Vista NWR Master

Plan 1962). Restoration of these natural flows is likely impossible, but, due to

water supplies in groundwater recharge pits, surface water diversions and a

more consistent flow in the creek are now possible.

The cost and benefit of restoring meanders in Spring Creek will be examined

under this alternative. On one hand such a restoration will likely benefit

wetland habitat associated with the stream channel by restoring a semblance

of pre-irrigation hydrology. But these advantages must be weighed against

the high cost of stream restoration and the possible consequences to

downstream water users. Although such actions will not have major impacts

on either the unconfined or confined aquifers of the Valley, they can

positively impact localized groundwater tables and artesian wells, and

increase efficiency of irrigation during the following season.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 47

Proposed Alternative

cont’d.

Acquisition of lands and/or individual water rights necessary to accomplish

Refuge goals and objectives will be actively pursued from willing sellers. 

The water rights for both Refuges are complex and extensive and require

considerable understanding of Colorado water law and the history of

agreements with adjoining landowners and other water users. Consequently,

water management decisions made by the refuge manager are based upon

the collective knowledge of the Refuge staff, the Colorado Division of Water

Resources, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Water Resources.

The USFWS Division of Water Resources has provided funds to contract

with a private consultant to research and document water rights of the

Complex, and to assist the Refuge staff in developing a water management

plan that provides for the most efficient and effective use of water. Under

this management alternative, a water management staff position would be

added to the Refuge staff to advise the refuge manager on water usage and

water rights issues. This additional position would enable the Service to

better manage and document its water use to protect Refuge water rights

and maximize habitat benefits. 

Under this Alternative, irrigation systems in all Refuge units would be

upgraded as funding allows to enable more precise and efficient management

of irrigation water. Currently, wetland vegetation is maintained using flood

irrigation practices where water is applied at the highest elevation of a unit

from a supply ditch or well head and is allowed to flow across the unit to

lower elevations. On most Refuge units, this process is relatively imprecise,

extremely slow and complicated by tailwater from neighboring lands over

which the Refuge has little control. In addition, it is difficult to dry most

units in a timely fashion to meet biological needs. Upgrading irrigation

infrastructure will facilitate more efficient application of water and will assist

Refuge staff to implement a monitoring program that will eventually predict

wetland habitat response to water application. Improved water delivery will

allow Refuge staff to implement more precise and efficient wetting and

drying of wetlands, which will allow for improved nutrient cycling, weed

control (i.e., faster drying to control whitetop), and moist soil plant

management.

Water use would be closely managed and monitored to improve efficiency

and protect water rights. Adaptive management would be used to evaluate

and manage water. Biological and management positions would be increased

on staff to adequately evaluate water use and the subsequent impacts on

habitat. Additionally, monitoring would provide for better management of

diversions, ditches, wells, and control structures and ensure protection of

water rights.
48 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Proposed Alternative

cont’d.

Rest

This Alternative also recognizes the benefits of rest, as discussed under the

No Action Alternative. Therefore, long-term rest (more than 1 year) would

continue to be used over the next 15 years. 

However, a challenge facing these Refuges is the development of an adequate

monitoring program that will direct management practices to meet habitat

objectives. The ratio of periods of rest to disturbance in order to provide the

optimum cover of vegetation for nesting ducks and other species is largely

unknown for the San Luis Valley and needs to be examined. A successful

program will help managers determine when areas of either Refuge need

disturbance, the most effective tool to use, and when. Under this Alternative,

an active adaptive management strategy would be implemented. This

program would be based on monitoring of prescribed rest to document how

different vegetation types respond to different rest strategies. This will

allow for increasingly effective application of rest to meet habitat goals.

Prescribed Burning

As described in the No Action Alternative, prescribed burning will continue

to be utilized to meet a variety of management objectives. Wildfires, under

this Alternative as well, will continue to be suppressed. In addition to that

described under the No Action Alternative, management would implement

two new initiatives. First, formation of an interagency fire team would be

pursued. This idea has been discussed among the various State and Federal

land management agencies, but no action has been taken. This team would be

responsible for conducting prescribed burns and suppressing wildfires on

member agency lands. Secondly, refuge management would pursue the

hiring of additional staff to develop a burn monitoring program and detailed

burn criteria in an effort to better understand the impacts of prescribed

burning and to better implement its use in meeting management objectives.

Prescribed Grazing

Future use of prescribed grazing on the Refuges will be greatly influenced by

the results of research currently being conducted by Dr. Fredrickson. The

Refuge staff will also continue to evaluate and monitor how effective this

management tool is in meeting habitat objectives. Based on these collective

and ongoing investigative efforts, the grazing methods (i.e., numbers, timing,

and animals [cows, bison, goats]) that best accomplish habitat objectives will

be used. 

In the future, if and when grazing is used, prescriptions will delineate the

location of the site to be grazed and specific objectives and purposes of the

tool such as to control weeds, increase new growth, and provide a

competitive advantage to certain vegetation. This site-by-site evaluation and

planning will allow for maximum control and flexibility of this tool as well as

ensuring that only delineated sites are affected by the tool and that all

factors and interests are considered. 

Prescribed grazing may also be employed in situations where a more selective

vegetation impact tool is desired versus using a tool which impacts all

vegetation, such as fire. Limited grazing may be used to reduce high fuel

loads in some areas where fuels can be reduced without lasting damage to

the understory.

As is the case with most management tools, prescribed grazing may also be

used in conjunction with or as a precursor to other tools such as herbicides or

intensive water management.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 49

Proposed Alternative

cont’d.

Farming

Under this Alternative, migrating birds would be provided with the same

amount of small grain food from crops currently provided. The existing

farming program operated by Refuge staff would be converted to a

cooperative farming program. Farming would continue but Refuge staff

would only be responsible for irrigation of the crops. The cooperating farmer

would continue the crop rotation of 2 years of small grains followed by 2

years of alfalfa and then 1 year fallow. The cooperating farmer would be

allowed to keep all or a portion of the alfalfa crop based on yields of the small

grain crops. The current emphasis on organic farming techniques will be

maintained.

Under this alternative the necessity of the farming program will be regularly

evaluated. As results of ongoing and future studies become available, the size

and focus of the refuge farming program will likely change. 

Refuge staff would also supplement the farming program with a moist soil

plant management program to diversify the types of feed available to the

birds. The farming and moist soil plant programs would be monitored and

managed through the adaptive management concept. Research would be

encouraged to help identify the amount and kinds of high energy food sources

the Refuge could and should be providing for migrating and wintering avian

species. 
50 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Proposed Alternative

contd.

Public Use

Under this Alternative, educating the public as to the nature and value of

wetlands will focus on contrasting the intensely managed wetlands of Monte

Vista NWR with the more natural aspects on the Alamosa NWR wetlands.

To assure compliance with public use minimum standards, money will be

targeted for projects through RONS, MMS, and partnerships. Currently,

funding proposals are developed for projects that will improve the quality of

visitor experiences.

Hunting Current waterfowl and small game hunting would continue to be

supported and encouraged. To the extent feasible, the hunting experience

would be further tailored to meet the desires of hunters using the Refuges

based on periodic questioning of waterfowl hunters and other public input. It

should be noted that all uses on the Refuges, including hunting, are subject

to compatibility determinations. Hence, any future changes in hunting

practices on the Refuges will be subject to a determination of compatibility

with Refuge purposes and goals. (See Map 6 - Monte Vista NWR Hunting

Map and Map 7 - Alamosa NWR Hunting Map).

Under this alternative the limited amount of camping currently available in

parking lots during waterfowl hunting seasons would be continued.

However, if public demand results in unmanageable numbers of campers or

other associated problems the camping opportunities will be altered or

discontinued. 

Public elk hunting would not be allowed primarily due to safety concerns and

potential damage to sensitive habitat such as nesting areas. Safety concerns

include the proximity of private landowners and the presence of Refuge staff

and others on the land combined with the range and power of elk hunting

rifles.

Fishing Same as that described under the No Action Alternative.

Wildlife Observation Support for the Crane Festival would continue as

described under the No Action Alternative. Under this Alternative, on the

Monte Vista NWR, public and scientific input would be sought regarding the

seasonal expansion of the auto tour route, development of wildlife

observation sites at Parker Pond, and development of wildlife observation

decks along County Road 3E. Opinion and information would also be sought

regarding the development of an observation deck adjacent to the Refuge

Headquarters at the Alamosa NWR and near the proposed visitor center and

education facility at the Monte Vista NWR. 

Additionally, wildlife observation blinds accessible to all users would be

developed on both Refuges.

Wildlife Photography Same as that described under the No Action

Alternative.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 51
52 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 53

Proposed Alternative

cont’d.

Interpretation A multi-purpose education and visitor center facility on the

Monte Vista NWR is the highest educational priority for the Complex, with

funding pending. Plans for hiring an Outdoor Recreational Planner and for

enhanced interpretation projects would be the same as that described under

the No Action Alternative. Additionally, under this Plan, the acquisition of

an Assistant Outdoor Recreational Planner will be pursued. This will allow

for more regular, comprehensive, and extensive interpretation and visitor

services.

Also under this Alternative, the Refuge staff would implement an

interpretation program centered around the cultural resources found on the

Complex and around the Valley. Interpretation of past human use would

focus on the theme that humans have always, and still depend upon natural

resources for survival. The Refuge visitor should leave understanding: 1)

how animals and plants on Refuge lands were and are used by humans; 2)

what the prehistoric and historic environment was like in the San Luis

Valley; and 3) although humans are farther removed from the environment

today than in times past, they are no less a part of it than their prehistoric

ancestors. In addition, the Refuge staff should interpret the development of

agriculture in the San Luis Valley; in particular, the role and impacts of an

extensive irrigation system and how that formed the foundation for the

agricultural economy, bringing the visitor to the current condition today and

the sustainable and compatible uses of natural resources the Refuges and

agricultural users are striving for today.

Efforts would also be made towards an interagency interpretation project.

This may include kiosks on each Refuge that relate prehistoric and historic

sites there with other cultural sites on other public lands within the Valley

and surrounding foothills. This effort will proceed as money and staffing

allow and, of course, will be dependent upon participation of other land

management agencies (i.e., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service,

National Park Service, State Division of Parks and Recreation).

Environmental Education Environmental education goals and programs

would be the same as those under No Action with one additional item, hiring

an assistant Outdoor Recreational Planner. This will allow for more regular,

comprehensive, and expanded educational opportunities.

Universal Access and Design Efforts in this area would be the same as that

described under the No Action Alternative with a few additional efforts.

Developments would include new rest room facilities and wildlife observation

blinds and/or platforms. Universally accessible hunting blinds would be built

on both Refuges. All of these projects will follow the Americans with

Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines.

Additionally, new interpretive signs and information boards will be written

in English and Spanish.

Wherever full accessibility is not feasible, efforts would be made to provide

an equivalent experience.
54 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Proposed Alternative

cont’d.

Cultural Resources

Archaeological work on the Complex will be expanded to include work

needed to determine the eligibility of four documented sites for nomination

to the National Register of Historic Places. Management under this

Alternative would also include a sample archaeological inventory of Refuge

lands over a 15 year period. Approximately 560 acres would be inventoried

each year, for a total of 8,400 acres, one-third the total acreage of the

Complex. The inventory would be designed to include both areas expected to

yield finds and areas not expected to yield finds to act as a control. Further

archaeological needs will be assessed upon completion of the inventory

effort. Inventory efforts will proceed as resources (staffing and funding)

become available.

Any Native American burial sites found during the inventory or at any other

time will be managed in accordance with the Native American Grave

Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990.

Elk Management

Under this Alternative, resident elk would be kept at very small numbers on

Monte Vista NWR by the contract hunter under Colorado’s dispersal hunt

regulations. Up to 200 wintering elk will be allowed west of the Empire

Canal. Refuge staff would also work with other land management agencies

and the Colorado Division of Wildlife Habitat Partnership Program in the

Valley to achieve broader elk management objectives that would reduce elk

conflicts on the Refuge as well as numerous other conflict areas in the Valley.

One objective may be reduction of hunter densities and improvement of

habitat quality on public lands adjacent to Monte Vista Refuge. These efforts

are to encourage elk to use those public lands. Other management techniques

will be considered and evaluated under this Alternative, including the use of

elk proof fencing in selected areas.

Public hunting would not be allowed for safety reasons. Safety concerns

include the proximity of private landowners and the presence of Refuge

staff, cooperators and contractors on the land combined with the range and

power of elk hunting rifles.

Although migratory bird habitat protection is refuge management’s primary

reason for limiting the elk population on Refuge lands, these actions also

make dispersed elk available for hunting off the Refuge, reduce the safety

hazard on public roads, and reduce damage to private property. 

Auto pull-outs for safe elk viewing are currently under construction.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 55

Refuge Management Direction: Objectives and Strategies

This section outlines the objectives for each goal and then the strategies that

will be used to achieve those objectives. The strategies are based on the

Proposed Alternative (the CCP) and are presented in the table “Strategies

and Projects for Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR Complex” following the

objectives.

Habitat Goals and Objectives

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.

Rationale: Dense short emergent vegetation provides cover for nesting,

wintering, and foraging avian and other wildlife species. Short-emergent

vegetation occurs throughout the San Luis Valley on private lands as well as

state and federally owned wildlife areas. It is associated with high water

tables, along streams and as a result of irrigation practices. Most of these

wetlands are on private land and managed for the production of hay and

forage for cattle. As a result most the vegetation on private lands is too short

(i.e., below ~ 12 inches) for most ground nesting migratory birds, but it often

provides good foraging habitat for many bird species. Few places in the San

Luis Valley can be managed for production of dense (measured with a Robel

pole), unharvested stands of short emergent vegetation to benefit wildlife.

State, federal (primarily the national wildlife refuges), non-governmental

organizations and several private landowners have devoted lands to

production of this habitat type and condition. The National Wetland

Inventory provides the number of acres of wetland types based on water

regimes in the San Luis Valley but there are no data on availability of

vegetation condition; however, there is an effort to collect or compile these

data. Based on the collective knowledge of wetland managers and biologists,

it is believed that dense short-emergent vegetation is relatively uncommon

in the Valley. Because of the tremendous use of this habitat type by

migratory birds and its apparent scarcity, wildlife managers throughout the

valley assume it is of high value. When dense short-emergent vegetation

exists, it must be coupled with appropriate water depths at appropriate

times to meet the life cycle needs of wildlife and often these conditions are

achieved through the use of refuge water rights.
56 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Objectives: 

1.1 Shallowly flood 25 percent of the existing short-emergent plant

community on the Complex, as a 5 year average, during February and

March to begin irrigation of short-emergent plants which provide food

and cover to migratory birds later in the season and to provide the

habitat conditions needed by migrating sandhill cranes and waterfowl,

and for breeding Canada geese for loafing and foraging.

1.2 Shallowly flood 50 percent of the existing short-emergent plant

community on the Complex, as a 5 year average, during April through

mid-June to support healthy short-emergent plants which provide or

support plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate food sources for migrating,

but primarily breeding, ducks, shorebirds, waders, rails and Canada

goose broods and to attain short-emergent plant structure which

provides cover to breeding, loafing, and roosting birds.

1.3 Maintain the species composition of short-emergent plant

communities by limiting the encroachment of tall-emergent plants by

decreasing the amount of shallow water to 30 percent of the existing

acres of short-emergent vegetation, as a 5 year average, from mid-June

through mid-July while continuing to provide cover and food for

waterfowl broods, shorebirds, waders, rails, and others. 

1.4 Maintain the health (i.e., drying for nutrient cycling) and manage

species composition of short-emergent plant communities by decreasing

shallowly flooded areas to 26 percent of the existing acres of shortemergent vegetation, as a 5 year average, from mid-July to September

15 while continuing to provide habitat for foraging rail and duck broods,

young white-faced ibis, migrating shorebirds and post-breeding

waterfowl. 

1.5 Utilize recharge water, as designated by the Colorado Division of

Water Resources, to begin shallowly flooding 5 percent or more of the

existing short-emergent vegetation in November through December to

recharge groundwater supplies and to saturate the soil for more effective

irrigation of these areas the following spring. 

Strategies: 

✓ Maintain existing water rights that allow for flexibility in water

application and management.

✓ Develop protocol to better monitor water application and impacts on

habitat, primarily vegetation distribution and succession, nutrient

cycling, invertebrate production, noxious weed distribution and

other factors. 

✓ Maintain and improve water management infrastructure. 

✓ Develop protocol to quantify amount and type of wetland vegetation

on Complex and assist with those efforts on a Valley-wide scale. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 57

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.

Rationale: Dense short emergent vegetation provides cover for nesting,

wintering, and foraging avian and other wildlife species. Short-emergent

vegetation occurs throughout the San Luis Valley on private lands as well as

state and federally owned wildlife areas. It is associated with high water

tables, along streams and as a result of irrigation practices. Most of these

wetlands are on private land and managed for the production of hay and

forage for cattle. As a result most the vegetation on private lands is too short

(i.e., below ~ 12 inches) for most ground nesting migratory birds, but it often

provides good foraging habitat for many bird species. Few places in the San

Luis Valley can be managed for production of dense (measured with a Robel

pole), unharvested stands of short emergent vegetation to benefit wildlife.

State, federal (primarily the national wildlife refuges), non-governmental

organizations and several private landowners have devoted lands to

production of this habitat type and condition. The National Wetland

Inventory provides the number of acres of wetland types based on water

regimes in the San Luis Valley but there are no data on availability of

vegetation condition; however, there is an effort to collect or compile these

data. Based on the collective knowledge of wetland managers and biologists,

it is believed that dense short-emergent vegetation is relatively uncommon

in the Valley. Because of the tremendous use of this habitat type by

migratory birds and its apparent scarcity, wildlife managers throughout the

valley assume it is of high value. 

Objectives:

■ 2.1 Provide habitat for nesting mallard, gadwall, cinnamon teal, shorteared owl, northern harrier, marsh nesting passerines, rails, and small

mammal populations by providing robust cover with a Robel reading of

12 inches or more and excluding tall whitetop on 20 percent of the

existing acres of short-emergent vegetation, as a 5 year average, in April

and May.

■ 2.2 Provide habitat for nesting gadwall, northern pintail, northern

shoveler, common snipe, Wilson’s phalarope, and short-eared owl by

providing moderately robust cover with a Robel reading of 6 to 12 inches

on 40 percent of the existing acres of short-emergent vegetation, as a 5

year average, from May to mid-June.

■ 2.3 Provide habitat for nesting Savannah sparrow, vesper sparrow,

common snipe, Wilson’s phalarope, and northern shoveler by providing

sparse cover with a Robel reading of 6 inches or less on 15 percent of the

existing acres of short-emergent vegetation, as a 5 year average, from

April through July.

■ 2.4 Reduce the area of short-emergent habitat on the Refuge Complex

infested by noxious weeds (primarily tall whitetop, Russian knapweed,

and Canada thistle) by 20 percent over the life of this plan (15 years). 
58 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Strategies: 

✓ Maintain existing water rights that allow for flexibility in water

application and management in order to provide habitat conditions

conducive for short-emergent plant species to reach appropriate

height and densities.

✓ Develop protocol to better monitor water application and other

habitat management tools such as grazing and burning and their

impacts on vegetation. 

✓ Maintain and improve water management infrastructure in order to

irrigate vegetation. 

✓ Develop protocol to quantify amount and type of wetland vegetation

on Complex and assist with those efforts on a Valley-wide scale. 

✓ Map distribution of weeds on the refuge complex, continue to

investigate weed control methods including integrated pest

management strategies, and develop and implement monitoring

methods to evaluate weed control efforts.

Goal 3:

Maintain areas of saltgrass in suitable condition for migrating and

breeding water birds and passerines on the refuge complex.

Rationale: We assume flooded saltgrass provides an excellent source of

aquatic invertebrates for foraging water birds and nesting habitat for some

shorebirds. We also assume saltgrass in combination with various water

conditions has limited availability in the San Luis Valley, yet it is a critical

habitat type for migratory birds and other wildlife. It is easy to convert this

habitat type to other wetland types through excessive irrigation, yet difficult

to restore. 

Objectives:

■ 3.1 Shallowly flood 30 percent of the existing acres of saltgrass, as a 5

year average, for short periods (60 days or less) to encourage the

production of invertebrates as a food source for migrating shorebirds,

waterfowl, and waders in the spring (April 1 to May 30) and fall (August

15 to October 1).

■ 3.2 Provide patches of sparse vegetation and bare ground on 10 percent

of the existing areas of unflooded saltgrass, as a 5 year average, for

nesting American avocets and killdeer.

■ 3.3 Provide nesting cover with dense vegetation on 50 percent of the

existing acres of unflooded saltgrass for species such as Savannah and

vesper sparrows.

Strategies:

✓ Develop protocol and techniques for monitoring distribution of this

habitat type and changes in abiotic conditions that influence this

habitat.

✓ When appropriate protect habitat through fee-title and easement

and by participating in partnerships.

✓ Better define wildlife use of saltgrass habitat by analysis of existing

data, through literature search and additional research to test our

assumptions.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 59

Goal 4:

Provide tall-emergent vegetation with other suitable habitat conditions for

breeding water birds and marsh passerines on the refuge complex.

Rationale: Tall-emergent vegetation with favorable water conditions for

nesting white-faced ibis (species of management concern) and other colonial

water birds, American bittern, black terns (both species of management

concern) and marsh passerines is only provided on some federal, state and

private lands in the San Luis Valley. The Refuges can provide stable water

conditions in conjunction with other complementary habitat types such as

short-emergent foraging habitat and protection from disturbance. This

habitat type on the Monte Vista NWR supports the second largest colony of

colonial nesting water birds in the state (Refuge files, Ron Ryder, pers

comm, February, 1999). We assume that the refuges must provide some

amount of this habitat type in order to support secretive marsh birds,

colonial nesting birds and some waterfowl species. 

Objectives:

■ 4.1 Provide migrating and breeding habitat for water birds and

passerines by flooding tall-emergent vegetation beginning in midFebruary.

■ 4.2 Maintain islands of bulrush in open water with little to no water

fluctuations from May to mid-July for colonial nesting water birds, such

as white-faced ibis and black-crowned night heron. 

■ 4.3 Provide shallow water within tall-emergent vegetation wetlands for

foraging waterfowl broods; post-breeding shorebirds, waders, coots,

rails, and waterfowl; molting waterfowl; and migrating shorebirds by

drawing down water from mid-July to mid-September.

■ 4.4 Provide habitat for mating, nesting, brood rearing, molting, and postbreeding water birds, such as colonial nesters, by maintaining a mosaic of

cover/water interspersion (50/50 cattail/bulrush and open water) on 60

percent of the existing acres of tall-emergent vegetation on the Complex.

■ 4.5 Explore the need for developing one additional rookery area of tallemergent vegetation of adequate size for colonial nesting water birds.

■ 4.6 Investigate and implement control method for monocultural

phragmites stands on Alamosa NWR.

Strategies:

✓ Protect Parker Pond and Bowen Pond from excessive disturbance

between May 1 and August 31.

✓ Maintain current annual water regime in Parker Pond and Bowen

Pond. Once colonial nesting is initiated water will be held at static

levels.

✓ Continue to evaluate additional protection needs to other colonial

water bird nesting areas in the San Luis Valley by studying and

evaluating appropriate property and through collaboration with our

partners.

✓ Investigate the amount of this habitat needed to support goals of the

San Luis Valley Water Bird Plan, Intermountain West Water Bird

Plan and the North American Water Bird Conservation Plan. 

✓ Assist in collection of data to test assumptions regarding amount and

distribution of this habitat type required in the San Luis Valley.
60 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Goal 5:

On Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge provide agricultural grains in

adequate amounts for migrating sandhill cranes and waterfowl.

Rationale: Sandhill cranes have changed how and when they use the San

Luis Valley due in part to the many alterations in the quantity and quality of

wintering and migratory habitat. Cranes and other wildlife have adapted to

the current condition of the landscape, which is dominated by agriculture and

other human practices. Historically, it is believed that there were more

shallow water wetlands throughout the SLV providing a matrix of potential

feeding sites (R. Drewien pers comm.). Under current conditions there may

not be enough wetlands in the Valley to provide the amount of natural food

required by 20,000+ cranes as there was in the past. Additionally it is

postulated that historically cranes migrated through the SLV later in the

spring when fewer wetlands were still frozen and thus invertebrates were

more abundant (R. Drewien pers comm.). Currently cranes migrate in

February when most wetlands are frozen and cannot support invertebrate

populations although plant foods from the fall may still be available. Almost

the entire Rocky Mountain population of the greater sandhill cranes and

several thousand lesser and Canadian sandhill cranes are now dependent

upon agricultural foods in the spring and fall migration. These birds must

replenish fat reserves in order to complete the migration to the breeding

grounds and initiate breeding efforts. Changes in agricultural practices in the

past 10 to 15 years may have reduced the amount of waste grain available to

migrating birds on private lands in the spring. We assume that it is not

practical (there may not be sufficient amount of wetlands on the MVNWR in

the early spring) to grow sufficient natural foods to feed the current flock.

Therefore, the Refuge agricultural fields are necessary to provide critical

food supplies in the spring, when it is limited elsewhere in the Valley.

Objectives:

■ 5.1 Produce adequate agricultural grains for fall and spring migrant

waterfowl and 15 percent of the fall and 85 percent of the spring sandhill

crane population on the Monte Vista Refuge.

■ 5.2 Work towards ensuring that 65 percent of the food required by

spring migrant sandhill cranes is provided off Monte Vista Refuge.

■ 5.3 Provide dense cover for resident wildlife and incidental use by

foraging and nesting birds.

Strategies:

✓ Continue to assess the amount and distribution of food for Sandhill

cranes in the San Luis Valley and plan refuge farming program in

response to monitoring. In addition the Service will work with the

agricultural community to monitor changes in farming practices that

may influence food availability for sandhill cranes.

✓ Attempt to lessen crane dependence upon Monte Vista NWR farm

fields in the spring. Currently, at least 85 percent of the population

uses Monte Vista NWR for feeding and roosting during spring

staging. We assume this concentration exposes the population to risk

of catastrophic loss.

✓ Explore feasibility of increasing availability of native foods for

sandhill cranes in the spring and fall. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 61

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.

Rationale: The semipermanent open water and submergent vegetation

resulting from flood irrigation practices is an important habitat type found

almost entirely on areas managed for wildlife. Open water is not uncommon

in the valley but it is usually in water storage reservoirs associated with

agriculture. Water levels in these reservoirs are not managed to promote

submergent vegetation. This habitat type is used by waterfowl broods,

nesting water birds (e.g. American coots and eared grebes), and foraging

water birds and songbirds. Refuge managers can provide it in conjunction

with submergent and tall emergent vegetation during critical times of the

year and for appropriate lengths of time, as well as protect it from

disturbance.

Objectives:

■ 6.1 Provide habitat for foraging migrant water birds and raptors by

beginning to provide semipermanent open water in mid-February.

■ 6.2 Provide habitat for foraging raptors, phalaropes, migrating water

birds, and aerial foraging birds by continuing to increase the area of

semipermanent open water through April.

■ 6.3 Provide habitat for nesting grebes and diving ducks and for foraging

breeding water birds, water bird broods, and aerial foraging birds by

maintaining semipermanent open water from May through mid-July.

■ 6.4 Provide habitat for foraging migrating waterfowl and coots by

maintaining areas of semipermanent open water on an average of 30

percent of the existing acres from mid-July until freeze-up.

Strategies:

✓ Continue water management practices that result in this habitat

type.
62 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.

Rationale: Refuge management provides an unusual combination of water

rights, that allow for application of water prior to the “irrigation” season that

starts April 1 therefore providing migratory bird habitat in early spring.

Some of the wells on Monte Vista NWR are adjudicated for wildlife as the

beneficial use under Colorado law, therefore, refuge managers can provide

shallow water for roosting, resting, and foraging habitat for water bird

species that migrate through the Valley in the early spring (February).

Relatively few areas in the San Luis Valley provide a combination of water,

food and cover at this time of the year. Most (95 percent) of the Rocky

Mountain Population of the greater sandhill crane roost in this wetland type

on Monte Vista NWR. A total of 15,000 to 18,000 cranes comprised of these

and several thousand lesser and Canadian Sandhill cranes roost on Monte

Vista NWR for approximately 6 weeks each spring and fall. In addition

approximately 15,000 northern pintail and 25,000 mallards use these same

wetlands on Monte Vista NWR for roosting and foraging in February and

March. These shallow water areas are also very important to a large array of

foraging water bird species (waterfowl, waders, shorebirds, rails etc) during

the breeding season as well as migration seasons.

Objectives:

■ 7.1 Provide habitat for foraging and roosting sandhill cranes and

migrating waterfowl by providing shallow seasonal water in February

and March.

■ 7.2 Provide habitat for foraging and roosting sandhill cranes; migrating

and breeding waterfowl; shorebirds, white-faced ibis, and egrets; and

aerial foraging birds by increasing the area of shallow seasonal water

from February until May.

■ 7.3 Provide habitat for foraging by breeding water birds and aerial

foraging birds by further increasing areas of shallow water from May

until mid-July.

■ 7.4 Provide mudflats and areas of vegetation-free shallow water for

foraging shorebirds and other species by allowing water to recede in

semipermanent wetlands from mid-July through the end of August.

■ 7.5 Provide for foraging by shorebird broods, fall migrant shorebirds,

aerial foraging birds, and roosting and foraging sandhill cranes by

maintaining 20 percent of the area of shallow seasonal water from late

July until freeze-up.

Strategies:

✓ Maintain water rights that provide this habitat type.

✓ Maintain and improve water management infrastructure to more

effectively irrigate and dewater these areas.

✓ Monitor the application of water to better understand its impact on

wetland health relative to nutrient cycling, invertebrate production,

plant succession, noxious weed distribution and other attributes. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 63

Goal 8:

Enhance the Rio Grande corridor and its tributaries on Refuge lands to

provide habitat for river, riparian-dependent, and other wetland species.

Rationale: Since European settlement in the Valley, many rivers and the

unconfined and confined aquifers have been drastically altered (Siebenthal

1910; Natural Resources Committee Report 1938; Emery, et al. 1973; San

Luis Valley Water Conservancy District 2001). These alterations of Rio

Grande hydrology upstream of the Alamosa NWR include but are not limited

to the building of dams, a minimum of 48 irrigation diversions, and the

drilling of thousands of wells in the unconfined and confined aquifers. We

assume that alterations in river flows have degraded or reduced riparian

vegetation and wetlands adjacent to the entire Rio Grande corridor including

those on the Alamosa NWR which lies within the river’s floodplain.

Consequently the wildlife dependent upon them has also been impacted.

Aerial photos taken in 1940 indicate a narrowing and deepening of the Rio

Grande channel south of the town of Alamosa, including the Alamosa NWR;

resulting in a decrease of overbank flooding (San Luis Valley Water

Conservancy District 2001) which would negatively impact riparian and

floodplain wetlands. The report further describes the Rio Grande as it flows

through the Alamosa NWR as sediment deficient with eroding channel

banks. Riparian habitat, oxbow wetlands, sloughs, and surrounding uplands

on the Alamosa NWR provided habitat for migrating, breeding, loafing and

resting songbirds, waterfowl, water birds, raptors, cranes, shorebirds and

other wildlife.

Riparian habitat, dominated by cottonwoods and willows, supports a large

array of nesting, resting and foraging birds, including the endangered

southwestern willow flycatcher. It is also one of the most degraded and

limited habitat types in the western United States. Despite its limited

availability, a disproportionate number of avian species depend on it (Knopf,

et al. 1988). Riparian habitat in the San Luis Valley has also shown impacts

by human modifications of the landscape. The Alamosa NWR has a corridor

of riparian habitat along the Rio Grande as well as along old oxbows and

other canals within the interior of the Refuge. A 2 year study documented

more southwestern willow flycatcher territories (29) on the Alamosa NWR

than on any of the other 16 study sites (Owen and Sogge 1997). 

In addition to providing quality habitat, the Alamosa NWR also offers

visitors an opportunity to experience a series of wetlands that are not manmade but were created by ancient river flows and activity. Because river

flows have been so altered, these wetlands must be maintained by diverting

water throughout the Refuge; but, this infrastructure was designed and is

maintained to be as unobtrusive as possible. 
64 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Objectives:

■ 8.1 On Alamosa NWR provide dense multi-layered native riparian

vegetation such as willows and cottonwoods for breeding and migrating

riparian obligate species, notably the southwestern willow flycatcher,

yellow warblers and a host of other passerines, and other wildlife. 

■ 8.2 Protect the aquatic resources, such as water quality, and provide safe

harbor from human disturbance within the portion of the Rio Grande

that flows through the Alamosa NWR for wintering and spring staging

bald eagles, fall migrating shorebirds, wintering waterfowl, and other

migratory bird use. 

■ 8.3 Perpetuate the natural aspect of the physical and biological

characteristics of the Rio Grande floodplain on the Alamosa NWR by

designing and maintaining infrastructure that is as unobtrusive as

possible.

■ 8.4 On Monte Vista NWR assess feasibility of restoring channelized

Spring Creek to a meandering streambed as it occurred historically.

■ 8.5 Protect sufficient habitat for the endangered southwestern willow

flycatcher through easement and fee-title acquisition, habitat

improvements on Alamosa NWR and private lands through the Partners

for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

■ 8.6 Compensate for the loss of floodplain wetlands on the Alamosa NWR

by using surface and groundwater to simulate a natural hydrologic cycle

(peak water application in mid-June) along the Rio Grande to enhance

and maintain existing off-channel wetland basins and floodplain

wetlands.

Strategies:

✓ Continue to evaluate riparian habitat and species needs outside of

refuge complex boundaries through partnership programs and the

Service’s Land Protection Planning program.

✓ Gather and interpret hydrologic (amount and timing of flows),

riparian (historic plant composition and location), and riverine

(location and type of wetlands historically associated with the river)

data on the Rio Grande to be used in deciding how, if, and when to

potentially restore and implement riparian restoration and

management. Sources of this information include the August 2001,

Final Feasibility Report, Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration

Project.

✓ Investigate feasibility and methodology for restoring riparian

vegetation through use of current water rights to seasonally irrigate

riparian vegetation along the Rio Grande which historically used to

be maintained by overbank flooding of the river. 

✓ Monitor noxious weed (primarily tall whitetop, Russian knapweed,

Canada thistle, Eurasian water milfoil) distribution within the Rio

Grande corridor and other riparian habitat and if necessary

implement methods to contain and or reduce weed infestation.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 65

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. 

Rationale: This native vegetation type occurs on both refuges as well as an

estimated 30 percent of the San Luis Valley. Although upland shrub

vegetation is relatively common it is important to refuge managers to protect

or maintain it on the complex because it is a historic habitat type and

contribute to the biodiversity of native species.

Objectives:

■ 9.1 Determine the use of these communities by wildlife, and the amount

and condition (relative to species composition of understory) of

appropriate habitat needed on the Refuge complex. 

■ 9.2 Maintain this community free of noxious weeds in uninfested areas.

In infested areas reduce infestation by 40 percent of current levels over

life of this plan. 

Strategies:

✓ Investigate the use of this habitat type by migratory birds through

literature searches, analysis of existing data and if necessary,

implementation of monitoring program. 

✓ Investigate historic (i.e., pre-European settlement) condition of

shrub land communities in the SLV for potential restoration

activities on the refuge complex. 

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.

Rationale: This native vegetation type is present on both refuges but is more

common and likely more naturally occurring on Alamosa NWR. Little is

know about the distribution of this plant community in the San Luis Valley.

On Alamosa NWR we know this habitat is used by rodents and ground

nesting birds such as Savannah sparrows, vespers sparrows, meadowlarks,

cinnamon teal and gadwall. To maintain biodiversity on the Complex and San

Luis Valley this plant community should be maintained.

Objectives:

■ 10.1 Evaluate use of this community by migratory birds and degree of

infestation by noxious weeds.

■ 10.2 Maintain this community free of noxious weeds in uninfested areas.

In infested areas reduce infestation by 40 percent of current levels over

life of this plan. 

Strategies:

✓ Implement avian monitoring within short grass communities. Map

the location and vegetative composition of this habitat type. 

✓ Implement monitoring of weed distribution and implement control

methods in infested areas.
66 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

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.

Rationale: The Refuges are part of the larger San Luis Valley and Rio Grande

Ecosystems in which they interact with the biotic and abiotic processes

occurring on other lands and across ownership boundaries. Therefore, it is

important to work at the ecosystem level if the Refuges’ and Service’s goals

are to be achieved. Only through partnerships can local, regional, and

national conservation goals be met; no one agency has the power to do it all.

Objectives:

■ 11.1 Use the Partners for Wildlife program to support privately-owned

habitats critical to the SLV ecosystem, as identified in numerous

cooperative conservation plans.

■ 11.2 Support habitats critical to the SLV Ecosystem, as described under

Habitat Protection Vision section.

■ 11.3 Participate in and/or lead substantial Valley-wide conservation

efforts especially wetland and migratory bird efforts.

Strategies: 

✓ Protect habitat through fee-title and easement and by participating

in partnerships.

✓ Integrate planning of refuge, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, and

other SLV conservation partners.

✓ Actively participate in habitat protection partnerships in the SLV.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 67

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.

Rationale: There are areas on the refuge complex that are not necessarily

habitat, such as roads, but they still impact the quality of adjacent habitats.

For example, noxious weeds tend to become established in disturbed areas

on roads and levees and then act as a source of infestation for adjacent

habitat. These “non-habitat” areas still require various management actions

in order to maintain or improve the quality of the refuge habitat as a whole. 

Objectives: 

■ 12.1 Reduce the amount of area infested by noxious weeds on refuge

complex roads, levees and ditch banks by 50 percent through integrated

pest control methods including mowing, herbicide, grazing and other

treatments. 

■ 12.2 To the extent possible, prevent weeds from becoming established on

refuge complex roads, levees, and ditch banks through integrated pest

control methods and other preventative measures such as seeding. 

Strategies:

✓ Continue to investigate and experiment with integrated noxious

weed control methods. 

✓ Monitor effectiveness of control efforts. 

✓ Map noxious weed distribution and acres on refuge roads, levees and

ditch banks. 
68 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Public Use Goal and Objectives

Note: Additional rationales are given here for each objective. The Refuge

staff feels this is necessary since they address different uses of the Refuges,

not wildlife stewardship mandates.

Goal 13:

Foster understanding, appreciation, and advocacy of wetlands within the

San Luis Valley Ecosystem (Upper Rio Grande Ecosystem).

Rationale: This effort will include providing increased and/or improved

opportunities for environmental education and interpretation, wildlife

viewing, and hunting; all of which are priority wildlife-dependent activities

allowed and encouraged by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997.

Objectives:

■ 13.1 Provide environmental education opportunities for students and

teachers which enhance an understanding of wetland values in the San

Luis Valley.

Rationale: Environmental education opportunities are limited due to lack

of environmental education staff. The Valley has a wealth of

opportunities for environmental education. Refuge wetlands provide a

unique place to explore nature and science. Wetland programs exist on

other refuges and could be expanded and adapted to include the San Luis

Valley environment that tie science, math, history and reading/writing

skills together. 

■ 13.2 Provide safe sustainable waterfowl and small game hunting

opportunities on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs.

Rationale: Hunting at the Refuges is extremely popular due to the large

number of waterfowl and small game that use the Refuges and fosters an

appreciation for wetlands and associated wildlife.

■ 13.3 Provide a wide variety of opportunities to view wildlife, while

minimizing wildlife disturbance.

Rationale: Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, such as wildlife

viewing, is a legitimate and appropriate general public use directly

related to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

■ 13.4 Continue to support a Friends group to advocate Refuge purposes

and programs, raise funds, increase stakeholder involvement, and

coordinate special events.

Rationale: Supporting a Friends group is critical to the success of Refuge

programs. Friends groups can often be an advocate for the Service when,

by law, Service staff cannot participate in activities. Friends groups can

raise money for specific Refuge purposes through grants, endowments,

and other such gifts.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 69

■ 13.5 Increase visitation and enhance the quality of the visitor’s

experience by improving interpretive services and facilities and building

an educational facility and visitor center.

Rationale: Interpretive services and facilities are limited at the present

time. An educational facility and visitor center would provide a

worthwhile experience for Refuge visitors. Additional signage and

interactive displays would be a benefit to both Refuges. Both Refuges

are along major travel routes to three National Parks (Great Sand

Dunes, Mesa Verde, and Grand Canyon). Increased visitation could be

realized with the addition of a visitor center with interactive displays.

Educational and informative displays could make the Refuges a

destination for visitors rather than an incidental stop.

■ 13.6 Educate the public as to the dependence of humans upon natural

resources for survival by demonstrating: 

1) how animal and plants were used by humans on Refuge land; 

2) what the prehistoric and historic environment was like in the San

Luis Valley; and 

3) although humans are farther removed from the environment, they

are no less a part of it than their prehistoric ancestors. 

Rationale: The San Luis Valley has an abundance of historical sites, and

cultural resources on the Refuge Complex are extensive. This resource

should be tapped to ensure that the historic and pre-historic story is not

lost.
70 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Projects for Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR Complex

Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects

Project Name/Type Objectives Project Will Help Achieve

Improve Water Management/Delivery Infrastructure - Increased

Maintenance Staff

1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6, 

Improve Water Planning and Management - Hire Resource

Specialist

1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6

Enhance Wetlands - Heavy Equipment 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8.6

Enhance Wetlands through increased Biological Staff,

Construction Contracts, Services

1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8-all,

10.1, 10.3

Increase Ability to Pump Well Water 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all

Construct Groundwater Recharge on Spring Creek 8.4

Create Water Control Structure to Receive Winter Recharge

Water

1.5

Evaluate Hydrologic Capacities of Management Units - Contract 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all

Restore and Maintain Riparian Corridor and Inventory Species

Using It

8.1, 8.2, 8.6

Evaluate Restoration of Natural Meanders to Spring Creek 8.4

Noxious Weed Control - Increased Staff, Supplies 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6, 9-all, 10-all, 12-all

Restore Vegetative Cover on Abandoned Farm Fields 5.3

Install Wildlife Compatible Boundary Fences - Construction

Contract

8.3, 13.3

Provide Agricultural Food Availability for Migrant Birds 5.1

Improve Habitat with Fire and Grazing - Hire Refuge Operations

Specialist

1 - 12 (all objectives), 13.2

Monitoring/Evaluation of Management Tools - Contracted

Research

1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 9-all,

10.2, 12.1

Biological Monitoring / Evaluate Management Tools - Increased

Biological Staff

1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 5-all, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 9-all, 10-all

Biological Inventories - Increased Biological Staff 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 5-all, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 9-all,10-all

Upper Rio Grande Ecosystem Research Coordination - Hire

Coordinator

11-all

GIS Mapping of Current Habitat Conditions 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8-all, 9-

all, 10-all, 12-all

Renew Involvement in Valley-wide Environmental Education

Program, Including Partnerships With Other Agencies

13.1, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6

Offer Additional Support for Monte Vista Crane Festival 13.4
Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects

Project Name/Type Objectives Project Will Help Achieve

Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 71

In Cooperation with Friends Group, Create a Slide and/or Oral

Presentation for Local Community and Service Organizations that

Focuses on the Mission of the Refuges

11.4

Construct Wildlife-Viewing Pull-outs Along Some County Roads

on Monte Vista NWR

13.1, 13.3, 13.5

Construct Wildlife Photography/Observation Blinds 13.1, 13.3, 13.5

In Cooperation with Friends Group, Construct Walking Trails

With Interpretive Signage

13.3, 13.4, 13.5

Construct Areas for Wildlife Viewing Along Auto Tour Routes,

Near Visitor Centers, and at Entrances to Walking Trails

13.3,13.5

Create Educational Displays and Interpretive Exhibits

Emphasizing Topics Specific to the Refuges

13.1, 13.5, 13.6

Establish a Volunteer Program with Seasonal Housing, to Assist

with Resource and Public Use

13.1, 13.3, 13.5, 13.6

Hire Outdoor Recreation Planner/Specialist 13-all

Conduct Cultural Resource Research and Inventory 13.6

Create Interactive Displays for Cultural Artifacts 13.5, 13.6

Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects

Project Name/Type Objectives Project Will Help Achieve

Improve Water Management/Delivery Infrastructure -

Repair/Replace Existing Structures

1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6

Improve Water Management/Delivery Infrastructure - Replace

Old Heavy Equipment

1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6 

Improve Habitat Quality - Replace Old Equipment 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 6-all, 7-

all, 8.1, 8.6, 9.2, 10.2

Rehabilitate or Replace Wells 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6 

Improve/Enhance Agricultural Productivity - Repair or Replace

Old Equipment

5.1, 5.3

Replace Borrow Crossings onto Refuge from County Road 3E Safety

Construct Office and Visitor Center on Monte Vista NWR All

Rehabilitate River Wildlife Observation Trail on Alamosa NWR 13.1, 13.3, 13.4

Resurface Hunter Access Road and Parking Areas 13.2
72 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Additional Projects (Some may require entry into RONS or MMS)

Project Name/Type Objectives Project Will Help Achieve

Acquire Necessary Land and Water Rights (as discussed in

description of Proposed Alternative)

1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all, 5.1, 6-all, 7-all, 8-all, 9-

all, 10-all, 11.2, 11.3

Use Cooperative Farming for Small Grains Production 5.1

Investigate Feasibility of Eliminating Agricultural Grains

and Conditioning Sandhill Cranes to Use Alternative Foods

5.1, 5.2

Create User-Friendly and Interactive Site-Specific

Environmental Education Curriculum, Focusing

Particularly on Wetlands

13.1

Provide Comprehensive Environmental Education

Packages for Instructors That Meet Colorado Model

Content Standards

13.1

Create Interactive Wetlands Web-Site 13.2

Create Universally Accessible Paths and Pads into Cattail

Areas for Disabled Hunter Access

13.2, 13.3

Provide Permanent Spotting Scopes in Auto Pull-Outs 13.1, 13.3

Build Observation Towers on Both Refuges to Allow

Panoramic Views

13.1, 13.3

Assist Friends Group in Preparing Long-Term Goals for

Refuge Support

13.4

Explore Possibility of Opening Bookstore 13.4

Obtain Grants and Endowments to Support Plans for

Expanded Visitor Center and Other Facilities

13.1, 13.4, 13.5

Research Former Uses of Refuge Lands; Create Storyline

of Historical, Current, and Future Uses

13.6

Create Interactive Displays Explaining How Former Uses

Shaped Current Uses of Refuge Lands

13.6
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 73

Funding and Personnel Needed to Implement the Plan

Personnel

Currently, the Refuge Complex has a staff of 15 personnel; 11 full-time and 4

career-seasonal. Please see the Proposed Organizational Chart below for

details on which staff positions need to be added in order to fully implement

this CCP. All but one of the proposed additional positions (shaded) are

currently represented in the Refuge Operation Needs database (RONS). The

one remaining position will be added to RONS during the next update.

Funding

The current Refuge operations base funding is approximately $763,600, as a

5 year average from 1997 to 2001. This includes funds for salaries,

administration of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and

maintenance of all facilities, vehicles, and heavy equipment

Funding necessary to implement the CCP is derived from three sources. The

first is the Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS). This database includes

requests made to Congress for funding and staffing above the existing base

budget that are needed to carry-out Refuge projects. These funds are

broken-out below into “New Staff” and “RONS Projects.” The second source

is the Maintenance Management System (MMS). This database documents

the maintenance and replacement needs for existing equipment, buildings,

and other property. The third source is based on costs estimates for projects

needed to implement the CCP but which are not yet reflected in RONS or

MMS. These are listed below as “Additional Projects.”

Estimated funds necessary to fully implement the CCP are as follows:

1st Year/One-Time Recurring

New Staff $1,419,000 $681,000

RONS Projects

Biological Monitoring/Inventory 411,000 261,000

Habitat Management/Restoration 5,245,000 413,000

Resource Protection (e.g. Law

Enforcement, Cultural Resource

Protection)

699,000 68,000

Public Use/Education 1,029,000 113,000

Sub-Total 7,384,000 855,000

MMS Projects

Habitat 4,924,000

Facilities 899,000

Visitor Services 1,007,000

Vehicles 260,000

Sub-Total 7,090,000

Additional Projects 255,000

Total $16,148,000 $1,536,000

The Alamosa/Monte Vista Refuge Complex has received approximately

$734,200 annually, as a 5 year average from 1997 to 2001, from its partners to

help fund various projects on and off the Refuge Complex. This level of

funding is likely to continue as long as these funding sources remain viable

and interested.
74 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Partnership
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 75

Opportunities

A unique ecological, geographic, cultural and economic setting exists in the

San Luis Valley. The boundaries of the community are distinctly defined by

high mountains ranges. Both the agricultural based economy and most

migratory bird habitats are dependent upon how water resources are

managed. This common reliance on water resource in this discretely defined

basin has resulted in development of an extensive interrelated web of

partners, including the wildlife, agricultural, water, business, tourism, and

environmental communities. Many of these partnerships were generated in

the early 1990s by the common threat of water exportation from the San

Luis Valley. At that time all water users realized that they will all ultimately

lose if water exportation plans were realized. The challenge for the U.S. Fish

& Wildlife Service in the San Luis Valley is not where to find partners but

determining which partners are most effective in achieving shared goals.

A partial list of our partners that have contributed directly to the operation

of both National Wildlife Refuges and our Partners for Wildlife Program

include:

■ Friends of the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuges

■ The San Luis Valley Wetland Focus Area Committee (includes an array

of local entities working towards goals of the Colorado Wetlands

Initiative and the Intermountain West Joint Venture of the North

American Waterfowl Management Plan)

■ Colorado Division of Wildlife 

■ Ducks Unlimited

■ Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust

■ American Farmland Trust

■ Trust For Public Land

■ Rock Creek Heritage Project

■ San Luis Valley Coordinated Weed Program

■ Adams State College

■ Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project

■ Great Sand Dunes National Monument and Preserve

■ The Nature Conservancy

■ Rio Grande County

■ Alamosa County

■ San Luis Valley Visitor Information Center

■ Over 200 private landowners

■ Alamosa Rural Fire Department

■ Monte Vista Rural Fire Department

■ Rio Grande Water Conservation District

■ San Luis Valley GIS Authority

■ USDA Resource Conservation and Development Program
76 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Monitoring and Evaluation

Appropriate monitoring and evaluation are key to meeting the mission of the

Complex because it provides the information needed for adaptive management;

this information is used to evaluate and adjust management decisions.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the habitat goals and objectives

within it are the foundation for the development of the Biological Monitoring

Plan and program. The program will include procedures used in the past that

continue to meet management decision needs as well as new procedures

which document how well management treatments are meeting the habitat

goals and objectives. All procedures will be evaluated and incorporated into

the program primarily based on how the subsequent results will be used in

management decisions. Most Refuge monitoring is intended to detect trends

and does not need to have the statistical power required in research.

However, future efforts will be as quantitative and repeatable as possible,

and contain an appropriate level of statistical analysis. 

Each portion of the Complex is unique and does not consistently respond to

habitat management activities in the same manner as other sites. Therefore,

site-specific monitoring efforts are necessary. The Complex, however, is over

26,000 acres and, even though the need for consistent and long-term monitoring

over the entire Complex is great, it is not feasible to do so in a detailed fashion.

Therefore, monitoring efforts will have to be prioritized and stratified on a

yearly basis. Effort will first go into those procedures evaluating habitat

goals and objectives. 

Several habitat objectives call for a certain percentage of the Complex to

support certain vegetation communities and with various structural densities.

These will be evaluated partially with the use of GIS habitat maps. The entire

Complex cannot be mapped each year, but portions of the Refuges will be

revisited annually. In those areas, plant community type and structure

information will be updated. Vegetation structure will be documented by

using a modified Robel pole, a procedure that is quantifiable, defendable and

widely used.

The monitoring program will evaluate and consider more than just the

presence of wildlife, but also examine the components of habitat. The basics

of habitat, including abiotic and biotic factors such as chronology of flooding,

duration of flooding, soil type, vegetation structure (living and residual),

chronology of plant growth, and amount and type of foods produced, will be

examined. Monitoring procedures will be appropriate for the life cycle needs

of wildlife and vegetation.

In addition to habitat characteristics, other issues need to be investigated,

such as the ratio of rest to disturbance and wildlife response to various

habitat conditions. Some projects will have to be conducted by graduate

students or with the assistance of successful grant applicants. Wildlife use

surveys will continue to be conducted but in conjunction with habitat

availability information, even if on a broad scale. These efforts will be

assisted by GIS and ArcView technology. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 77

Most of the monitoring work will be conducted by Refuge staff. Under the

Proposed Alternative, we will have the ability to hire seasonal biological

technicians and other staff which will increase the ability to monitor and the

amount of the Complex which can be monitored. Some of the monitoring

work will be done by trained volunteers and members of the Friends Group.

Additional communication and cooperation with biologists from other San

Luis Valley wetlands and wildlife management areas will assist in resolving

large scale questions and testing assumptions.

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed

Study

Three management alternatives for the Monte Vista-Alamosa Refuge

Complex were considered but eliminated from further detailed analysis.

They are:

No Public Access - This Plan would have eliminated all public access to the

Complex with management focused solely on wildlife needs. The Service’s

mission is indeed “wildlife first,” but this does not necessarily call for the

elimination of public activities on Refuges. In fact, the Service mission

encourages wildlife-dependent activities, as mandated by the Refuge

Improvement Act of 1997. This Act requires that wildlife-dependent

activities be considered during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning

process.

No Crane Festival - This alternative would have eliminated the Crane

Festival on the Monte Vista NWR. This is an annual event for which the

Service cooperates with the Monte Vista Crane Festival Committee. There

was some concern that the high level of visitors during the Festival was

disturbing cranes and other wildlife. This alternative was ultimately

eliminated from further consideration because Refuge biologists did not

believe that the Festival has a significant negative impact on cranes or other

wildlife. Visitors are limited to areas that are normally open to the public,

namely the auto tour routes, and generally access crane viewing areas via

guided bus tours conducted by Refuge staff members. In addition, the

Festival provides an excellent environmental education opportunity for

Refuge visitors, provides revenue for the local economy, is renown

throughout the State as a wonderful wildlife experience that cannot be

duplicated elsewhere, and is in keeping with the mandates of the Refuge

Improvement Act of 1997 which states that wildlife-dependent activities will

be considered during the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process.

No Hunting - This alternative was eliminated from further consideration

because the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 requires that wildlifedependent activities be accommodated on Refuges, if deemed compatible

with Refuge purposes and appropriate. Hunting has been deemed compatible

with the purposes of the Monte Vista and Alamosa Refuges and is an

appropriate use of the Refuge lands and resources.
78 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Summary Comparison of Alternatives

No Action Alternative Proposed Alternative

Water

Management

Partially replace wetlands lost in the SLV 

Maximize wildlife benefits by applying

water to wetland vegetation

Preserve existing water rights

Irrigate 510 farm acres

Irrigate dense cover on retired farmland 

Continue very limited monitoring water

application

Same as No Action, plus:

Improve water delivery infrastructure

Improve water use monitoring and assess

impacts to habitat

Improve understanding of Refuge water

rights, Colorado water law, hydrologic

processes (surface and subsurface)

Assess restoration of Spring Creek channel

and hydrology

Rest Some use of long-term rest Same as No Action, plus:

Monitor effects of different rest regimes

Prescribed

Burning

Periodically use prescribed burning based

on visual observation of habitat condition

Control all wildfires

Same as No Action, plus:

Pursue formation of interagency fire team

Institute a monitoring program to collect

quantitative data on habitat condition to

better determine proper use of prescribed

burning in meeting habitat objectives

Prescribed

Grazing

(1995-2002) Only used to study effectiveness

and utility of grazing as a habitat

management tool as part of the Refuge

Compatibility Lawsuit Settlement, 1993.

If current research indicates grazing to have

utility in reaching habitat goals and grazing

practices are determined compatible with

refuge purposes and National

Environmental Policy Act requirements are

satisfied: 1) grazing will be considered as a

management tool, 2) if used a monitoring

program will be implemented, 3) modify

grazing program in response to information

provided by monitoring.

Same as No Action Alternative:

Farming Farm 510 acres to meet caloric and cover

needs of migratory birds

Same as No Action, except:

Test cooperative farming as a means to

meet food needs of migratory birds,

primarily Sandhill cranes.
No Action Alternative Proposed Alternative

Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 79

Cultural

Resources

Protect known archaeological sites Protect known archaeological sites

Conduct sample archaeological inventory of

Refuge lands

Interpret prehistoric use of refuge lands by

humans demonstrating past and current

dependency of humans on natural resources.

Habitat

Protection

Acquire inholdings

Continue to restore and enhance wetlands

and cottonwood/willow riparian habitat in

SLV through Partners for Wildlife Program

Continue participation in Colorado Wetlands

Initiative

Acquire inholdings

Support Rock Creek Heritage Project. 

Continue to restore and enhance wetlands

and cottonwood/willow riparian habitat in

SLV through Partners for Wildlife Program

Continue participation in Colorado Wetlands

Program

Public Use Support waterfowl and small game hunting

No public elk hunting

No fishing, except “Kids Fishing Day”

Support and participate in Monte Vista

Crane Festival

Maintain auto-tour routes

Construct accessible walking tour on Monte

Vista NWR

Hire Outdoor Recreational Planner to

expand and conduct environmental

education and interpretive programs

Support Friends of the San Luis Valley

National Wildlife Refuge

Same as No Action, plus:

Construct Education and Visitor Center at

Monte Vista NWR

Implement cultural resources interpretation

program

Improve hunting experience based on

periodic questioning of hunters and public

input

Construct fully accessible wildlife

observation decks and hunting blinds

Pursue interagency interpretation program

for SLV and surrounding foothills

Hire Assistant Outdoor Recreational

Planner

On Monte Vista NWR - Explore possibility

of seasonal expansion of auto tour route,

wildlife observation sites at Parker Road,

wildlife observation decks along County

Road 3E, observation deck near proposed

Visitor Center

On Alamosa NWR - Explore feasibility of

constructing an observation deck adjacent

to Refuge Headquarters

New interpretive signs and information will

be written in English and Spanish
No Action Alternative Proposed Alternative

80 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Elk

Management

Initiate dispersal hunt when wintering elk

numbers exceed 100

Provide logistical support to agencies

managing elk

Eliminate (or keep at very small numbers)

resident elk

Allow up to 200 wintering elk

Remove fences hazardous to elk

Partner with other land management

agencies to achieve broader elk

management objectives for SLV

Same as No Action, plus

Increase monitoring of elk numbers on both

Alamosa and Monte Vista NWR
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 81

IV. Affected Environment

Geographic/Ecosystem 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. The SLV consists of a 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 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. 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 contains two types of aquifers, the shallow unconfined and the deep

confined, both of which support artesian well flows. 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.

Unconfined groundwater occurs nearly everywhere in the Valley while

confined groundwater occurs under nearly one-half of the Valley (Emery, et

al. 1973).
82 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Refuge Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Uses

Soils and Vegetation

Monte Vista NWR

Three major soil/vegetation association groups comprise the Monte Vista

NWR (USDA, SCS 1980). The extreme western edge of the Refuge is

comprised of the Luhon-Garita-Travelers Association (Foothills Plant

Community) which is very gently sloping to moderately steep, with well

drained to somewhat excessively drained, medium textured to moderately

coarse textured, deep to shallow, cobble and stony soils. The soils were

formed in mixed alluvium and in residuum weathered from basalt. The

vegetation is primarily winterfat, low rabbitbrush, blue grama, Indian

ricegrass, ring muhly, and snakeweed.

The Hooper-Arena-San Luis Association (Salt Desert Shrub Plant

Community) is intermingled throughout most of the Monte Vista NWR. This

association is at the lower end of alluvial fans and on old floodplains on the

valley floor. The topography is nearly level, and moderately fine textured to

coarse textured soils are well to poorly drained. Soils are alkali soils and are

20 to 60 inches deep over sand and gravel. The soils formed in mixed

alluvium. The vegetation on nonirrigated soils is primarily greasewood,

rabbitbrush, alkali sacaton, and saltgrass. 

The Torrifluvents-Torssido-Alamosa Association (Wet Meadow/Marsh/and

Cropland Plant Communities) is the last association and is also intermingled

throughout most of the Refuge. The landscape is nearly level floodplains and

nearly level or very gently sloping alluvial fans and terraces. The soils

formed in mixed alluvium. Soils are excessively to poorly drained and are

moderately coarse to moderately fine textured ranging in depth from 10 to

60 inches deep over sand and gravel, on floodplains, alluvial fans, and

terraces. The vegetation is primarily sedges, rushes, tufted hairgrass,

slender wheatgrass, and alkali sacaton in wet meadows and cattail and

bulrush in marshes. Small grains and alfalfa are recognized irrigated

cropland uses for this soil association.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 83

Alamosa NWR

Three major soil/vegetation associations also make up Alamosa NWR. More

detailed descriptions of these and the many minor soil associations present

on the Refuge can be found in Colorado Field Office Technical Guide, Range

Site Descriptions (USDA, SCS 1975) The eastern part of the Refuge contains

a narrow strip (approximately 900 acres) of Costilla-Space City Association.

These soils are level to gently sloping, very permeable and coarse textured.

They support a desert plant community dominated by small rabbitbrush,

blue grama, Indian ricegrass and limited amounts of greasewood and alkali

sacaton.

Soils in the northern 2,200 acres of the Refuge are in the Hapney-HooperCorlett Association. These soils are level except for a few dunes. They too

are very permeable but have no pattern of surface drainage so surface water

either soaks into the ground, evaporates or transpires. These soils support a

native plant community primarily consisting of greasewood, rabbitbrush,

western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, inland saltgrass, blue grama and

creeping wildrye.

The largest group of soils on the Refuge is the Alamosa-Vastine-Alluvial land

Association. These soils comprise about 7,900 acres of the Rio Grande

floodplain. They are deep, level or undulating and range from fine to coarse

texture. These soils tend to be very saline due to the high water table;

however, most of this area is subject to frequent spring flooding that tends to

flush salt from the soil. Next to the river, these soils support a band of

cottonwood trees and willows with an understory of grasses. Farther from

the river and outside of the tree band these soils support wetland plants

characteristic of the area, including thick stands of sedges, rushes and water

tolerant grasses. Still within this association are areas less frequently flooded

that support greasewood, rabbitbrush, alkali sacaton and inland saltgrass.

Slender spider flower is commonly found throughout this association.
84 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Water

Average annual precipitation in the San Luis Valley is seven inches. Sixty

percent of this falls between July and August, mostly from erratic

thundershowers of short duration. Wide seasonal and yearly variations in

precipitation are common. Mean annual temperature is 42 degrees

Fahrenheit. The average frost-free period is 100 days, from late-May or early

June through early September. Summer daytime temperatures are

frequently in the 80s, but rarely exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit; nights are

cool. Temperatures of minus 20 degrees to minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit can

be expected each year and are common most winters. Temperatures lower

than minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit are frequently recorded. High velocity

winds are common, especially in the spring. Relative humidity is usually low,

but evaporation rates average lower than those of many other dry regions

because of the cool climate. Snow cover may be light and is sometimes

lacking through much of the winter (USDI, BLM 1989).

Excluding precipitation, Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs are affected by

water from four major sources. In addition, some habitat is influenced by

irrigation water applied to non-Refuge lands that flows onto Refuge lands.

Snow Melt (on the SLV floor) 

In some years, surface water is directly obtained from melting snowpack. In

general, however, this on-site generated water results in the saturation of

the wetland soils, which allows these areas to be filled faster in the spring

with water diversions. Usually, not enough direct snow melt is available to

fill wetlands to capacity. 

Rio Grande Water

Water in the Rio Grande headwaters is generated from snowfall in the San

Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Peak river flows usually occur in June

with a peak 40 year average of about 5,348 cubic feet per second (cfs)

measured at Del Norte, Colorado. During some years flows in the Rio

Grande are influenced by July and August Rains.

Use of Rio Grande water is governed by a 1939 compact between the States

of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. This compact also contains water

provisions for Mexico. The compact ensures an equitable amount of river

water to all parties and is the basis for assessing the effects of today’s river

water use.

The Monte Vista Refuge receives irrigation water from the Rio Grande

primarily through the Empire and Monte Vista canals and water draining off

neighboring private lands. Refuge diversions from the Rio Grande average

about 8,500 acre-feet. The primary use of this irrigation water is to maintain

wetland vegetation throughout the Monte Vista Refuge as well as to irrigate

cropland. Water delivery is facilitated by a complicated infrastructure

consisting of over 30 major dikes, more than 100 smaller dikes, over 400

water control structures, and 61 miles of ditches. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 85

Alamosa Refuge is rarely flooded by the Rio Grande due to the extensive use

of water along the 48 irrigation ditch diversions upstream of the Refuge. The

Rio Grande usually leaves its banks annually during the first or second week

of June, flooding only a small area of riparian vegetation for a short period of

time. Since the Alamosa Refuge was established, major floods (those greater

than the annual activity described above) occurred in 1965, 1970, 1979, 1986,

1987, and 1995. If the Rio Grande is typical of other stream systems that are

used for irrigation of arid lands, it floods less frequently due to upstream

diversions but flows are prolonged after the period of summer run while

irrigation water flows back to the River.

Alamosa Refuge receives irrigation water from the Rio Grande primarily

from the Costilla Ditch, the San Luis Ditch, the Chicago Ditch, and the New

Ditch. The Chicago and New Ditch diversions are entirely owned by the

Refuge. The New Ditch Dam is the last dam on the Rio Grande in Colorado.

The past 27 year average annual Refuge diversion of Rio Grande water is

13,750 acre-feet. The primary use of this water is to irrigate wetland

vegetation throughout Refuge bottomlands. Water delivery is facilitated by

two major dikes, 20 smaller dikes, over 200 water control structures, and 5

major canals.

In the mid-1980s, a major thrust toward recharging groundwater in the SLV

was initiated. At present, from November 1 to January 1, six major irrigation

companies can divert and hold Rio Grande water in their canals to assist in

recharging groundwater. These winter diversions can only be made when

River water is not needed to meet Rio Grande Compact obligations. The

Monte Vista and Empire Canals are two of the six irrigation canals in the

recharge program. In 1994, with cooperation of private landowners, the

Refuges, and SLV Water Conservancy District, an old gravel pit located

adjacent to Monte Vista Refuge’s west boundary was equipped as a

groundwater recharge pit. The overall groundwater recharge effort was a

big step in supporting the economic, social, and ecological stability of the

SLV.
86 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Pumped and Artesian Well Water

Monte Vista Refuge has about 220 small (2 to 6 inch diameter casing)

artesian wells. Most of these wells no longer flow; but those that do flow

provide excellent small (less than one acre) wetland areas. It also contains

three large (16 inch diameter casing) artesian wells. These wells, adjudicated

for an average flow of about 1,800 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) each, provide

water to support wetlands throughout the Refuge. In addition, the Refuge

contains 21 large pumped wells with an average adjudicated flow of about

1,700 g.p.m. each which also support the Refuge’s wetlands and croplands.

Most of these pumped wells were artesian when first drilled; however, by the

mid-1960s, most artesian flow ceased and pumps were installed on the wells

to provide water for the Refuge’s wetlands.

Almost all of Monte Vista Refuge’s artesian wells cease flow during the

summer months when maximum pumped well-use is required for irrigation

both on and off the Refuge. The massive increase in pumping of groundwater

in the 1960s resulted in the loss of Spring Creek, a large free-flowing spring

on the Refuge. Spring Creek historically flowed up to 8,000 g.p.m., but after

the mid-1960s, natural spring flows never returned. It is estimated that the

decline in flow of all artesian springs in the SLV has amounted to about

22,000 acre-feet per year (Emery, et al. 1973).

The Alamosa NWR has 53 artesian wells within its boundaries. Most of these

wells flow about 10 to 30 g.p.m. and create very small (less than one acre)

wetlands. The Refuge also contains the largest artesian well in the SLV, the

Mumm Well. This well is adjudicated for a flow of 2,860 g.p.m. with total use

not to exceed 1,541 acre-feet per year. The well is about 2,000 feet deep and

the water temperature is about 85 degrees Fahrenheit. The Mumm Well

provides water to support wetlands throughout the southern two-thirds of

the Refuge.

In the late-1960s and early-1970s, the Colorado Division of Water Resources

began actively enforcing Colorado Division III Water Court well water

decrees. This enforcement required landowners with only irrigation season

legal decrees to restrict well flows during the nonirrigation (winter) season,

which helped maintain the overall integrity of SLV aquifers.

In 1972, a moratorium for the construction of any wells, other than exempt

domestic-type wells, was placed on the entire SLV for all of the confined

(deep) aquifer and the areas of the unconfined (shallow) aquifer south of the

hydrological divide which lays just north of the Rio Grande. In 1981, due to

decreased groundwater levels, the area north of the hydrologic divide in the

unconfined aquifer had a well construction moratorium placed on it as well.

Therefore, since 1981, no well construction permits for new water

appropriations, other than exempt domestic-types, have been issued

throughout the entire SLV.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 87

Bureau of Reclamation Closed Basin Water Project

Alamosa NWR receives some mitigation water from a U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation water salvage program in the closed basin, an area north of the

Rio Grande that has no water outlet. In the mid-1980s, the Closed Basin

Division of the Bureau began construction on the San Luis Valley Project,

authorized by Congress in 1972. The project is designed to salvage

groundwater that was believed to be lost to the atmosphere and/or consumed

by vegetation that did not offer a monetary benefit (greasewood) and deliver

it south to the Rio Grande. Over 150 shallow pumped wells were drilled to

remove water from the unconfined aquifer. Salvaged water is moved into a

canal that eventually runs through Alamosa NWR and empties into the Rio

Grande. This water is used to assist Colorado in meeting its water delivery

obligations to downstream users (New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico). As part

of the requirement to mitigate for wetlands lost through the operation of the

project, the Alamosa NWR receives an annual allotment that varies

depending upon level of Closed Basin Project operations. This water is used

to facilitate wetland management on all but 1,500 acres of the Refuge. 

Groundwater

Refuge groundwater levels range from about 6 inches to 6 feet below the

surface. The high groundwater table affects overall vegetation in this high

mountain desert and is partially related to the amount and timing of

irrigation water applied to Refuge lands as well as lands throughout the

SLV. Two major SLV groundwater drainage ditches, the Bowen and Parma

Drains, flow through Monte Vista Refuge and also supply water to the

Refuge. The Parma Drain terminates in Rock Creek as it flows through

Monte Vista refuge. The drains were dug in the early-1900s to facilitate

cropland farming by lowering high groundwater levels.

Groundwater levels in the San Luis Valley have likely changed over history

as a result of surface and groundwater rights development. Very little data

exists that describes this change, especially those that are site specific. A

goal of Valley water regulators and managers is to provide water users a

yield that can be sustained from both the confined and unconfined aquifer.

The Rio Grande Water Conservation District monitors groundwater levels in

the unconfined aquifer. Currently long-term concerns over dropping water

tables exists in a few areas in the Valley where groundwater is not used in

conjunction with surface water. This practice minimizes the amount of

unconfined aquifer recharge. By 1900, over 1,000 wells had been drilled into

the confined or artesian aquifer. By 1970 that number increased to over

7,000. At the time of establishment all wells on Monte Vista Refuge were

free flowing due to artesian pressure, and Spring Creek was flowing from

springs issuing from the west side of the Refuge. Spring Creek stopped

flowing in the 1960s and the number of free flowing wells has dropped since

then. In the early 1970s the State Engineer, in a successful effort to stabilize

artesian pressure, placed a moratorium on new wells in to the confined

aquifer. (Steve Vandiver, pers comm) 
88 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Plant Communities (Habitat Types)

The various vegetation associations found on the Complex were described

and divided into 11 plant communities during the original habitat goal and

objectives setting meetings in 1996. This team included a group of biologists

and ecologists from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Service,

Colorado Division of Wildlife, representatives from non-government

organizations, and Dr. Leigh Fredrickson.

Plant Communities Described During 1996 Goal Setting Meeting:

Upland shrub Tall-emergent 

Cattail Bulrush

Short-emergent Baltic rush

Spikerush/carex Saltgrass

Shallow seasonal water (no vegetation) Semipermanent wetland

Riparian Riverine

Dense cover (planted by Refuge staff) Agriculture

Annuals (kochia, chenopodiums, spikerush, foxtail, barley)

Since 1996, these plant or habitat types have been used in setting goals and

objectives, in the development of a habitat map for the Alamosa NWR, and

in the day-to-day work done on the Complex. Through time, some

modifications have been made in the list of habitat types. (See Map 8 - Monte

Vista NWR Habitat Types and Map 9 - Alamosa NWR Habitat Types.)

Plant Communities (Habitat Types) Currently Used (2001)

Upland shrub Tall-emergent

Short-emergent Saltgrass

Shallow seasonal wetland Shortgrass

Riparian Semipermanent wetland 

Agriculture Riverine

A habitat map was developed in 2000 for the Monte Vista NWR. Based on

the field experience of Dr. Fredrickson’s staff and Refuge staff since 1996,

nine habitat types were used for this project. The nine are similar to the

original list, except that semipermanent and shallow seasonal wetlands were

mapped as open water and the “annual plant” category was not used.

The U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) system has recently

been adopted for use on all national wildlife refuges in an effort to

standardize vegetation monitoring and mapping. Most of the habitat mapping

efforts on the Complex were done before the adoption of this methodology

but most of it can and will be cross-walked into the USNVC system. 

On Monte Vista NWR, most of the wetland basins are man-made with a

design common to many managed wetland areas. At one or two sides is a

“borrow area” where dirt was removed or borrowed to form the dike or

levee. The resulting borrow area is the lowest portion of the wetland basin.

From the borrow area, the elevation gradually increases until it becomes

upland. The result is a zone of elevation changes which, depending on natural

events and management actions, provides an array of water depths and

vegetation conditions. Through the season or at any one time, an

impoundment often contains several habitat types. Natural wetland basins

on the Alamosa NWR are similar to impoundments in that a gradient of

elevations occur, and thus several habitat types may be available based on

water conditions.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 89
90 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 91

The following is a description of the habitat types currently in use: 

Shallow Seasonal Wetlands

On the Refuge complex, this habitat type usually consists of temporary,

shallow water over the alkali or mudflat portions of a wetland or greasewood

uplands that are seasonally flooded. These wetlands are defined by seasonal,

shallow (<one foot) water with little to no vegetation. The existence of this

habitat type depends upon water availability, either as water is added to a

wetland basin in the spring or as it recedes during late summer. On the

Complex, this habitat primarily exists at the shallow ends of gradually

sloping semipermanent wetlands. Due to the warmer temperatures of the

shallow water and nutrient recycling which occurs during the dry cycles

these newly flooded areas often support higher densities and varieties of

invertebrates. As a result, this habitat type supports the majority of foraging

shorebirds on the Complex as well as several foraging waterfowl species,

waders, rail and duck and water bird broods, and others. This habitat type

also exists when upland areas usually dominated by greasewood with little to

no plant understory are flooded. Soil has usually accumulated around the

bases of greasewood plants which are usually dead due to previous flooding,

forming small unvegetated islands which remain above the water. These

hummocks provide nesting sites for American avocets while the surrounding

shallow water areas provide foraging sites for many bird species. 

Semipermanent Wetlands

This wetland type is characterized by deeper (usually greater than one foot

in depth), more permanent water and is generally vegetated by submergent

plants such as Potamogeton, mare’s tail, and spyrogyra algae. This habitat

type occurs in the deepest portion of the wetland which in most cases on the

Complex is in the borrow areas adjacent to the levees. These areas are

usually between 1 to 15 acres in size. This habitat provides foraging

opportunities for water birds (grebes, coots, waterfowl and their broods) and

aerial foragers (swallows, terns) and cover to molting waterfowl and water

bird (ducks, coots, geese, and grebes) broods. These areas also support piedbilled grebe and occasionally western and eared grebe nesting colonies..

Some areas, because of their permanent nature, support rough fish, notably

carp, and have in recent years been used by non-breeding white pelicans in

the summer. When possible, these areas are dried periodically

(approximately every 7 years) to control rough fish and promote annual plant

growth on exposed mudflats. Examples of this habitat type is Parker Pond

(Unit 17), Bowen Pond on Monte Vista NWR and Unit O on Alamosa NWR.

Tall-Emergent Vegetation

Associated with deeper water, usually greater than one foot and

semipermanent to permanent in nature. Cattails, bulrush, and at Alamosa

NWR, phragmites are the dominant plant species. This vegetation can occur

along the edges of levees and canals; as large contiguous patches, islands or

along water edges in semipermanent wetlands. Areas where bulrush occurs

as islands within semipermanent water support small to large nesting

colonies of white-faced ibis, snowy and cattle egret and black-crowned night

heron. Tall-emergent areas provide critical nesting habitat for diving ducks,

and in many cases even mallards, Canada geese, American bittern, and

marsh passerines such as marsh wrens, common yellowthroats, and yellowheaded blackbirds. Often northern harriers and short-eared owls nest in

downed or residual patches of tall emergent vegetation. When this habitat

type occurs in shallow, more seasonal water and is associated with carex

edges, it is important to rail species and nesting dabbling ducks such as

mallards and teal.
92 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Short-Emergent Vegetation

This habitat type, also referred to as wet meadow or upland meadow, is

characterized by grasses and grass-like plants and is seasonally and

shallowly (less than one foot) flooded. The dominant species within shortemergent plant communities are cool season plants that require water early

in the growing season (i.e., March). Three subcategories occur of shortemergent vegetation: native grasses and rushes, spike rush, and sedges. The

timing of flooding determines whether the community is dominated by

rushes or grasses, whereas soil richness and other factors including water

seasonality determines sedge occurrence. 

The majority of the short-emergent habitat on the Complex and on

neighboring lands is the grass and rush subcategory which is dominated by

baltic rush. Other species may also be very common including spike rush,

alkali muhly, curly dock, Calimagrostis, foxtail barley, and short-awn foxtail.

Many species of forbs may exist. Among the most common are New Mexico

checkermallow, American vetch, clovers, wild licorice, herbaceous

cinquefoils, western yarrow, goldenpea, and gentian. Interspersions of tallemergent vegetation, cattail and bulrush, begin to occur when seasonality of

water is lost or given way toward permanence. 

Due to the variety of vegetational structural within this transitional

community (short-emergent and tall-emergent vegetation) provides the life

cycle requirements for many avian species but it is extremely difficult to

maintain. Slender spider flower, a species of State concern, may occur along

the transition zone between short-emergent and salt grass communities. This

habitat type is also most susceptible to invasion by noxious species such as

tall whitetop and Canada thistle. Other species most likely to invade the site

and increase from trace amounts to dominance are foxtail barley, rabbitsfoot

grass, dandelion, and curly dock (Dixon 1986). 

The grass/rush subcategory can become very dense and provide structure for

ground-nesting birds; therefore, it supports a variety of species on the

Complex from nesting mallards, small marsh birds, Northern harriers, and

short-eared owls to foraging white-faced ibis. The spike rush subcategory

provides excellent invertebrate habitat; and therefore, provides foraging

habitat for waterfowl broods, white-faced ibis, Wilson’s phalaropes and

common snipe. Sedge subcategories provide for nesting and foraging teal and

rail species. 

Saltgrass

This habitat is usually associated with alkali soils in a variety of hydrologic

conditions and is dominated by salt tolerant grass species such as inland

saltgrass, alkali sacaton, alkali muhly, and alkali grass. It can contain

scattered greasewood and rabbitbrush plants. When higher soil moisture

occurs, large amounts of slender spiderflower appear. This habitat type is

rarely impacted by invasive species, probably due to the high salinity (Dixon

1986). When shallowly flooded, the resulting brackish waters are warmer in

temperature and support high invertebrate growth providing food for

shorebirds, teal, northern shovelers, and others. It also provides cover for

small shorebirds and nesting waterfowl. When dry, this habitat type

supports many grass nesting species such as Savannah and vesper sparrows,

and when combined with greasewood supports nesting mourning doves and

sage thrashers. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 93

Short Grass

This habitat type is comprised of a variety of plant species most of which are

also found in short-emergent wetlands and in saltgrass, however, it is usually

not dominated by either group and is a real mix of plant species such as alkali

muhly, alkali sacaton, hoary cress, silverweed cinquefoil, silver sage, wild iris

and wild licorice. Short grass is a grass upland habitat occurring on drier,

more upland sites than wetland communities and often occurs as

“hummocks” within wetlands and oxbows, and is most prevalent on the

Alamosa NWR. In the past this habitat type has been called saltgrass but the

short grass category occurs on soils with less salinity, is not dominated by

salt tolerant species, and is usually not flooded like salt grass can be. This

habitat type is often a transition zone and when that is the case it can contain

scattered individuals of rabbitbrush and greasewood. Wildlife use of this

habitat type is not well documented although some species of ducks, sparrow

species, meadowlarks and other ground-nesting migratory birds use it for

breeding purposes. It also provides cover to small mammals. 

Upland Shrub

The upland shrub community consists of sub-categories based on the shrub

species and understory vegetation. This habitat includes the drier areas

(rarely flooded) dominated by greasewood in areas of tighter and more alkali

soil and rabbitbrush in looser and sandier soils. At higher elevations with

sandy soils, the community is dominated by Indian rice grass with an

intermix of alkali sacaton and four-wing saltbush. In higher elevations with

tighter soils, winterfat, fringed sage and blue grama dominant. The upland

shrub areas of the Complex primarily support greasewood and rabbitbrush;

however, the eastern edge of the Alamosa NWR contains areas of four-wing

saltbush and Indian ricegrass, and the foothills along the western boundary

of the Monte Vista NWR supports primarily winterfat. Currently there is

little information on the wildlife use of this habitat on the refuge as other

habitat types because traditionally monitoring efforts have focused on

wetland and associated habitats. Species of sparrows, mourning doves, and

sage thrashers have been observed nesting in upland shrub. 

Riparian

This habitat type includes vegetation associated with and along rivers or

waterway edges. Crack willow, sandbar willow and broad-leafed cottonwood

comprise the overstory. The understory can contain a variety of shortgrass

and short-emergent species such as: sedges, curly dock, western wheatgrass,

cinquefoil, and others. The majority of riparian habitat on the Complex is

along the Rio Grande on the Alamosa NWR. This strip of habitat supports

nesting and migrating passerines and raptors, as well as providing habitat

for amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and deer. The southwestern willow

flycatcher, an endangered subspecies of the willow flycatcher, has been

documented nesting in relatively high numbers in the riparian habitat on the

Alamosa NWR (Owen and Sogge 1997).
94 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Riverine

This habitat type includes plant and wildlife species in the river channel itself

but does not include the adjacent vegetation which is usually classified as

riparian. The only place on the Complex where riverine occurs is within the

Rio Grande as it flows through the Alamosa NWR (approximately 7 river

miles). River flows through the refuge are inconsistent and can even be so

reduced as to produce mere puddles within the channel. Therefore, the

fisheries is fairly limited to carp, occasional northern pike and various species

of minnows. During electro-shocking efforts on the Alamosa NWR in the

mid-1990s no trout species, native or nonnative were detected (refuge files).

Fishing is not allowed on the refuges due primarily to the lack of a consistent

fishery. 

Bird use of the river through the Alamosa NWR includes wintering Common

mergansers, foraging greater and lesser yellowlegs in the fall when flows are

low and mudflats are exposed, Canada geese and various duck species in the

fall, winter, and early spring when the river is ice-free, and a few hundred

roosting sandhill cranes in the spring and fall. In the past this habitat type

has not gotten much management nor monitoring attention because there

were no pressing issues. However, in about the last 2 years, the noxious

weed, Eurasian Milfoil has become prevalent in portions of the Rio Grande,

including some portions of the Alamosa NWR. 

Plant Species Requiring Special Consideration

Within the previously described plant communities, a few individual plant

species require special attention because of low population numbers, status

as a noxious weed or their ability to become monotypic and thus a

management concern under certain conditions. 

Monte Vista NWR supports “good examples” of a globally and State periled

plant species (slender spiderflower) and a State periled species (giant burreed) and three plant communities vulnerable on a global scale. The plant

communities include wet meadow (Carex simulata), saline bottomland

shrublands (Sarcobatus vermiculatus/Sporobolus airodies), and common

three-square emergent wetland/wet meadow (Scirpus pungens) (Rocchio, et

al. 2000). These three communities are fairly common on both refuges but

primarily the Monte Vista NWR. Information is currently being collected to

better understand the justification for being defined as vulnerable on a global

scale and to gain management recommendations in order to ensure the

existence of these communities on the refuge complex. 

Slender Spiderflower

Slender spiderflower (Cleome multicaulis) ranges from southern Wyoming

to Mexico; however, despite this fairly extensive range, populations have

decreased dramatically in the last 100 years, especially in the southwestern

states. The SLV has the most numerous, largest, and healthiest population in

the world (Rocchio, et al. 2000). This species has not been documented in

New Mexico or Arizona since the 1940s; some occurrences are in Texas and

Mexico while Wyoming only has one. This forb is limited by very specific

habitat requirements including moist alkaline soils and some form of soil

disturbance. The fairly common occurrence of this plant on Monte Vista

NWR is one of the primary reasons why the Refuge and some adjacent

private lands were ranked as one of the 19 most important wetland sites in

Rio Grande and Conejos counties by the Nature Conservancy (Rocchio, et al.

2000). On Monte Vista NWR the plant is found in the transition zones

between wet meadows and salt desert shrub communities. This zone is very

saline, relatively bare and very moist. Inland saltgrass is usually associated

with this site.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 95

Giant Bur-reed

According to the nature conservancy’s biological inventory of Rio Grande

County (Rocchio, et al. 2000), giant bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum) is a

state imperiled species which is primarily found on the eastern plains as well

as the SLV, including the MVNWR. (Rocchio, et al. 2000). This is a stout,

perennial herb, usually 0.5-1.5 m in height flowering in June and July. Giant

bur reed is a persistent emergent and is characteristic of silty, fertile waters.

It is used by muskrats and the seeds are commonly eaten by waterfowl and

marsh birds (Eggers and Reed 1997).The location of this species has not been

mapped nor it’s abundance quantified, however, incidental observations of it

are common especially on the Monte Vista NWR. 

Willows and Cottonwood

On the Refuges, the riparian community consists primarily of crack willow

(Salix fraglis), sandbar willow (Salix exiqua), and narrow leaf cottonwoods

(Populus angustifolia) with an understory of grasses, sedges, and forbs.

Protecting, maintaining, and enhancing riparian vegetation is a priority for

refuge managers because it is a limited yet critical habitat in the western

United States and in the San Luis Valley, and it supports a myriad of wildlife

species, notably the endangered subspecies of the southwestern willow

flycatcher. This neotropical migrant nests in dense stands of mixed willow

species that are usually near or immersed in water, at least during nest

initiation. As a result, all tall and dense stands of willows and cottonwoods

will be treated as if it were southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 

Monte Vista NWR has a limited amount of riparian habitat; sandbar willows

line many of the water delivery canals and small patches of the same species

are located in low lying areas. The Alamosa NWR, however, has riparian

habitat along the Rio Grande which supports many nesting, migrating, and

resting migratory birds including the endangered race of the southwestern

willow flycatcher. The oxbows and water delivery canals within Alamosa

NWR support willows and a few cottonwoods. Some cottonwood

regeneration, or seedling establishment, is occurring on Alamosa NWR;

however, since these species depend on the river flooding for establishment,

and flooding frequency has been reduced, overall tree establishment is

infrequent. Beaver have also had an impact on older trees by cutting them

down. The Refuge staff is interested in investigating techniques to promote

and possibly expand riparian habitat on the Alamosa NWR through

irrigation and other means.

Cattail

Cattail (Typha latifolia) is fairly common on the Complex primarily due to

the water permanence in many wetlands which in some locations is a water

management decision. Under certain situations, this species can become

dominate resulting in large monotypic stands on both refuge. Muskrat

foraging on cattails is usually insufficient to create openings in some of these

vegetation-choked wetlands. In conjunction with appropriate water depths,

cattail and other tall-emergent vegetation, such as bulrush, provide nesting

habitat for American bittern, diving ducks, and several species of passerine

birds. Refuge managers must evaluate when cattail has become too

prevalent and determine if the wetland types available to wildlife are

becoming limited due to the presence of monocultures. When cattail

monocultures are not offering wildlife habitat or are too numerous relative to

other wetlands on the Complex and in the San Luis Valley, then

management tools such as winter grazing, burning, and others are used to

decrease this community.
96 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Phragmites

This perennial wetland grass occurs only on the Alamosa NWR as an

extensive and monotypic which extends on the eastern side of the Refuge

from the middle (Mumm Well) to the southern end. This stand has replaced

the marsh and wet meadow vegetation in approximately 600 acres which

would otherwise be occupied by primarily cattail and bulrush. Refuge staff

assume that these monocultures of phragmites (Phragmites phragmites)

support fewer wildlife species than other tall-emergent vegetation, and is,

therefore, a concern to refuge managers. 

Tall Whitetop or Perennial Pepperweed

This noxious weed is a perennial forb from southeastern Europe and western

Asia. The plant is very competitive and adaptive, and as a result, has become

established throughout the western United States becoming a serious land

management and conservation issue. This species is very tolerant of soil

salinity and thrives under an array of hydrological conditions. Tall whitetop

is well adapted to riparian and wetland areas and threatens native hay and

forage production. In riparian zones it interferes with regeneration of

willows and cottonwoods and in wetland areas the composition and

productivity of herbaceous species is radically changed (Young, et al. 1995).

This tall (3 to 4 feet) weed grows and reproduces vigorously and is capable of

forming dense mono-cultures. Tall whitetop started becoming established in

the early 1950s (Harrington 1954), and now, to some degree, occurs in all of

the Refuges’ short-emergent communities (wet meadows). 

On the Complex, tall whitetop occurs in varying degrees in most habitat

types but is most prevalent in short-emergent vegetation, where it can occur

as sparse to dominate. This species is found along roads, dikes, and other

disturbed areas. This weed decreases the quality and quantity of wildlife

habitat. It is a concern to Refuge neighbors and local weed boards; therefore,

the control of this weed is a critical issue in refuge management and it is the

focus of an intensive 5 year research project by Dr. Leigh Fredrickson on the

Complex. 

Canada Thistle

This creeping perennial is a noxious weed that reproduces from vegetative

buds in its root system and from seed. Due to the extensive root system with

vast nutrient stores, it is difficult to control. On the Complex, it is fairly

common in upland and grassland areas as well as disturbed areas. The

infestation of this species is similar to that of tall whitetop on the Complex

except that thistle exists in a slightly more narrow range of hydrological

conditions. Currently, no monotypic stands of thistle occur on either Refuge

but it is a species of concern for refuge managers due to its degradation of

habitat and because it is a large concern of the county weed boards and

neighbors. 

Russian Knapweed

This weed is a nonnative, herbaceous perennial that reproduces from seed

and vegetative root buds. This weed forms dense, single species stands over

time due to its allelopathic capabilities and competition. Russian knapweed is

found throughout the west under various conditions but in Colorado it is not

restricted to certain soil types. On the Complex this species is found in or

near agriculture fields, along roads and levees and in some upland grass

habitats. Currently this weed has not formed large monotypic stands;

however, efforts will be taken to minimize its distribution and spread on the

Refuge and onto neighboring lands. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 97

Eurasian Watermilfoil 

This submergent species has been found on the Rio Grande and at the

terminal end of the Closed Basin Canal on the Alamosa NWR. The discovery

and accurate identification of this noxious plant occurred in the late 1990s by

the Alamosa County weed board. To date, no control methods have been

enacted in the San Luis Valley. The Refuge staff maintains close

communication with the weed board regarding this species and will

cooperate with appropriate control methods when suggested.

Agriculture

Agricultural habitat does not occur on the Alamosa NWR. The Monte Vista

NWR contains approximately 750 acres of agricultural fields. Of these, 510

acres are annually farmed in a 5 year crop-rotation; 3 years alfalfa and 2

years of small grains (barley and wheat). The majority of this annually

farmed ground (462 acres) is located under four large center pivot sprinkler

systems ranging in size from 71 acres to 147 acres. The remaining 48 acres

are flood irrigated using siphon tubes. This component of the agricultural

habitat is managed to provide a food source primarily for migrating sandhill

and whooping cranes as well as for migrating and wintering waterfowl.

Approximately 240 acres of this habitat type is planted into semipermanent

cover and is actively farmed on a 4 to 6 year schedule. These areas, all of

which are flood irrigated, contain a variety of plant species usually containing

a grass mix, such as intermediate wheatgrass (for structure) and forb (such

as alfalfa or clover) for density. These areas are managed to provide

breeding and winter cover for a variety of migratory and resident birds,

resident small mammals and large ungulates, primarily deer. 
98 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Wildlife

Historically, the SLV was rich in wildlife with numerous herds of antelope,

elk, and deer and abundant small game, waterfowl, and water birds.

The Complex supports many groups of nesting, migrating, and wintering

birds including grebes, herons, ibis, ducks, geese, hawks, eagles, falcons,

shorebirds, owls, songbirds, and others. Approximately 11 species of ducks

nest on the Refuges, and Monte Vista NWR has one of the highest number of

duck nests per acre in North America (Gilbert, et al. 1996). The Complex also

supports many species of nesting water birds, shorebirds, and songbirds

including the largest nesting colony of white-faced ibis in Colorado. American

avocets, black-necked stilts, common snipe, spotted sandpipers and Wilson’s

phalarope nest on the Complex as do American bittern, sora, and Virginia

rails. The Refuges are also important staging areas for many migrating

birds. Approximately 95 percent of the Rocky Mountain population of

greater sandhill cranes spend several weeks in the Valley during the spring

and fall migrations feeding and resting to replace critical fat reserves.

Wintering bald eagles are very abundant at the Alamosa NWR as well as

wintering ferruginous hawks and short-eared owls. 

Many species of mammals use the Refuges including elk, deer, coyote,

porcupine, rabbits, beaver, muskrats, weasels, and others. The SLV is a cold

desert and, as such, supports a limited number of amphibians and snakes;

however, tiger salamanders, garter snakes, and chorus frogs are abundant on

the Refuges. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally Listed Endangered Species Using the Refuge Complex 

Whooping Cranes (Grus americana)

While rare, whooping cranes were commonly observed in the SLV and on the

Monte Vista NWR during spring and fall migrations up until 2001. Shallow

water wetlands and wet meadows provided roosting, resting, and some

feeding habitat for whooping cranes while migrating through the Valley.

Similar to sandhill cranes, these birds fed on privately owned small grain

fields during the fall migration and agriculture fields on the Monte Vista

NWR during spring migration. However, as of March 2002, only one

whooping crane is left in the Rocky Mountain flyway (Tom Stehn, pers

comm, 2002).

The whooping crane using the Monte Vista NWR and the SLV is the

remnant of experiments to test various reintroduction methods. In 1975, all

of the world’s wild whooping cranes belonged to one flock which wintered

along the Texas Coast (Aransas NWR) and breed in Wood Buffalo National

Park in Canada. It was recognized that survival prospects for the whooping

crane would be greatly enhanced by establishing additional, disjunct

populations (USFWS 1994). As a long-lived species, cranes must learn

migration routes and other behaviors from their parents. The technique

which seemed most worthy of consideration was cross-fostering whooping

cranes to sandhill crane foster parents (USFWS 1994).

The Rocky Mountains are on the western periphery of historic whooping

crane habitat and are home to the greater sandhill crane which numbers

about 20,0000 birds (USFWS 1998). The Rocky Mountain population (RMP)

of greater sandhill cranes primarily breed in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana

and winter in the middle and lower Rio Grande Valleys of New Mexico and

Mexico. During the fall and spring migrations almost the entire population

(95 percent) spends several weeks feeding and resting in the SLV (USFWS

1998). 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 99

In 1975, a cross-fostering experiment between RMP sandhill cranes and

whooping cranes was initiated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the

Canadian Wildlife Service to test if sandhill cranes would raise young

whooping cranes and to test if the juvenile whooping cranes would

successfully learn and subsequently use the migration route (USFWS 1994).

Eggs from the wild population at Wood Buffalo National Park and from

captive flocks were transferred to greater sandhill crane nests at Grays Lake

NWR in Idaho. Grays Lake NWR had many features which made it an

excellent site to test cross-fostering techniques, including a large number of

successfully breeding sandhill cranes (USFWS 1994). In the 15 year

program, 289 whooping crane eggs were transplanted to greater sandhill

crane nests of which 210 hatched and 85 survived to flight stage. The crossfostered flock of whooping cranes reached a high of 33 whooping cranes in

the winter of 1985 (USFWS 1994). 

The project was successful in that the cross-fostered whooping cranes

migrated with the RMP sandhill crane flock for many years, and used the

SLV during migration. By 1989, however, the absence of pairing and

subsequent lack of reproduction was suspected to be due in part to improper

sexual imprinting (USFWS 1994) which has also been observed in other

foster-reared species such as raptors, waterfowl, gulls and other birds (Bird,

et al. 1985 and Immelimann 1972 as cited in USFWS 1994). The program was

discontinued in 1989 based on the lack of pairing and reproduction, prolonged

drought on the summer area, and the high mortality (USFWS 1994). Known

causes of mortality within the cross-fostered whooping crane population

were collisions with powerlines, and fences (Brown, et al. 1987 as cited in

USFWS 1994), disease (Snyder et al. 1987, 1992 and Stroud et al. 1986 as

cited in USFWS 1994), avian predators (Windingstad et al. 1981 as cited in

USFWS 1994) and other causes. In 1989 the U.S. and Canadian Whooping

Crane Recovery Team decided that the Rocky Mountain area was no longer

going to be considered as a primary reintroduction site due to the high

mortality and lack of reproduction.

The Rocky Mountain cross-fostered whooping crane population has been

steadily decreasing since it’s high point in 1985. In 1992, 12 cranes were left

and that number decreased to four in January 1995 (three females and one

male). Two whooping cranes died, one in spring 1998 and one in spring 2000,

resulting from collisions with power lines while in the San Luis Valley.

Currently, there is one whooping crane left from this project that summers

at Red Rock Lakes NWR in Montana.

In October of 1992, the first and only evidence of a whooping-sandhill crane

hybrid in the wild was observed in the San Luis Valley. In March 2000, this

hybrid crane continued to winter in the Rio Grande Valley, migrate through

the San Luis Valley and summer in Idaho and Wyoming. However, it was not

seen during the 2000 summer or subsequent season and is listed as a

mortality (Tom Stehn, pers comm, 2001). 
100 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Since cross-fostered whooping cranes may have improperly imprinted on

sandhill cranes, experiments were begun to test techniques to teach captivereared cranes appropriate migratory routes and wintering areas. If

successful, these methods would be used to reintroduce whooping cranes into

appropriate places. In the spring of 1995, eleven RMP sandhill crane chicks

were hatched and hand-raised on a ranch south of Gray’s Lake NWR, Idaho.

As the cranes developed, they were conditioned to associate with and follow

an ultra-light aircraft. During the fall migration, the young cranes were led

by the ultra-light aircraft from the breeding grounds to traditional wintering

grounds on the Bosque del Apache NWR in the middle Rio Grande Valley of

New Mexico. The ultra-light cranes spent the winter among thousands of

wild members of their species in hopes that they would migrate north with

the wild birds during the subsequent spring migration. Four of the original

11 ultra-light sandhill cranes survived the winter and in the spring of 1996

migrated through the SLV and on to the breeding grounds. 

The ultra-light project continued with sandhill cranes until 1997 when four

whooping cranes were also reared and trained to follow the aircraft to New

Mexico. Two of the ultra-light whooping cranes survived the 1997-1998

winter at Bosque del Apache NWR and migrated north in the spring of 1998.

These birds were captured in north-eastern Colorado and released at

Yellowstone National Park where they spent the summer. In the fall of 1998,

both of these whooping cranes successfully migrated to Bosque del Apache

NWR. In the spring of 1999 both whooping cranes began migrating north.

One was later found dead in Utah. The remaining ultra-light whooping crane

successfully made it to the summering grounds in 1999, and it continues to

winter in the middle Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and migrate through

the SLV. 

The ultra-light project illustrated that whooping cranes could be raised in

captivity and taught the migratory path. However, the 1997 ultra-light

project was a 1 year experiment to test a reintroduction technique and was

not meant as the first stage of a reintroduction (Tom Stehn, pers comm 2000).

After the project was completed it was not continued due to the biological

hazards and political issues in the Rocky Mountain area and the Recovery

Team’s shift of focus to the eastern U.S. (Tom Stehn, pers comm 2001).

Subsequently there will be no more attempts to reintroduce whooping cranes

into the area. 

In 1997, the Rocky Mountain population of whooping cranes was declared

nonessential experimental under Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act.

However, when on the refuges they are considered as threatened. (Tom

Stehn, pers comm 2001). 

In March of 2002, throughout the United States and Canada, there were 278

whooping cranes belonging to three wild populations (RMP [1], TexasCanada [174], and Kisimmee Prairie, Florida [98], and Wisconsin/Florida [5])

and an additional 121 in captivity (Tom Stehn, Whooping Crane Recovery

Team). 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 101

Southwestern Willow Flycatchers (Empidonax traillii extrimus)

Willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) are a small neotropical songbird and

are fairly abundant in the willow-cottonwood corridor along the Rio Grande

on the Alamosa NWR, and in other riparian habitats within the Valley. The

species has four or five recognized subspecies, including the southwestern

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extrimus), which was listed as

endangered in 1995 (USFWS 1995). Arizona, New Mexico, and California

comprise the core of the southwestern willow flycatcher’s historic and

current range (Owen and Sogge 1997). Southwestern Colorado may have been

used by breeding extrimus but nesting records are lacking (USFWS 1995).

Determining the boundaries of extrimus’ range has been difficult due to

many factors including the limited number of museum specimens from some

regions including southwestern Colorado (Paxton 2000), the difficulty in

separating breeders from migrants in many areas, and the lack of data on

willow flycatchers in south-central Colorado (Owen and Sogge 1997). In

general, extrimus nests in dense stands of mixed willow species which are

near water or are temporarily flooded at least during nest initiation. 

Genetic studies have recently been underway to evaluate the genetic

composition of willow flycatchers including those captured in the SLV. A

1996-1997 study conducted by the Colorado Plateau Field Station (Owen and

Sogge 1997) evaluated the number, location, and extent of willow flycatcher

breeding sites and analyzed genetic characteristics of willow flycatchers at

20 sites in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Nevada and five sites in

Colorado including the Alamosa NWR and McIntrye Springs (Owen and

Sogge 1997). The results suggest that considerable genetic diversity exists

within the extrimus subspecies and within local breeding sites (Busch, et al.

2000). Another study examined the molecular genetic structuring of willow

flycatchers throughout their range and the results indicate that the

flycatchers sampled on the Alamosa NWR and McIntrye Springs (managed

by the BLM) belong to the endangered extrimus subspecies. Southwestern

Colorado, however, proved to be the intergrade zone between the extrimus

and the northern neighboring subspecies E.t. adatmus (Paxton 2000). 

The 1995 listing (USFWS 1995) identifies the entire SLV as being within the

extrimus breeding range. However, the results of the above studies will be

used to reexamine the range of the southwestern willow flycatcher. The

draft recovery plan was released for public comment in June 2001; the final

plan is expected in July 2002.
102 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

During the 1996 and 1997 work, 29 willow flycatcher territories were

documented on the Alamosa NWR. This was the highest number of

territories documented on any of the sites in the study. At least 10 of those

sites had confirmed breeding pairs and 18 flycatchers were banded, more

than on any of the other 16 study sites. Three captured females had brood

patches confirming nesting for the site. Additionally, six willow flycatchers

were heard singing further east along the Rio Grande. The habitat on the

Alamosa NWR was described as monotypic stands of coyote (Salix exiquea)

and peach-leaf willow (S. amygladoides) with little narrow-leaf cottonwood

overstory bordering the Rio Grande. These willow stands ranged from 3 to

12 meters in width and flycatchers were evenly distributed throughout them.

McIntyre Springs, south of the Alamosa NWR, was also identified as highquality habitat which could probably support more willow flycatchers than

are currently present. The researchers concluded that the Valley could have

an overall breeding population of willow flycatchers several times larger

than is currently known (Owen and Sogge 1997). The opportunities to

improve and or expand potential habitat for breeding willow flycatchers

appears to be significant in the Valley, and these efforts will also benefit a

large suite of riparian-obligate and other species. 

Federally Listed Threatened Species Using the Complex

Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles migrate and winter on the Refuge complex due to the presence

of prey such as waterfowl and shorebirds during migration (November and

March) and winterkilled fish, primarily carp in the winter (December

through February). Up to 105 bald eagles have wintered on the Refuges,

however, maximum numbers of bald eagles usually occurs in mid-March

during migration. In the 1980s, the Monte Vista NWR was a major wintering

waterfowl area and the presence of this prey base attracted large number of

bald eagles. Since 1995, refuge managers and other wetland managers in the

SLV no longer intentionally provide habitat for wintering waterfowl in order

to disperse ducks further south into the Rio Grande Corridor where

wintering conditions may be less harsh and than the SLV (see waterfowl

section below for more details on this issue). Subsequently, bald eagles have

also disbursed throughout the SLV and concentrations on the Monte Vista

NWR have declined. Locations of wintering bald eagles is largely

determined by the location of ice-free water which attracts waterfowl. The

refuge staff participates in an annual winter (January) eagle count which is

conducted throughout the United States. Both refuges are included in

surveys routes which cover most of the SLV. These data are compiled and

managed by the CDOW. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 103
104 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Species of Management Concern within the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service’s National Migratory Bird Office

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)

Based on data collected during the annual duck nest transects on the Monte

Vista NWR and incidental observations, American bittern are fairly common

nesters in tall emergent habitat. On the Alamosa NWR booming bittern

(indicative of breeding males) as well as observations of young bittern have

been documented. There has been no quantitative surveys done on this and

other secretive marsh bird species, however, in 2001 and 2002 portions of

both refuges are included in a pilot study testing secretive marsh bird survey

methods (D. Klute, USFWS Regional Office). 

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)

Black terns pairs are observed on both Refuges in the spring through early

fall. This species typically nest in tall-emergent vegetation such as bulrush

which is fairly common on the Complex; however, nests have never been

documented. Juvenile black terns have been observed on the Complex,

notably on the Alamosa NWR in the last few years but it is not known if

these individuals were produced on the Complex or are migrating through.

Black terns are also documented on the Alamosa Breeding Bird Survey

(BBS) route which is southeast of the Alamosa NWR (USGS data). There

haven’t been specific efforts to survey black tern activity on the refuges,

therefore, all of the data are incidental observations, however, refuge

biologists are working with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory to begin a

more formal survey for this species of management concern. Refuge

managers are aware of this species and it’s habitat requirements and in

wetlands hosting tall emergent vegetation, water levels are kept constant

during the breeding season (mid-May through July) to protect any black tern

nests as recommended (Shuford 1999). 

Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia)

Borrowing owls have been documented on the Complex but not since at least

1999. Appropriate nesting habitat, short-grass prairies and prairie-dog

colonies, is not very common on the Complex, it primarily exists on the

southeastern corner of the Alamosa NWR. There was an active prairie dog

colony here but it has not been used for several years. 

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)

These hawks are fairly common and have been documented using the

wetland and salt desert shrub habitat of both Refuges in the fall and winter. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 105

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)

White-faced ibis use both refuges but most of the use occurs on the Monte

Vista NWR. There are four major colonial nesting colonies in the SLV,

Bowen Pond and Parker Pond on the Monte Vista refuge, Russell Lakes

State Wildlife Management Area, and on a privately-owned lake south of

Alamosa. White-faced ibis, snowy and cattle egrets and black-crowned night

heron nest in stands of bullrush in Bowen and Parker ponds. The number of

ibis pairs nesting on the refuge colonies varies, however, at least one of them

is consistently the largest to second largest colony in the state (Ron Ryder

pers comm). On Bowen Pond in 2001, approximately 500 pairs of white-faced

ibis were nesting. Short-emergent wetlands, shallow water and other

wetlands on the Complex but primarily the Monte Vista NWR are used by

ibis in the spring, summer and fall for cover, resting, and foraging during

breeding and migration. Dr. Ron Ryder from Colorado State University

started a colonial water bird banding project in the SLV with the help of the

refuge biologist (R. Garcia) in the early 1990s in an attempt to estimate the

number of birds using colonies and to document bird movement. These

banding activities have been continued by refuge staff and are combined with

estimating species composition and the number of nests in each colony. 
106 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Waterfowl

Numbers and species of ducks are abundant in the spring, summer, and fall

with annual population peaks of (20,000) occurring in mid-March. Eighteen

duck species use the Refuges to refuel and rest during migration; most are

dabbling ducks; mallard, northern pintail, cinnamon and green-winged teal;

however, scaup, bufflehead, common mergansers and other diving ducks also

use the Complex. 

Ten species of ducks (mallard, gadwall, cinnamon, green-winged and bluewinged teal, Northern pintail, Northern shoveler, American wigeon,

redheads, and ruddy ducks) and one species of goose (Canada) nest on the

Refuges. The Monte Vista NWR has one of the highest densities of nesting

waterfowl in the continent (Gilbert, et al. 1996). On average, 15,000 ducks are

produced on Monte Vista NWR annually, which constitutes a major

component of the State’s population and subsequently to the Central

Flyway’s duck population. The Alamosa NWR also produces a significant

number of ducks, 5,000 to 8,000, annually.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 107

Numbers of wintering waterfowl in the SLV vary depending on the weather

and subsequent availability of unfrozen water and waste grain. In the early

part of the 20th Century, waterfowl, primarily mallards, wintered on the

warm-water artesian-dependent wetlands that were found throughout the

Valley. By 1970 the increase in the human population and its demand for

water, as well as the change from flood irrigation to center pivot sprinklers

on local farms, significantly increased the overall demand for water.

Subsequently, groundwater levels dropped dramatically and most artesian

wells ceased to flow which decreased the amount of wetlands available to

wildlife. From 1980 through 1990, the majority of the waterfowl wintering in

the Valley (15,000), were using the Monte Vista NWR. 

As a result of a high number of ducks concentrated into a relatively small

area, avian cholera outbreaks became common in the winters after 1980. An

average of 6,500 ducks were killed annually by the disease between 1985 and

1990. In 1990, the USFWS through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife

program, and in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Water Resources,

started actively securing and increasing wintering habitat on private lands.

Local farmers were paid to keep a portion of their crops standing in the field

during the winter. This program was successful in that ducks dispersed to

other areas within the Valley and cholera mortality was significantly

reduced. The program, however, was costly and not designed to be a longterm solution. In 1996, the USFWS stopped actively providing wintering

waterfowl habitat to encourage ducks to migrate south into the Middle and

Lower Rio Grande Valley and into Mexico where appropriate wintering

habitat exists. 

This management decision is being evaluated by collecting and comparing

body condition data on wintering mallards on the southern wintering

grounds in New Mexico with similar data collected in the SLV during (1986-

1989) and after (1990-1995) the cholera outbreaks. 
108 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Canada geese nest, migrate, and often winter on both Refuges. In the early

to mid-1960s, the Great Basin population of Canada geese was experiencing a

decline and many refuges and other wildlife areas were hand-raising geese.

Wetland vegetation that traditionally supports nesting geese was not yet

established on the new Monte Vista NWR. Therefore, Refuge staff placed

nesting structures in wetlands throughout the Complex. As of 2000, Canada

goose numbers have not only rebounded but have become problematic,

especially in urban areas. This species continues to nest on the Refuges but

most of the nesting structures are unused as geese build their nests in areas

of thick cattail in and along wetland edges and on vegetated dikes. 

Lesser Canada geese spend a few days to weeks on the Refuges during the

spring and fall migrations. Occasionally, a small number of white-fronted

geese and tundra swans will use the Refuges during migration. 

Sandhill Cranes

Three sub-species of sandhill cranes spend several weeks in the Valley

during each spring and fall migration to rest and feed. The Rocky Mountain

population of the Greater Sandhill Crane nests primarily in Wyoming and

Idaho (Grays Lake NWR) and winters in the Lower and Middle Rio Grande

Valley, primarily at the Bosque del Apache NWR. Ninety-five percent of this

population (approximately 22,000 cranes) and 3,000 to 5,000 lesser and

Canadian sandhill cranes also migrate through the Valley. Fall migration is

from early September through mid-November depending on habitat and

other conditions. Generally, the peak of fall migration is in mid-October.

Spring migration occurs from mid-February through mid-March with the

peak numbers in early March. 

Most of the crane use in the Valley is near and around the Monte Vista NWR

primarily due to the prevalence of agricultural fields where cranes

extensively feed on barley and small grains in the spring and summer. In the

fall, local farmers harvest crops, and cranes and other migrating birds feed

on the excess grain that is left in the fields. Therefore, cranes are spread

throughout Monte Vista area. In recent years, farmers are tilling or

irrigating after harvest to discourage the establishment of volunteer plants

and, if irrigated, sprouted plants are killed during the subsequent winter.

Therefore, the ground is ready to be farmed in the spring, and the amount of

waste grain on private farm fields is very limited in the spring when cranes

are migrating north to the breeding grounds. The agriculture fields on the

Monte Vista NWR are left standing in the fall when adequate supplies of

waste grain are on neighboring fields. In the spring, crops are cut but not

harvested which provide food for cranes and other migratory birds when it is

limited on private lands. 

As well as providing critical feeding sites in the spring, the Monte Vista

NWR has the largest roosting site in the Valley, and up to 15,000 cranes seek

protection each night in the Refuge’s shallow-water wetlands. Cranes loaf

and occasionally feed on invertebrates, frogs, and small mammals in wet

meadows on and near the Refuges. In general, the Alamosa NWR receives

less crane use than the Monte Vista NWR; however, use is increasing due to

an increase in farming efforts to the east of the Refuge.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 109
110 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Shorebirds

Several species of shorebirds breed on the Complex: American avocet,

common snipe, black-necked stilts, killdeer, Wilson’s phalarope, and spotted

sandpipers. These species use a variety of nesting habitats from unvegetated

flats and dikes, to flooded short-emergent vegetation and gravel roads. 

The San Luis Valley is not a major migratory path for shorebirds. In the

intermountain west and prairies, this group of birds is often widely

distributed across the landscape in small to medium flocks, and on a

collective basis, an area such as the Valley supports thousands of shorebirds

and is key to conserving these species on a large scale. At least 24 species of

shorebirds migrate through the Refuges. Common migrants include the

species breeding in the area as well as greater and lesser yellowlegs,

dowitchers, long-billed curlews, Baird’s sandpipers, least sandpipers,

semipalmated sandpipers and other Calidris species. 

Marshbirds 

As is the case in most areas, very little is known about habitat use and

nesting success of secretive marshbirds such as rails, soras, and others in the

SLV. Virginia and sora rails nest on the Complex and are commonly seen

during spring, summer, and fall in wet meadow and marsh communities. The

number of rails produced on the Complex is unknown; however, these species

and their young are regularly documented.

American bitterns are a species of management concern within the

USFWS’s Region 6 and on a national level. On the Complex, bitterns nest in

dense cattail stands and feed along a variety of wetland types. This species is

common on the Complex and nests throughout both Refuges; however, no

quantitative data exists on this or other marshbird species. 

Colonial Water Birds 

Black-crowned night-herons, white-faced ibis, and snowy and cattle egrets

nest on the Complex, often in the same bulrush islands. The Monte Vista

NWR supports one of the largest nesting colonies of white-faced ibis and

snowy egret colonies in the State. Ibis can change nesting locations each year

if habitat conditions vary; however, they have consistently been nesting in

Bowen Pond and Parker Pond for the last 10 years. 

Foraging ibis use wet meadow and marsh communities during the spring,

summer, and fall. Snowy egrets use open, shallow water as well as wet

meadows and marshes for foraging. Black-crowned night-heron forage along

canal and other waterways as well as wet meadows and marshes. 

Great blue heron do not nest on the Complex or in the San Luis Valley;

however, small numbers migrate, and despite harsh conditions, winter in the

area. Double-crested cormorants are an occasional migrant but no nesting

occurs in the Valley. 

Water Birds

Pied-billed and some western and eared grebes nest on both Refuges. Piedbilled grebes are the most common nesting grebe on the Complex and are

found in small to large wetlands with shallow to deep water. Western and

eared grebes usually nest in large bodies of open and deep water; this type of

wetland is not typical of the Refuges; however, occasional nesting of these

species has been documented at Parker Pond and Bowen Pond on the Monte

Vista NWR. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 111

Raptors

The San Luis Valley and the Complex host an array of hawks, falcons, owls,

eagles, and other raptors throughout the year. 

Peregrine falcons hunt for shorebirds and other small water birds in the

wetlands and short-emergent vegetation wetlands of the Complex during

spring and fall migration. Peregrine falcon nesting is suspected in the

mountains five miles west of Monte Vista NWR and fledglings have been

found in the southern portion of the Valley near Jarosa. (Dean Swift, pers

comm). Prairie falcons also migrate through the San Luis Valley and use the

Complex for feeding and resting. 

Red-tailed hawks, Swainson’s hawks, and American kestrels nest on the

Refuges primarily in trees of old homesteads and in trees scattered along

water delivery canals. Northern harriers and short-eared owls nest in dense

vegetation in wet meadows, and in the case of harriers, in tall-emergent

wetland vegetation. Great horned owls nest in the deciduous and evergreen

trees, in goose nesting structures, and in the banks of canals and water

delivery ditches.

In the winter, ferruginous hawks, rough-legged hawks, northern harriers,

short-eared owls, and golden and bald eagles are common winter residents

on the Complex. The hawks, owls, and golden eagles find rodents, small

mammals, and other prey on the Refuge farm fields, uplands and shortemergent wetlands where cover is abundant. Bald eagles spend the winter

feeding on sick or weak waterfowl or on carrion. Most of the bald eagle use is

on Alamosa NWR where eagles extensively use the cottonwood trees along

the Rio Grande. In February and March, Alamosa NWR is an important

staging area for spring migrating bald eagles. 

Burrowing owls are declining in Colorado and is also a species of

management concern in USFWS’s Region 6 and other western regions. This

species uses grasslands especially in or near prairie dog towns where

abandoned prairie dog tunnels are used for nesting. This species is rare-touncommon in the San Luis Valley as it is in most western valleys and

mountain parks of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). Burrowing owls

have been documented on the Complex; however, they are uncommon.

Habitat loss is responsible for some of the declines in the State; however,

burrowing owls are missing from areas with apparently suitable habitat,

therefore other factors may be involved (Andrews and Righter 1992). Prairie

dog colonies are rare-to-nonexistent on the Complex but are encouraged to

provide habitat for prairie dogs, burrowing owls, and other avian species

dependent upon sparsely vegetated prairies and uplands. 
112 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Songbirds

Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs provide habitat for a variety of migrating,

nesting, and wintering songbirds. The riparian habitat along the Rio Grande

on the Alamosa NWR supports the greatest number of passerine species.

Thirty-two species of songbirds nest on the Complex including swallows,

wrens, blackbirds, sparrows, flycatchers, and others. Songbirds nest and

depend upon all habitat types on the Refuges from upland brush (sage

thrasher and Brewer’s sparrow), to dense cattails (common yellowthroat and

marsh wren), and saltgrass (meadowlark and vesper sparrow). 

Species nesting in the riparian include yellow warbler, western wood peewee, Bullock’s oriole, song sparrow, and others. Many of these species are

neotropical migrants, they breed in one hemisphere and winter in the other.

The endangered race of the southwestern willow flycatcher nests within

dense stands of willows on the Alamosa NWR and in other similar habitat in

the Valley. All of these species face a multitude of threats from loss of

habitat to pesticides; therefore, it is critical that riparian habitat is

encouraged and conserved. 

Corvids

Magpies, ravens, and crows are very numerous on both Refuges throughout

the year. These species are the major predator of duck nests on Monte Vista

NWR. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 113

Resident Fish and Wildlife

Both Refuges contain fish populations of primarily fathead minnows, red

shiners, and carp. The marshes receive fish annually via Rio Grande

irrigation water and periodic flooding, but most fish die in the winter when

the marshes freeze. Northern pike are found primarily in the Rio Grande and

deeper wetlands of Alamosa Refuge.

Forty-eight species of mammals have been identified on the Refuges.

Beaver, muskrat, and raccoon range from common to abundant in wetland

habitat. Coyotes and skunks are abundant and use all the vegetative

communities found on the Refuges. 

The only prairie dog on the Complex is a subspecies of the Gunnison prairie

dog (Cynomys gunnisoni gunnisoni). It is uncommon and is only found in

small colonies in the SLV and south-central Colorado (Fitzgerald, et al.

1994). Prairie dog towns will be protected on both Refuges to ensure habitat

for the prairie dog as well as any burrowing owls that may be nesting in

abandoned tunnels. 

Mule deer and elk use most of the habitat types on the Complex year-round.

Deer feed in agriculture fields on Monte Vista NWR and in other upland and

wetland communities on both Refuges. The Refuges also offer fawning and

winter cover for deer. 

On Alamosa NWR a small herd of resident elk exist. On Monte Vista NWR,

a resident herd of elk exists that primarily uses the short-emergent habitat

on the eastern portion of the Refuge and a group of animals that use the

southwestern portion of the Refuge in the fall. In September during the rifle

hunting season on the adjacent Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management land, elk leave those lands and move onto the Refuge which is

closed to public elk hunting. These elk can number into the hundreds and can

depredate neighboring farm fields as well as causing potential hazards to

motorized traffic on Highway 15 which intersects the Refuge. These animals

are managed in a partnership with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

Ring-necked pheasants, a resident bird, nest and are fairly abundant on

Monte Vista NWR where they primarily nest and feed near agricultural

fields. Smaller numbers are also found on Alamosa NWR.

Amphibians and Reptiles of the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWR

The altitude, climate, and relative isolation of the San Luis Valley limits the

number of amphibians and reptiles to three species of lizards, three species of

snakes, one salamander, three toads, and one frog species (L. Harvey, pers

comm). Species fairly common on both Refuges include tiger salamander,

great plains toad, Woodhouse’s toad, western chorus frog, and western

garter snake. Additionally, the Alamosa NWR hosts northern leopard frogs

and bullsnakes while a few western rattlesnakes have been documented on

or near the Monte Vista NWR. Several amphibian and reptile species have

not been documented on the Complex but may occur on the Alamosa NWR

including: the plains spadefoot toad, variable skink, short-horned lizard, and

snapping turtle; or on the Monte Vista NWR the plateau lizard (eastern

fence lizard). Bullfrogs were not historically present in Colorado, but early

introductions as a game species by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and

accidental introductions with fish stock have lead to firmly established

populations along the Rio Grande River corridor, as well as in other isolated

locations in the Valley. Bullfrogs have not been documented on the Refuges,

but in 1996 one was heard calling near the Alamosa NWR (L. Harvey, pers

comm). 
114 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources

Archaeological evidence exists that mammoth, mastodon, and at least one

species of extinct bison roamed the SLV at the end of the Pleistocene.

Mammoth bone, teeth, and ivory were recovered from the Magna Site

located south of Little Spring Creek. Remains of extinct bison were

discovered in Folsom levels at the Linger, Cattleguard, and Reddin sites

near Medano Springs Ranch in northeastern Alamosa County. The bison

likely occurred in the San Luis Valley in modern times after the Pleistocene

in to the early 20th century (Fitzgerald, et al. 1994)

Humans have used the land we now call Alamosa and Monte Vista National

Wildlife Refuges for approximately 11 thousand years. Documented

prehistoric and historic archaeological sites total 14 on Monte Vista NWR

and 11 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 Spring Creek on Monte Vista Refuge and along Hansen’s

Bluff on Alamosa Refuge.

Spanish influence is readily apparent to visitors of the San Luis Valley. It is

inhabited by a large population of Spanish people, hosts a vibrant Spanish

culture, and bears many Spanish place names. Spanish involvement in the

San Luis Valley between 1580 and 1780 occurred from their base settlements

in northern New Mexico. 

The following summary of San Luis Valley history was obtained from 'The

San Luis Valley: Land of the Six-armed Cross’ (Simmons 1999). The author

graciously allowed liberal use of her work for this Plan.

Spanish people started venturing into the upper Rio Grande region in the

1580s, lured by rumors of mineral wealth and the potential expansion of the

Catholic Church’s influence. Following this quest, Don Juan de Onate was

dispatched from Mexico to appropriate lands to the north. In so doing, he

established two settlements in northern New Mexico named San Juan de los

Caballeros and San Gabriel del Yungue near the confluence of the Rio

Grande and Rio Chama. From these bastions, hunting and exploratory

expeditions into the San Luis Valley were launched. It was during this time

that Spanish contact with the New Mexican Pueblos and the Utes of the San

Luis Valley were made and the first accounts of buffalo hunting and native

Americans in the Valley were provided. In 1598, Onate claimed all the Rio

Grande drainage in the name of King Phillip II of Spain. 

In 1609, New Mexico became a colony of Mexico and governmental

headquarters were established in Sante Fe. The Pueblos’ relations with the

Spanish eroded with the increasing authoritarian rule. The same occurred

with the Utes of southern Colorado after an attack and enslavement of

approximately 80 Utes by Spanish soldiers in the 1630s. In 1680, an uprising

of all the Pueblos in northern New Mexico routed the Spanish from the

territory until 1694 when Don Diego de Vargas reestablished Spanish control

of Sante Fe and the region. In so doing, he pillaged the Taos Pueblo. On his

return to Sante Fe, Vargas circled into the San Luis Valley across Culebra

Creek and the Rio Grande. A camp was established at San Antonio River to

hunt buffalo and elk. It was here that his detachment was attacked by

several hundred Utes. Despite several fatalities, the engagement ended

peacefully.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 115

Legend has it that the San Luis Valley and the Sangre de Cristo mountains

were both named by Spanish missionary, Francisco Torres. In the mid-1700s,

he accompanied a mining expedition to the west side of the Valley. It was

apparently here that he was so struck by the Valley’s beauty that he named

it after San Luis, the patron saint of Seville, his home. At some point later in

the expedition he was mortally injured by an uprising of Indians who had

been enslaved to work in a mine on the east side of the Valley. The surviving

miners and Torres fled to San Luis Lake where, while floating on a raft, the

dying missionary looked up to the east to see the snowy mountains lit in their

characteristic salmon colored alpine glow and uttered “Sangre de Cristo,”

“blood of Christ.”

During the mid-to-late-1700s, one of the first duties of Don Juan Bautista de

Anza, the new governor of New Mexico, was to go on an offensive to control

Comanche raiding parties that had grown troublesome to settlements in the

region. In August 1779, Anza mobilized 600 soldiers to capture Comanche

leader Cuerno Verde. Anza’s forces moved from Sante Fe to the west side of

the San Luis Valley, across the Los Pinos River, through La Jara, across the

Alamosa River and Rock Creek and across the Rio Grande somewhere east

of present day Del Norte. Along the way, Anza was joined by a number of

Utes eager to fight the Comanches. Utes were attacked by Comanches at

San Luis Lakes. The surviving Utes joined Anza and pursued the attackers

through South Park, past Pikes Peak and finally engaged and killed several

near present day Pueblo. The Comanche band was completely defeated near

the peak currently called “Greenhorn,” English for Cuerno Verde. This

campaign ended hostilities between the Spanish and Comanches. 

Spanish settlement in the SLV began early in the 1800s. After years of

summer grazing by small flocks of sheep in the early1800s, permanent

livestock production was established in the San Luis Valley around 1840.

Settlement and ranching expanded rapidly in the second half of the 19th

Century, with sheep use predominant in the lower half of the SLV and cattle

and sheep grazing about equal in the upper part of the Valley. Experiencing

severe winter losses, most ranchers developed the use pattern that exists

today which consists of moving livestock from lower private lands in the late

spring to higher public lands for the summer and fall, and subsequently back

onto private lands during winter when hay is the primary source of forage.
116 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Recreational Uses

The SLV contains a variety of land forms from mountains to valleys;

vegetation from trees to sage; and a variety of topography from sand dunes

to mountain streams. These features offer a number of diverse settings for

outdoor recreational activities. The SLV provides opportunities for hunting,

fishing, wildlife observation, off-highway vehicle use, hiking, picnicking,

camping, vegetation and mineral gathering, snowmobiling, cross-country

skiing, general leisure, and sightseeing. Although this region has a low

population density, national attention focuses on attractions such as the

Great Sand Dunes National Monument, the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the

Rio Grande Corridor, Rio Grande National Forest, and Alamosa and Monte

Vista National Wildlife Refuges (USDI, BLM 1989).

About 30,000 people visit the Refuges annually. The Refuges have visitor

contact stations, auto tour routes, several wildlife observation areas, and

waterfowl/small game hunting areas.

Level of Participation on the Alamosa/Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

for Some Major Public Use Categories

Type of Use 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 *1997 *1999 2000

Visitor Contact

Station

N/A N/A 280 14,177 12,608 6,108 2,831 1,890 2,315

Auto Tour Route 3,000 5,000 15,000 26,105 31,518 15,270 19,406 15,635 15,650

Waterfowl/Small

Game Hunting

600 400 500 885 339 254 1,099 1,284 1,190

School group

tours/talks

100 300 571 1,449 740 630 457 788 1,030

Sub-total 3,700 5,700 16,351 42,616 45,205 22,262 23,793 19,597 20,185

Total Visits 3,700 5,700 16,351 42,616 45,205 22,262 ^30,327 ^25,000 ^29,400
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 117

Social and Economic Aspects

Population and Unemployment

The SLV area consists of six counties: Alamosa, Conejos, Rio Grande,

Costilla, Mineral, and Saguache Counties. The total population for the area

has increased about 11 percent from April 1990 to July 1999 and is presently

estimated at about 45,000 people. Saguache County has experienced the

largest population increase, numerically and by percentage (1,557 people,

33.7 percent). Alamosa and Rio Grande Counties have the largest

populations, about 14,500 and 11,500 respectively. One of the most significant

social characteristics is the large Spanish speaking and Spanish surname

population. The Hispanic population represents 52 percent of the total

population in the five counties. The State of Colorado, as a whole, has a 15

percent Hispanic population. (U.S. Census Bureau 1999a,b)

Unemployment in the San Luis Valley tends to be higher than that

experienced in the State of Colorado as a whole. In November 2000 the

Valley had an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, compared with 2.6 percent

for the State. Unemployment in each county was: Alamosa 5.0 percent,

Conejos 6.1 percent, Costilla 7.5 percent, Mineral 1.2 percent, Rio Grande 6.8

percent, and Saguache 4.8 percent. (Colorado Department of Labor and

Employment 2000)

Lifestyles within the counties are varied. In Saguache, lifestyle is centered

around a farming and ranching economy where most of the ranches are

family-owned and operated. Alamosa in Alamosa County and Del Norte and

Monte Vista in Rio Grande County provide retail trade and support services

for the surrounding smaller communities and rural areas. Alamosa, an

academic community associated with Adams State College, offers the

community additional cultural activities. The rural areas support a ranching

and farming lifestyle with rodeos, 4-H clubs, Boy Scouts, and riding clubs.

Tourism

Tourism has been an important component of the San Luis Valley’s economy

for decades. The Valley is promoted as the “land of cool sunshine” and boasts

a refreshing summer climate, spectacular vistas, and a diverse array of

recreational activities. Outdoor enthusiasts can take advantage of several

sites including the Great Sand Dunes National Monument and Preserve, the

Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad, San Luis Lakes State Park, Blanca

Wetlands, Zapata Falls Recreation Area, and one 18-hole golf course. Elk

hunting is a growing activity in the Valley and has a large seasonal impact on

the economy. Several guiding and outfitting businesses exist to support elk

hunters during the fall but also accommodate fishing enthusiasts, outdoor

photographers, and back country adventurists.

Both Alamosa and Monte Vista Refuges offer attractions for tourists. The

Refuges receive an average of 30,000 visits annually. Approximately 10,000

of these visits occur during a two-week period centered around the Monte

Vista Crane Festival in mid-to-early March.

The San Luis Valley offers several other cultural attractions, including the

Creede Repertory Theater and Stations of the Cross Shrine, the Alamosa

County Museum, old Fort Garland, and museums for Alamosa, Costilla, Rio

Grande, Saguache, and Mineral Counties. 
118 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

V. Environmental Consequences

No Action (Current Management) Alternative

Wildlife

Water Management

In this altered and arid landscape, the ability to manipulate water enables

the Refuge staff to meet the Refuges’ mission by enhancing migratory bird

production, providing for migratory birds’ resource needs during critical

portions in the life cycle, and supporting an array of wildlife species. Water

control on the Complex partially compensates for the changes and reduction

in Valley wetlands that have occurred in the last 150 years. Management of

water, to some degree, is necessary to achieve almost all wetland habitat

goals on the Complex. 

The ability to move, add, and remove water allows Refuge staff to create and

support the types and condition of vegetation that provide nesting, foraging,

and cover for wildlife. Current water control increases the number of nesting

waterfowl, water birds, and shorebirds. Portions of the Monte Vista NWR

consistently have some of the most productive duck nesting habitat on the

continent (Gilbert, et al. 1996). This level of nesting would not be possible

without the water management capabilities that support the vegetation which

is critical to nest initiation and success. Not only do water management

capabilities allow for the creation of suitable nesting habitat but it allows for

the maintenance of it as well. For example, it is essential to the success of

nesting white-faced ibis, snowy and cattle egrets, and black-crowned night

herons to have consistent water levels in the colonies throughout nesting

efforts. Without the current ability to add water to these bulrush marshes,

the production of these species and others would be negatively impacted or

compromised completely. 

The ability to provide shallow water in the early spring and fall provides

critical roosting and loafing habitat for the Rocky Mountain greater sandhill

crane population, the majority of which migrates through the San Luis

Valley twice a year, as well as thousands of migrating waterfowl. Water

management supports the vegetation which offers food, cover, and loafing

sites to migrating waterfowl, waders, and other water birds. The application

of water also enhances invertebrate populations which are critical food

sources for migrating and breeding shorebirds, breeding waterfowl, and

others. Intensive water management also allows for the production of dense

vegetation in short-emergent and agricultural habitats which provide cover

to mammals and other species which feed wintering raptors and other

wildlife. 

The current ability to influence wetland conditions through water

manipulation allows the Refuge to provide a fairly broad range of critical

habitats which support an array of plant and wildlife species. This allows the

Refuges’ to contribute to the overall biological diversity of the San Luis

Valley, the State, and even the hemisphere. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 119

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

A sacrifice inherent to the application of water is the reduction in arid

vegetation; however, in the San Luis Valley, that habitat type is very

common and does not appear limiting for any wildlife species. The

potential for creating wildlife sinks can occur if proper design is not

considered in wetland creation and if planning does not consider annual

life cycle needs of wildlife, climatology (snow pack), and juxtaposition of

habitat types. Another compounding factor of water manipulation is the

potential for dramatically changing soil salinity. The Refuge staff

considers these factors when developing water management plans and

evaluates impacts through consistent observation and time in the field. 

The paradox exists that since the Refuges are supported by water diverted

from the Rio Grande these diversions are contributing to depletions in the

river and alteration in groundwater levels. On one hand, these depletions

directly and indirectly affect wetland, riverine, and riparian communities

supported by the river. While on the other hand, this water is used to create

high quality wetlands and other habitats that mitigate for Valley-wide

habitat modifications. These habitats and the species that depend upon them

would be very limited to nonexistent in the Valley if the water was not used

in some manner as is currently practiced on wetlands managed by the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of

Wildlife, and The Nature Conservancy. Additionally, surface water is moved

into “recharge” areas in Units 12 and 19along the Monte Vista Canal and in

Unit #9 from the Empire Canal throughout the Monte Vista NWR which

provides some recharge of the water table in addition to that from spring

snowmelt. This situation is unlikely to change given that management of

water in the Rio Grande is governed by the State of Colorado and the Rio

Grande Compact. For example, halting diversions for Refuge operations for

the sake of restoring natural hydrology in the Rio Grande is not a viable

strategy. Given that the Rio Grande is an over appropriated system, the

water not diverted by the Refuges in this scenario would simply be made

available to users with rights that are junior to those currently held by the

Refuges.

Water management on this Complex is intensive and more complicated than

most units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Additional infrastructure

is needed to maximize the ability to manage plant communities in varying

successional stages and condition for the benefit of wildlife. The ability to

adequately measure and monitor amounts, depths and area covered by water

in individual wetland units is currently lacking and, therefore, limits the

effective monitoring of water applications and hinders management activities

to achieve desired responses.

The effectiveness of current water management to provide quality wildlife

habitat is somewhat constrained because the impacts of water on many

factors is unknown or not well understood. Little is known about the

influence of current water management practices on the invasion and spread

of noxious weeds, notably tall whitetop. Invasions of whitetop and other

noxious plants can decrease the abundance of native plants which provide a

higher quality of food and cover than do weeds, especially when they exist in

monocultures. 

Little is understood about the relationship between surface and groundwater

hydrology. Understanding this complex relationship, however, is a daunting

task which hydrologists continue to examine. Currently, the refuge staff 

recognizes that this highly complicated relationship exists and are aware that

our water management actions impact more than the surface habitat. 
120 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

The current level of understanding of how invertebrates, soils, plants, and

other factors respond to various water regimes is primarily based on

observations and limited vegetation monitoring. The structure and species

composition of short-emergent vegetation is monitored on portions of the

Monte Vista NWR to assist in determining how these plants respond to

annual water management. Complex-wide, the effectiveness of water

management in creating quality wildlife habitat is evaluated by observing

vegetation condition and by documenting the wildlife use an area receives.

The presence of wildlife, however, does not equate to quality habitat, but

current efforts to adequately monitor the abiotic (i.e., soil salinity) and biotic

(i.e., invertebrates) response to water management are limited by staff

availability. 

Rest

Rest refers to the lack of grazing, fire, mowing, and other habitat

management tools which alter plant species composition, successional stage,

structural density, and other characteristics of plant communities. Most of

the Complex, however, does experience some form of water management, so

most rested areas are not completely without management activity.

Refuge managers use rest in conjunction with other habitat management

tools to provide a mosaic of habitat types with various structural conditions

on the Complex that best support habitat goals and objectives. Most habitat

types on the Complex are rested to allow for the production and maintenance

of dense vegetation which is limited in the Valley and supports a large array

of nesting and foraging migratory birds. 

Long-term rest in wetland areas provides heavy residual vegetative cover

and, when appropriately irrigated, provides optimum waterfowl, American

bittern, rail, and colonial water bird nesting habitat. Dense wetland

vegetation also provides nesting habitat for northern harriers and shorteared owls and cover for small mammals which are the prey base for birds of

prey and other wildlife. Nothing in nature is static; in many plant

communities ,the benefits of rest for wildlife habitat may be diminished when

standing dead vegetation shades and reduces the vigor of new vegetative

growth. Long-term rest can lead to losses in plant species diversity, decline

in nutrient recycling and plant germination, and a decrease in soil

temperatures. Even areas intended to provide nesting cover for ducks,

primarily short-emergent wetlands, can potentially become so dense that

new plant growth is inhibited and the long-term health of the plant

community may be compromised. Currently, the decision to implement a

management tool and, therefore, not rest an area, is based on the limited

collection of plant density data, but is primarily based upon observations of

vegetation and wildlife. While in the field, biologists and managers evaluate

plant species composition, structure, and viability, but a quantitative method

is not applied to the entire Complex. When plant communities show signs of

limited new plant growth or new growth is not vigorous, then management

tools designed to induce disturbance and subsequent plant rejuvenation are

implemented. 

Uplands, primarily greasewood dominated flats, are mostly rested because

these areas probably had little historic disturbance and active management

would not produce results that would support migratory birds. Riparian

areas are also rested for long periods to allow for the production and

maintenance of dense willow and cottonwood stands which are habitat for the

endangered southwestern willow flycatcher and many other songbirds. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 121

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

The biggest challenge in utilizing rest as a management action is the

current lack of knowledge about the ratio of rest to disturbance under

various conditions and within various vegetation types needed to best

meet the needs of various wildlife species. For the majority of the

Complex, staff rely primarily upon professional judgement, observation of

vegetation response to past periods of rest, and the current moderate-tolow level of monitoring when deciding if an area should be disturbed to

enhance plant communities.

Prescribed Burning

As with other habitat management tools, fire affects wildlife primarily

through its modification of the habitat. The resulting impacts of burning

depend on a variety of variables, including vegetation type, condition of the

habitat, and climatic conditions. The long-term impact on habitat is also

variable depending upon plant species composition, timing of the burn, fire

frequency, and other characteristics. 

Of all the management tools, prescribed burning has the most immediate

effect on wildlife habitat by removing plant material, exposing the soil,

stimulating growth of some plants, and killing or reducing the vigor of some

plants. Some direct mortality of some sedentary animal species occurs during

some fires.

Prescribed burning can enhance the cycling of nutrients by converting

surface mulch and plant litter to ash (Higgins and Kjellsen 1990) and by

making many nutrients soluble and available for plant growth. Fire

encourages new growth of many plant species, such as grasses and forbs,

which, in time, provides nesting sites for ground-nesting sparrows and other

species. Fire can also be used to alter plant species composition. Burning can

be used to clear the landscape of excess plant residual and, when used in

conjunction with other tools, to negatively impact noxious weeds or plant

species (such as phragmites) that have become so dominant that habitat

quality is reduced. The ability to alter plant species composition and

abundance allows Refuge staff to provide a variety of habitat conditions

which better meets the resource needs of wildlife. 

If portions of the Complex are burned, a mosaic of vegetation structure is

created which increases the diversity of feeding and loafing opportunities for

migratory birds and may provide habitat for additional species such as

migrating long-billed curlews. Areas burned and followed with shallow water

flooding during certain seasons produce a flush of invertebrates which feed

waterfowl, sandhill cranes, white-faced ibis, shorebirds, and a host of others.

Sites burned in the winter or early spring are usually the first to green up in

the spring, enhancing invertebrate production as well as providing foraging

sites for Canada geese and other wildlife. 

Within most Refuge plant communities, fire temporarily changes the

condition of the habitat versus eliminating the habitat. In riparian areas and

brush uplands, however, burning has a longer lasting impact on vegetation,

and subsequently wildlife, than in wetland and grassland habitats.

Refuge staff currently evaluate each proposed prescribed burn on an

individual basis, considering vegetative response in context with providing

long-term quality habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. As with

other tools, the impacts on habitat favor some wildlife species and not others,

therefore, careful thought, experience, and professional judgement are used

in determining when, where, and how a burn is used. Every attempt is made

to monitor vegetation in a quantitative manner before and after a prescribed

burn; however, long-term efforts are minimal due to staff availability. 
122 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Prescribed Grazing

The only grazing on the Complex since 1996 and until 2001 is to meet the

protocol of a 5 year research project being conducted by the University of

Missouri. This project began in response to the compatibility lawsuit filed

in 1993 over grazing as a tool to create habitat diversity and control tall

whitetop.

Based on experience with cattle grazing on the Complex, the Refuge staff

currently views grazing as a method of clearing residual vegetation and

stimulating new plant growth. It has been used in the past to assist in

controlling noxious weeds, primarily tall whitetop; however, quantitative and

long-term impacts of this tool in meeting this objective are currently being

documented by Dr. Fredrickson.

Cattle grazing is used throughout wildlife management areas to accomplish a

number of habitat conditions by altering its abiotic and biotic components.

The way in which grazing influences the landscape, and thus wildlife,

depends upon many variables, including plant species composition, life stage

of plants, climatic factors, past disturbance of the area, hydrology, and

intensity and seasonality of grazing. This tool is often used to alter

abundance, distribution, and diversity of plant communities which allows

refuge managers to provide the habitat conditions required by various

wildlife species. Grazing is often used to help control or minimize problem

plant or noxious weed infestations but it is most effective when combined

with other management tools. The impacts of grazing on abiotic factors

include changes in the availability of soil moisture, oxygen, light, and

nutrients. In addition, grazing can compact soils and add fertilizer. All of

these changes support certain vegetation types or conditions which favor

some wildlife species and not others. Direct impacts on wildlife are generally

negligible depending on the grazing prescription; however, ground nests may

be trampled or, more often, are exposed by a reduction in structural density

of the vegetation. 

The current grazing prescription is similar to the one that was in use when

the Complex was sued in 1993. It is a rest-rotation regime carried out in the

growing season (May 15 to September 1), and has been used in the context of

research on the Monte Vista NWR until currently and until 1998 on the

Alamosa NWR. Under this regime, cattle are moved every one to six days to

a new site with a 25 to 35 day recovery period before it is grazed again. Sites

may be grazed two to three times during the summer. This particular grazing

prescription has impacted wildlife by changing the vegetative structure

within some of the Refuges’ short-emergent and tall-emergent vegetation

communities. In the short-term, this prescription provides more habitat for

wildlife species requiring less vegetated areas, such as foraging white-faced

ibis. The number of waterfowl nests in these areas may be temporarily

reduced due to the reduction in plant cover. Cattle grazing does negatively

impact wildlife species that require fairly dense vegetation; however, this

temporary loss of habitat may be acceptable if the long-term quality of the

habitat is improved by the reduction of tall whitetop, which is a noxious weed

and detrimental to habitat quality. Prior to the conclusion of the research,

however, the effectiveness of cattle grazing to assist in controlling whitetop

on the Complex is unknown.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 123

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Aspects of the current grazing prescription, primarily its impact on

vegetation structure in two wetland types on the Complex, were

evaluated in a masters project under the umbrella of the compatibility

research. Quantitative baseline information was collected to describe

plant/cattle interactions. The impacts of cattle grazing were very different

on the two Refuges. The impact of grazing on vegetation structure was

greatly influenced by the hydrology. Water management (timing, depth,

and duration of flooding) significantly altered structural condition of plants

in the presence of cattle grazing. Whitetop was consumed by cattle but

consumption was variable (Diebboll 1999). After cattle grazed an area, the

impact to whitetop was apparent because the tops of the plants had been

removed by foraging cattle. However, the impact grazing has on the

underground biomass (roots) may be more of an indication of the

effectiveness of this tool in whitetop control. The impact of management

tools on the below ground biomass of whitetop is currently being evaluated

by Dr. Fredrickson.

Regardless of the management alternative selected, after the research and

analysis are completed (approximately 2002), grazing will become a potential

management tool and under the direction of the Refuge staff. Under the

current and proposed alternatives, the potential use of cattle grazing will be

fully and closely evaluated and based upon the results of the compatibility

study, incorporation of other research, professional judgement, and results

from evaluation and monitoring of Refuge habitats. Under the current

management alternative, and with the current staff level, the ability to

monitor grazing impacts on habitat and wildlife will be restricted to the

collection of fairly broad information or will be conducted at the expense of

monitoring other tools and processes on the Complex. 

Several biological and non-biological factors are involved with how grazing

will impact the habitat and ultimately wildlife, and the Refuge staff will

consider as many of these as possible when considering the use of this tool.

When deciding if, how, when, and where to graze the plant species, plant

phenology, hydrology, soils, season, and past disturbance of the site will be

carefully described, considered, and evaluated to ensure that the best

possible habitat is available for wildlife. When considering the

implementation of grazing, sensitive and rare plant communities will be

taken into account and water on the Complex will be protected from the

potential impacts of erosion and decrease in water quality due to cattle use.

If grazing is used, Refuge staff will document the decision-making process

including desired outcomes and any assumptions made. Almost every impact

of grazing can be interpreted as positive or negative, depending upon the

original reason for using the tool and depending on the temporal and spatial

scale in which the impacts are evaluated. Therefore, the Refuge staff will

revisit and remain clear about the reason for grazing and will maintain a

consistent level of monitoring. 
124 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

The compatibility research will provide valuable information about land

management tools, including grazing, and their impacts on Refuge habitat,

primarily tall whitetop. However, like all research projects, the results

will be based on a snapshot in time and under a range of environmental

conditions which are constantly changing. Therefore, Refuge staff must

continue to monitor and evaluate habitat and wildlife before and after

grazing to provide the information required to make the management

decisions that best provide for long-term support of trust species.

Additionally, the landscape responds to management treatments in varied

ways depending on an array of factors; therefore, grazing can create desired

results 1 year and completely fail the next year (Fredrickson and Taylor

1982). So, to reach desired results, consistent and long-term monitoring is

necessary for effective and adaptive management. Under the current

management alternative, and with the current staff level, monitoring efforts

will be somewhat limited based on the number of staff available to conduct

the field work.

Farming

The Refuge staff will continue to farm 510 acres on the Monte Vista NWR,

where small grains such as wheat and barley are grown as a high energy food

source for migrating sandhill cranes and waterfowl. Ninety-five percent of

the Rocky Mountain population (RMP) of greater sandhill cranes migrates

through the San Luis Valley in the spring and fall where they spend several

weeks feeding in agricultural fields. Historically, cranes probably fed on

plants, invertebrates, and other foods provided in wetlands (R. Drewien,

pers comm). In the last century, with a decrease in the number and quality of

historic wetlands, cranes have adapted to the current landscape, which is

dominated by agriculture. Foraging cranes are now dependent on agriculture

fields on and off the Refuge. Migrating cranes and waterfowl, primarily

mallards and northern pintail, will continue to feed and gain energy reserves

on Refuge farm fields before moving to the breeding grounds or, in the case

of some waterfowl, initiating nests in the Valley. 

Farm fields also provide cover and food for rodents and other small mammals

which are the food source for raptors throughout the year, but especially by

wintering rough-legged hawks, northern harriers, golden eagles, and others. 

Grain crops are rotated with alfalfa to improve soil health, notably nitrogen

fixation. These legume stands provide nesting cover for several groundnesting birds, such as northern harriers, meadowlarks, and pheasants. The

irrigation of farm fields, however, can potentially flood nests. Alfalfa fields

also provide cover for mule deer fawns and other wildlife. 

During certain times of the year when crops are immature or a field is fallow,

plant cover is temporarily removed which can increase soil erosion and

decreases the total amount of cover available to wildlife. Farming also

reduces the amount of ground that supports non-agriculture vegetation. The

farm fields comprise less than 1 percent of the total Refuge and this loss of

native plant species is not significant to the plant community nor to wildlife.

Farming can introduce and/or encourage the invasion of undesirable plants

such as Canada thistle, which is a potential hazard to the quality of

neighboring native plant communities which support various wildlife species.

However, the amount of wildlife habitat negatively impacted due to weed

expansion from the farm fields is very low. Most of the habitat that has

weeds common to agricultural fields, such as thistle, would probably have

these plants regardless of the presence of Refuge farm fields. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 125

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

The presence of high energy foods which are easily available to foraging

birds and other species attracts large concentrations of wildlife. High

numbers of birds in relatively small areas can create conditions conducive

to the spread of disease such as avian cholera.

Farming practices also use water which could be used in other areas. The

benefit to providing food for migrating cranes and waterfowl is assumed to

off-set the relatively minor reduction in habitat that is caused by water

being used to irrigate croplands versus wet meadow vegetation. 

Farming requires a relatively large amount of staff time and effort in the

spring and summer. Staff time is a valued commodity; however, the benefits

to foraging cranes, waterfowl, and raptors is considered to be worth the time

of Refuge personnel. 

Naturalness

Water Management

Wetlands have likely been present in the San Luis Valley for thousands of

years. They were probably distributed along river and stream corridors,

springs and other areas where the groundwater level was high. For this

reason wetlands are biologically “natural” in the San Luis Valley.

Wetlands maintained on Alamosa NWR have a more pleasing appearance to

most because the basins themselves were sculpted by scouring actions of the

Rio Grande. Few dikes and levees are seen on Alamosa Refuge. Most

wetlands on Monte Vista NWR have been created during the 20th Century

by ranchers and then by refuge management. Due to the flat terrain, water

management has relied on an extensive network of large and small dikes,

obvious to the observer. In addition, pumped wells are a major source of

water on this Refuge. Some of the larger pumps are obvious and obtrusive to

some observers.

Under this Alternative, the “natural” appearance of Alamosa Refuge will be

maintained. Monte Vista Refuge will have a more managed appearance but

efforts will continue to replace large obtrusive straight dikes with smaller

contour dikes when terrain and habitat objectives allow.

Rest

Many observers and Refuge visitors view the absence of grazing, mowing,

and burning as a more natural condition on a national wildlife refuge,

following the notion that disturbance tends to discourage use of an area by

wildlife. In addition, the use of grazing by domestic livestock is frequently

criticized on the basis that domestic livestock are by definition a foreign

species. Likewise, the use of mowing machines leaves wheel tracks, a

uniform stubble height and creates a level of disturbance while being used

that would not be considered natural by most Refuge visitors.

Prescribed Burning

Current prescribed burning practices do have a dramatic visual effect on the

landscape, creating areas that are bare and black. These areas may appear

“unnatural” to many. However, these effects are short-lived. Within 5 to 15

years, burned areas may actually appear more “natural” because of the

species and structural diversity promoted by fire.
126 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Prescribed Grazing

Grazing is considered by many to be a more natural management tool than

are machines or chemicals, with some grazers being considered more

“natural” than others. Native ungulates may be the most “natural,” but

are much more difficult to manage than are domestic livestock. However,

many people believe that livestock grazing is an inappropriate use of

public lands dedicated to wildlife.

Grazing requires fencing and other support facilities which mar the

appearance of naturalness and affect the movement of wildlife. Many

rest/rotation grazing schemes require relatively small paddocks which, in

turn, require more fencing. One possible way to mitigate grazing’s effect on

“naturalness” is to use single strand electric fencing, which is generally

viewed as less obtrusive than 3-strand barbed wire fencing.

Current Refuge operations do include some experimental grazing on Monte

Vista NWR. However, grazing is not widespread and little fencing is

required solely for this purpose. Therefore, at the current time, grazing has

minimal impact on naturalness.

Farming

Current farming practices on some Refuge lands can create an “unnatural”

appearance. Farming infrastructure, including tractors, plows, discs, drills,

and irrigation equipment, are considered “unnatural” by many Refuge

visitors and other interested parties. Organic farming is generally considered

more natural than conventional agricultural practices. In this regard, Refuge

management strives to use organic methods whenever feasible; however,

current trends are towards incorporating more conventional methods

because past organic practices were not achieving farming objectives. This

trend may add to the perception of “unnatural” management on the Refuge.

A concern exists that fields left fallow do not look natural. Fields producing

small grains are another concern for they lack the more typical species and

structural diversity generally found in more “natural” less intensively

managed landscapes. The high concentration of wildlife attracted by these

crops are also perceived as “unnatural” by some Refuge visitors. However,

these same concentrations are thought by many other visitors to be very

“natural.”

Elk Management

Current elk management efforts include reducing numbers of resident elk on

the Monte Vista Refuge and limiting transient elk numbers. Some visitors

may consider these actions to be “unnatural” for a national wildlife refuge.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 127

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Water Use

Water Management

The use of Rio Grande water is governed by a 1939 compact between the

States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, with provisions for water

flows to Mexico as well. The compact ensures an equitable amount of river

water to all parties and has to be the basis for assessing the effects of

today’s water uses in the San Luis Valley.

The use of water from the Rio Grande or groundwater from pumped or

artesian wells throughout the SLV has some negative effects irrespective of

its use, whether for irrigation of cropland or wetland vegetation. Reduced

river flows at the Refuges’ points of diversion are the most noticeable

effects; however, with the Refuge’s close proximity to the River, return

water flows to the River are substantial. When compared to pre-irrigation

times, consumptive use of water on the Refuges is considerable, especially

since irrigation water is applied to Refuge lands from mid-February to

November. However, current water diversions (Rio Grande and wells) of

approximately 32,000 acre-feet is comparable with the water use prior to

Refuge acquisition when the land was managed to produce livestock forage.

The Refuge has been able to increase wetland acreage without increasing its

consumptive use of water from the Rio Grande by using water from the

Closed Basin Project, which is designated for Refuge use as mitigation for

the Project’s impacts to wetlands in the SLV.

Although current water management techniques are highly engineered and

complex, they are not as efficient as current technology allows; nor do they

permit exact monitoring of water consumption. A need exists for an

improved understanding of the water delivery system and water rights

associated with the Refuge Complex in order to ensure full and appropriate

use of all water entitlements.

It is very likely that pumping water from wells has lowered the water table. 

Rio Grande surface water diversions are used to recharge groundwater in an

effort to offset these losses. The unconfined aquifer in the central and

western part of the valley is monitored closely by the Rio Grande Water

Conservation District through a system of monitoring wells. It is currently

thought that the unconfined aquifer is in a general state of equilibrium. With

only a few exceptions annual recharge seems to replace water used. The

confined aquifer has less artesian pressure than in the early 1900s. In the

1970s the State Engineer placed a moratorium on new wells in this aquifer.

Given this general, valley-wide information there is little historic information

specific to groundwater levels on either refuge. 

The quality of the water returning to the river and contributing to

groundwater may actually be enhanced by the cycling of nutrients provided

by healthy wetland plant communities. The use of synthetic pesticides on the

Complex is limited, perhaps further contributing to the enhanced water

quality.

Rest

Current rest practices have no known measurable effect on water use.
128 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning has no measurable effect on water use.

Prescribed Grazing

Current grazing practices have no measurable effect on water use.

Farming

Until the late 1980s, croplands were flood irrigated. Since then, 462 acres

have been converted to more efficient sprinkler irrigation. Forty-eight acres

remain in flood irrigation. These acres are not suited for the use of sprinklers

due to their location, size, and shape; it would not be cost effective to design a

center pivot irrigation system.

Elk Management

Current elk management has no known measurable effect on water use on

the Refuge Complex.

Public Use

Water Management

Current water management creates and maintains wetlands and produces

wildlife food crops which, in turn, attract waterfowl, water birds, and other

wildlife to the Refuges. This provides convenient public viewing and hunting

opportunities. In particular, the many wetlands attract large numbers of

migrating sandhill cranes, making possible the popular annual Crane Festival

in the Spring. Water is also used to provide a Kid’s Fishing Day when a small

pond is temporarily filled and stocked with fish. The water is subsequently

released and used for irrigation.

Rest

Rest helps create dense vegetation. These dense areas increase wildlife

production by providing nesting cover. Subsequently, game bird hunting is

improved and aerial predators are more visible as they fly these areas in

search of prey. However, ground hugging wildlife are more difficult to

observe in dense vegetation.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning has both positive and negative effects on visitor use of

the Refuges. The dramatic effects of burning attract the attention of visitors.

Wildlife is more visible in burned areas and the lush green vegetation that

emerges after a burn is a pleasant sight for many visitors.

The negative effects of burning on visitor use include a reduction in

concealment for waterfowl hunters and the temporary displacement of

wildlife. Wildlife displacement can adversely affect viewing and hunting

opportunities.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 129

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Prescribed Grazing

Current grazing practices, limited to the research efforts described

elsewhere in this document, have few direct or indirect impacts on public

use. All fences are considered unaesthetic by some visitors, thereby

adversely affecting their experience. Also, a segment of society is opposed

to grazing on public lands and feel that the presence of cattle and its

attendant impacts on the land detract from their experience.

Farming

Farming generally enhances the Refuge experience for most visitors.

Farming attracts and concentrates wildlife to an area where they are highly

visible due to the sparse cover. Croplands are located near public roadways

to enhance viewing opportunities for all visitors, including those that are

vehicle-bound. Current farming practices also attract ring-necked pheasants

and other wildlife that are not commonly found in other parts of the San Luis

Valley, which adds to the diversity of wildlife viewing and/or hunting

experiences. Farming combined with water management that makes the

annual Crane Festival possible.

Some members of the public find farming unaesthetic and inappropriate on

wildlife refuges.

Elk Management

Current elk management does provide some public viewing opportunities,

including easily accessible areas commonly used by elk during the fall and

winter. Current management objectives are to limit elk numbers, not

eliminate them all together.

Public elk hunting is not allowed on the Refuge. Safety concerns rule out the

option of a public elk hunt on the Refuge. However, the dispersal hunt is

highly regulated, very safe and is proving to be effective.
130 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Weeds

Noxious weeds are the largest threat to the biological integrity of both

national wildlife refuges. Weeds are of concern both on the Refuge

Complex and throughout the San Luis Valley. Neighboring landowners

see the Refuges as a source of weeds, compounding their efforts to

eradicate them.

Opinions differ on what constitutes appropriate weed management. Some of

the public expects weed elimination, versus weed control (i.e., managing

weeds within a contained area and controlling further invasion). What some

perceive as effective weed control does not conform with what science tells

us. For instance, mowing and grazing (techniques many feel are effective and

appropriate) may make weeds unnoticeable but research shows that the

weeds are still there, particularly root stock, and able to reestablish

themselves if control measures stop. Additionally, no herbicides are

currently legally available that can effectively control the most problematic

weed species, especially the older established colonies in wetland

environments.

Water Management

Some weed species, such as Russian knapweed and tall whitetop can be

controlled by water at appropriate depths and durations. On the other hand,

current water management that improves wildlife habitat also creates

conditions favorable to weed invasion. For instance, irrigation favors Canada

thistle and tall whitetop, and flowing water disperses weed seeds. Also, the

maintenance of water control structures disturbs the soil, which enhances

conditions for weed invasion.

Compounding these effects is the fact that water, as applied on the Refuges,

precludes or limits the use of some weed control methods. Only one

herbicide, of limited effectiveness, is available for use in aquatic

environments. Mowing is difficult in wet soils and largely ineffective if not

combined with herbicide application.

Current water management capabilities do not allow for precise and

adequate application of water on the Refuge. Improvements in the

Complex’s water control systems would enhance weed control efforts.

Rest

Resting lands can increase or decrease weeds, partially depending on the

vegetation composition at the start of rest. If native vegetation is

predominant, vigorous, and healthy, rest may give natives a competitive

advantage over weed species. If the situation is reversed, weeds may spread.

In either case, the absence of cropping from mowing or grazing lessens the

stress on plants and promotes seed production. However, rest can reduce

germination success as ground cover increases, creating more shade, less

space, and lower soil temperatures. After rest periods, older stands of weeds

are less susceptible to some control measures, such as chemicals and mowing,

due to their extensive root stock.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 131

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Prescribed Burning

The effects of prescribed burning on weed control on the Complex is not

clearly understood at this time. Little information is available on fires

impact on species of local interest. Prescribed burning can increase the

effectiveness of other weed control methods such as chemicals and

grazing. Livestock may eat new green weedy shoots that sprout after

burning, whereas they may not have eaten the older shoots that existed

prior to burning. Chemicals applied after burning may limit the sprouting

of weeds from root stock since new growth may be more susceptible to

herbicides. Additionally, new shoots in the absence of dense cover may

better transport the herbicide to the root stock.

Prescribed Grazing

Prescribed grazing is not currently used as a management tool and is only

allowed as part of the research efforts described elsewhere in this document.

The impact of grazing on weeds is being assessed by this research project.

Farming

The soil disturbance and bare soils associated with current farming practices

can create weed invasion sites. Until recently, refuge management has tried

to use organic farming methods but has started to switch towards more

herbicide use. Past organic farming did not meet weed control objectives.

Specifically, Canada thistle has dramatically increased over the past 10

years. Therefore, current management is switching towards a minimal use of

chemical control methods in combination with the practice of including a

fallow period in the farming rotation.

Elk Management

Current elk management has no known measurable effect on weeds.
132 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

No Action Alternative

(Current Management) cont’d

Elk

Water Management

Water management has no known measurable effect on elk and their

management on the Refuge.

Rest

Current rest practices have no known measurable effect on elk and their

management on the Refuge.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning has no known measurable effect on elk and their

management on the Refuge.

Prescribed Grazing

Grazing can affect elk in that livestock may limit the availability of some

Refuge units for elk foraging. Current grazing is very limited and conducted

within the confines of ongoing research. Adverse effects on elk are

negligible, if any.

Farming

Current farming practices have been modified to eliminate growing peas

because they seemed to attract elk to the Refuge. This may decrease the

forage value of Refuge lands to elk, which is in line with elk management

goals.

Elk Management

Elk on the Refuge are not available for public hunting due to the safety

concerns outlined in the description of the management alternatives. This,

combined with heavy hunting pressure outside the Refuge, creates a haven

for elk on Refuge lands. Elk on the Refuge can cause private property

damage by leaving the Refuge at night and eat alfalfa stacks on private lands

and damage privately owned fences in route. The State, in turn, is legally

liable to the private landowner for the forage lost and damage to fences. This

creates a serious public relations and economic problem for the Colorado

Division of Wildlife. In consideration of these problems, plus the difficulty

the Division of Wildlife is having in meeting elk harvest objectives and the

safety threat to motorists on State Highway 15 and several county roads,

refuge management calls for trying to dissuade large numbers of elk from

using the Refuge.

Current management calls for discouraging elk residency and for limiting

transient elk numbers to no more than 200. This is accomplished by a

combination of dispersal hunting and strategic road closures during the

hunting season. An average of about 30 elk (ranging from 11 to 80) are

hunted each season through the dispersal hunt.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 133

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Proposed Alternative

Wildlife

Water Management 

Under the proposed alternative, water management in general will have

the same impact on wildlife habitat as in the current management

alternative, with the notable exception that the quality and quantity of

wetlands on the Complex will be enhanced. Improvements in the water

control infrastructure, installation of equipment that enables monitoring of

water application, and an increase in monitoring staff will all greatly

contribute to the enhancement of wildlife habitats.

Most wetlands on the Monte Vista NWR are directly or indirectly dependent

upon irrigation by Refuge staff. These wetlands replace some of those lost in

the Valley and provide critical habitat to migratory birds and other wildlife.

For this reason, water management must be as efficient as possible.

Improvements in water management infrastructure will increase the ability

of the Refuge staff to manage water more efficiently, irrigate wetland

vegetation during critical times, and just as importantly, to dewater areas.

Currently, throughout the Complex, a series of wetlands must be filled in

order to get water to the next wetland. This system limits water

management options and the ability to provide wildlife habitat in a timely

manner. Under the proposed alternative, improvements in water control

structures, wells, canals, and pumps will greatly enhance the efficiency and

timing of moving water as well as providing independent water control in

many wetlands. This increased control over water movement and

distribution allows for flexibility in creating and maintaining a range of

vegetation and water conditions which supports more wildlife species as well

as providing appropriate habitat to wildlife as their resource needs change

during the life cycle. 

Wetland basin capacity inventories are being conducted and staff gauges are

being placed in wetlands. These resulting data will allow Refuge staff to

quantify the amount of water in each basin, monitor water levels, document

habitat and wildlife response to water regimes, and provide for accurate and

consistent documentation of water use in each wetland. This information will

allow for adaptive management; for example, in order to produce native

wetland vegetation which feeds migratory birds, the Refuge staff must know

under what hydrological and other conditions these plants thrive and be able

to replicate those conditions in the future.
134 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Increased monitoring will also enable Refuge staff to examine how water

management practices impact the invasion and spread of noxious weeds

which degrade the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat. With a better

understanding of how these species are impacted by various water

regimes, water management practices could be adjusted to limit their

establishment or spread. The relationship between many species of

migratory birds and their use of habitat types under various hydrological

conditions is not well understood and could be further evaluated under this

alternative. A better understanding of how, when, and why birds are using

various wetland types will allow managers to make better informed decisions

regarding habitat management and conservation on the Complex and Valleywide. 

Rest

Rest under the proposed alternative will have very similar impacts on

wildlife as under the no action alternative with the exception of a significant

increase in the monitoring of rested habitats. Currently, the decision to stop

resting an area and implement a management tool such as fire, grazing, or

mowing is based upon observations of vegetation condition and wildlife use.

Under this alternative, additional Refuge staff would allow for the

implementation of a more quantified monitoring system being applied to the

majority of the Complex.

Areas are rested to allow for the production of vigorous plant growth which

provides food and cover to migratory birds and other wildlife. In most

vegetation communities, even rest can become detrimental to its long-term

health when reductions in plant germination, plant vigor, and nutrient

cycling occur. Identifying the ratio between rest and disturbance that best

supports the long-term production of ground-nesting birds, such as mallards

and many others, is critical to meeting the mission of the Refuges.

Additionally, the impacts of rest on the landscape are highly variable

depending upon site-specific variables such as hydrology, soil type, and plant

species composition. Under this alternative, some level of quantitative

monitoring would exist on the majority of the Complex to accurately

determine if the vegetation has become too stagnant, if rest is encouraging

noxious weeds and is not meeting habitat goals and objectives.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 135

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Prescribed Burning

Under the proposed alternative, burning would have similar impacts on

wildlife as in the current management alternative except that the level of

monitoring and evaluation would increase due to an increase in Refuge

staff. The data collected will be the basis for future decisions regarding if,

how, when, and where burning will be used. 

Refuge staff will evaluate each proposed prescribed burn on an individual

basis as is currently done; however, under this alternative, an additional staff

member will be available who will concentrate on managing the burning and

grazing programs on the Complex. As a result, more attention will be paid to

examining and then monitoring the impacts prescribed burning has on the

abiotic and biotic factors in context with Refuge goals and objectives.

Additionally, historic information about the role of fire in the Valley will be

gathered and incorporated into management decisions. The increase in

information about this management tool will impact wildlife by allowing

Refuge staff to manage vegetation with more clarity and precision and thus

provide better quality habitat. 

Prescribed Grazing

Upon completion of the 1996-2002 compatibility research, grazing will

become a potential management tool and under the direction of the Refuge

staff. The potential use of cattle grazing will be fully and closely evaluated

and based upon the results of the compatibility study, incorporation of other

research, professional judgement, and results from evaluation and

monitoring of Refuge habitats. The use of grazing will only be considered if it

can potentially meet the goals and objectives of the Complex. Under the

proposed alternative, grazing will generally impact wildlife as it does under

the current management alternative except that the level of monitoring will

be increased, the amount of the Complex evaluated will also be increased,

and monitoring results will be used to modify management as appropriate. 

The compatibility research will provide valuable information about land

management tools including grazing and their impact on Refuge habitat,

primarily tall whitetop. However, like all research projects, the results will

be based on a snapshot in time and under a range of environmental

conditions which are constantly changing. Therefore, Refuge staff must

continue to monitor and evaluate habitat and wildlife before and after

grazing to provide the information required to make the management

decisions that best provide for long-term support of trust species.

Due to all the factors that contribute to how the landscape responds to

management treatments, grazing can create desired results 1 year and

completely fail the next year (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982); therefore,

consistent and long-term monitoring is necessary for effective and adaptive

management. This will require collecting quantitative data over most of the

Complex. Even if this effort is stratified, additional staff will be needed to

conduct the field work. Under the proposed alternative, additional staff will

be available for these purposes. This increase in the amount and quality of

monitoring on the Complex will provide the information needed to make the

management decisions that will improve the quality of habitat available for

wildlife. In 1997 and 1998, the two Refuges responded very differently to the

same grazing prescription, primarily due to the differences in hydrology

(Diebboll 1999). Therefore, site-specific monitoring and evaluation needs to

be completed. Under this alternative, pre- and post-evaluation of grazing will

be conducted over a larger portion of the Complex and in greater detail.
136 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Farming

Under the proposed management alternative, the impact of farming on

wildlife will be the same as under the current management alternative.

The crop rotation of 2 years of small grains followed by 2 years of alfalfa

and 1 year fallow will continue on approximately 510 acres of the Monte

Vista NWR. If determined feasible, the farming will be done by a

cooperating farmer, except for irrigation which will be the Refuge staff’s

responsibility.

Under this alternative, the Refuge staff will investigate the potential for

providing more natural wetland foods for migrating cranes and waterfowl to

decrease the dependence of these species on farm fields. This investigation

will require communication between land managers along the migration path

as well as biologists and researchers familiar with these species.

Naturalness

Water Management

New water delivery infrastructure will increase the natural appearance of

the Refuge. Older structures will be replaced with new ones designed to be

more natural in appearance and generally less visible. Additionally, new

water delivery infrastructure will produce wetlands that are more natural in

their appearance (e.g., feathered water depths and gradual edges).

Rest

The effects of rest on “naturalness” under this alternative are the same as

that described under the no action alternative.

Prescribed Burning

The effects of prescribed burning on “naturalness” under this alternative are

the same as that described under the no action alternative. 

Prescribed Grazing

The effects of grazing on “naturalness” under this alternative are similar to

that already described under the no action alternative. However, it is

possible that under this alternative livestock grazing will once again become

an applied management tool to help meet habitat objectives. If this happens,

both positive and negative impacts will occur on the overall “naturalness” of

the Refuge.

More precise and knowledgeable application of grazing schemes will help

create more natural-looking landscapes through better weed control without

degradation to the soil, vegetation, and surface water.

Possible negative impacts include a more “unnatural” appearance for those

visitors that view livestock as nonnative and inappropriate on wildlife

refuges.

Farming

Farming under this alternative is very similar to farming under the no action

alternative. Thus, the effects of farming on “naturalness” are the same as

that already described under that alternative.

Elk Management

The effects of elk management on “naturalness” under this alternative are

the same as those discussed under the no action alternative.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 137

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Water Use

Water Management

Water management under this alternative focuses on improved water

delivery and monitoring, and better understanding of water law and water

rights associated with the Refuge Complex. These improvements will

assist and improve water management planning and decision-making.

The old water delivery system will be replaced with one that is better

designed to allow more precise and adequate water delivery to Refuge units.

This will allow for more efficient use of water in achieving habitat objectives. 

Improved monitoring will enable Service employees to better understand the

Refuge’s role and impact on Valley-wide water issues, such as groundwater

and aquifers. In turn, this will help improve the Service’s ability to defend

water rights and uses.

A better understanding of water law and water rights associated with the

Refuges will also help determine appropriate water uses and help document

beneficial use.

Improved water delivery and monitoring coupled with a better

understanding of water rights will ensure full and adequate use of existing

water rights.

With all of these improvements, refuge management will be better able to

determine water needs and identify need for additional water rights.

Increases in water rights may allow the Refuge to provide better habitat,

more habitat, and perhaps improved timing of wetland habitat availability.

Rest

Rest has no known measurable effect on water use. The only possible effect

is the nonuse of some artesian well water that is adjudicated for watering

cattle. During periods of rest, these water rights are not being used as

prescribed.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning has no measurable effect on water use because all

burning is conducted when plants are dormant, thus plant transpiration is

not affected.

Prescribed Grazing

Grazing practices under this alternative will be based on the results of the

current research. If livestock grazing becomes a viable management tool,

some increase may occur in use of water for livestock watering. The Refuge

already possesses water adjudicated for this purpose. Overall water

consumption should not increase.

Farming

Cultivated acreage will not increase under this alternative. Nor will any

changes occur in irrigation methods. Thus, the effects of farming on water

use under this alternative will not change from those already discussed

under the no action alternative.

Elk Management

Elk management under this alternative has no known measurable effect on

water use on the Refuge Complex.
138 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Public Use

Water Management

Under this alternative, improvement in the quality and timing of

availability of wetlands due to more effective water management will likely

increase the numbers and species diversity of water birds utilizing the

Refuge. For instance, the ability to micro-manage the amount and timing of

water delivered to Refuge units may increase the diversity of cranes and

shorebirds. This should improve the quality of wildlife viewing and hunting

opportunities.

Improved water monitoring will better facilitate environmental education by

helping to develop a more thorough understanding of the interaction

between water management actions, changes in habitat, and groundwater.

In addition to these effects on public use, those discussed for water

management under the no action alternative apply to this alternative as well.

Rest

The effects of rest on public use under this alternation are the same as those

discussed for the no action alternative.

Prescribed Burning

The effects of prescribed burning on public use under this alternative are the

same as those discussed for the no action alternative.

Prescribed Grazing

The effects of prescribed grazing on public use under this alternative are the

same as those discussed for the no action alternative with one additional

note. The effects may be somewhat more pronounced if grazing becomes an

active management tool after the research findings are analyzed and a

decision about future grazing practices is made.

Farming

The effects of farming on public use under this alternative are the same as

those discussed for the no action alternative.

Elk Management

The effects of elk management on public use under this alternative are the

same as those discussed under the no action alternative.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 139

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Weeds

Water Management

Under this alternative, water delivery will be greatly improved, allowing

for more precise, efficient, and effective water application on Refuge

units. In addition, a better water-habitat monitoring program will produce

an improved understanding of how water impacts weed proliferation and

control. The combination of these two actions will result in better weed

control on the Refuge Complex.

Rest

The effects of rest on weeds under this alternative are the same as those

discussed under the no action alternative.

Prescribed Burning

Under this alternative, a prescribed burning monitoring program would be

implemented. One goal of this program would be to clarify the relationship

between prescribed burning and weeds. Results of the monitoring program

would be used to design a burn program that would help meet management

objectives, including maximizing weed control.

Prescribed Grazing

Grazing may become an actively employed tool to help achieve management

objectives. Ongoing monitoring of the relationship between different grazing

activities and habitat response will allow for the design of a prescribed

grazing plan that better meets habitat goals, including maximized weed

control.

Farming

The effects of farming on weeds under this alternative are the same as those

discussed for the no action alternative.

Elk Management

Elk management under this alternative has no known measurable effect on

weeds.
140 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Environmental 

Consequences

Proposed Alternative

Elk

Water Management

Water management has no known measurable effect on elk and their

management on the Refuge.

Rest

Rest practices have no known measurable effect on elk and their

management on the Refuge.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning has no known measurable effect on elk and their

management on the Refuge.

Prescribed Grazing

Prescribed grazing may become a viable management tool under this

alternative. If that happens, the effects on elk will be the same as that

discussed under the no action alternative, but a bit more pronounced.

Adverse effects are expected to remain negligible.

Farming

The effects of farming on elk under this alternative are the same as those

discussed under the no action alternative.

Elk Management

The effects of elk management on elk populations under this alternative are

similar to those discussed under the no action alternative. Elk habitat may be

improved on lands adjacent to Monte Vista NWR, the goal being to attract

elk away from Refuge lands and reduce elk densities in some areas by

increasing the availability of suitable habitat. Lastly, injury and loss of elk

due to fencing may be reduced with the installation of elk proof fencing in

some areas.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 141

VI. List of Preparers

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan was prepared by:

Alamosa/Monte Vista Refuge staff members: Michael Blenden (Refuge

Manager, > November 1995), Ron Garcia (Deputy Refuge Manager), Kelli

Stone (Biologist), Lisa Rawinski (Biological Technician), Jackie Hensley

(Administrative Officer), Steve Berlinger (previous Refuge Manager), Rick

Schnaderbeck (previous Deputy Refuge Manager, <2000).

Regional office staff members: Adam Misztal (Refuge Planner, Planning

Team Leader), Bridget McCann (Assistant Refuge Planner), Cheryl Williss

(Chief, Water Resources), John Esperance (Biologist, Planning), Jaymee

Fojtik ( former GIS Specialist for region 6), Barbara Shupe (Writer/Editor),

Sean Fields (Biologist, Planning), Sheri Fetherman (Chief, Education and

Visitor Services)

Others: Leigh Fredrickson (University of Missouri), Loree Harvey

(Research Technician, University of Missouri), John Gerstle (Contract

Hydrologist, Hydrosphere Inc., Boulder, Colorado), Robert Tribble (contract

employee from U.S. Forest Service), Susan Echelberger (Rocky Mountain

Arsenal NWR, Outdoor Recreation Planner).
142 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

VII. Consultation and Coordination with

Others

Summary of Public Involvement/Comments

For a description of public involvement and a summary of comments and issues raised during the Public Scoping

process, please refer to “Planning Issues” section.

Mailing List

Federal Officials

# U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Rita Bastien, District Director, Colorado Springs

# U.S. Senator Wayne Allard

Jim Bensberg, Area Director, Colorado Springs

# U.S. Representative Scott McInnis

Roger Gomez, District Director, Pueblo, CO

Federal Agencies

# Bureau of Land Management

# Bureau of Reclamation - Closed Basin Project

# Bureau of Land Management, La Jara, CO;

Lakewood, CO

# Great Sand Dunes National Park 

# National Park Service, Mosca, CO

# NRCS/RC&D, Alamosa, CO

# Rio Grande National Forest

# San Luis Valley Conservation District

# Upper/Middle Rio Grande Ecoteam

# USDA, NRCS 

# USDA, Resource Conservation and Development

Program

# US EPA, Denver, CO

# US Forest Service

# USFWS, Albuquerque, NM; Anchorage, AK;

Arapaho NWR, CO; Arlington, VA; Arrowwood

NWR, ND; Atlanta, GA; Crescent Lake/North

Platte NWR, NE; Denver, CO; Fort Snelling,

MN; Hadley, MA; Juneau, AK; Air Quality

Branch, Lakewood, CO; Des Lacs NWR, ND;

Ecological Services Field Office, Golden, CO;

J.Clark Salyer NWR, ND; Lost Trail NWR, MT;

Medicine Lake NWR, MT; Partners for Wildlife,

Monte Vista, CO; Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA;

Sherwood, OR; Sand Lake NWR, SD; Seedskadee

NWR, WY; Shepherdstown, WV; Upper Souris

NWR, ND; Waubay NWR, SD

# USGS, BRD, Rick Schroeder, Fort Collins, CO

# USGS, Keith Lucey, Pueblo, CO

State Officials

# Governor Bill Owens

# Senator Lewis Entz

# Representative Jim Snook

# Representative Carl Miller

# Colorado Wildlife Commissioner

State Agencies

# Colorado Division of Water Resources

# Colorado Division of Wildlife

# Colorado Natural Heritage Program

# Colorado State Forest, Alamosa, CO

# Colorado State Land Board, Alamosa, CO

# Colorado State Parks, Denver, CO

# State Historic Preservation Office, Denver, CO

City/County/Local Governments

# Alamosa County Commissioners

# Alamosa County Weed Supervisor

# Alamosa-La Jara Conservancy District

# City of Alamosa

# City of Monte Vista

# Conejos County Commissioners

# Conejos Planning Department

# Conejos Water Conservancy District

# Costilla County Commissioners

# Mineral County Commissioners

# Rio Grande County Commissioners

# Rio Grande Water Conservation District

# Saguache County Commissioners

# San Luis Valley GIS/GPS Coordinator

Organizations

# American Birding Association

# American Farmland Trust

# Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA

# Arkansas Valley Audubon Society

# Colorado Cattleman’s Agricultural Land Trust

# Colorado Environmental Coalition

# Crestone-Baca Land Trust

# Crestone POA

# Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

# Ducks Unlimited

# Friends of the SLV National Wildlife Refuges

# Great Outdoors Colorado

# Hydrosphere Resource Consultants

# Illinois Dept of Natural Resources, Springfield, IL

# IWJV, West Valley City, UT

# KRA Corporation, F&W Reference Section,

Bethesda, MD

# Manitou Foundation, Crestone, CO

# National Audubon Society, Gretchen Muller,

Washington, D.C.

# National Trappers Association, New Martinsville,

WV
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 143

# National Wildlife Refuge Association, Colorado

Springs, CO

# The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO & Mosca,

CO

# Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust

# Rio Grande Rio Bravo Coalition

# Rio Grande Riparian Corridor Committee

# Rock Creek Heritage Project (Rio De La Vista)

# Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

# Roth & Associates

# San Luis Valley - SCD Watershed

# San Luis Valley Community Connections

# San Luis Valley Development Resources Group

# San Luis Valley Ducks Unlimited

# San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council

# San Luis Water Conservancy District

# ScCeed, Center, CO

# Sinapu, Boulder, CO

# TWS-Central Mountain and Plains Section, Fort

Collins, CO

# Trust for Public Land (Eric Love)

# Valley Wide Health Services

# Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

and Pratt, KS

# The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C. &

Denver, CO

Libraries

# Adams State College Library, Alamosa

# Carnegie Public Library, Monte Vista

# Center Branch Library, Center

# Del Norte Public Library, Del Norte

# Southern Peaks Library, Alamosa

Schools/Universities

# Colorado State University: Dr. Rick Knight, Dr.

Ron Ryder

# Prof. Paul Friesema, Northwestern Univ.,

Evanston, IL

# University of Missouri

Media Contacts:

# Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, Colorado

Springs, CO

# The Denver Post, Monte Vista, CO

# Pueblo Chieftain, Alamosa, CO

# The Valley Courier, Alalmosa, CO

# Valley Publishing, Monte Vista, CO

# KGIW, Alamosa, CO

# KRZA, Alamosa, CO

# KSLV, Monte Vista, CO

# KSPK, Alamosa, CO

Individuals

Gigi Dennis

Hobart Dixon

Elizabeth Emmer

Alan Getz

Mark Haugen

Stan Heergal

Cathy Mcneil

Dave Montgomery

Leon Moyer

Matt & Jenny Nehring

Elmer Olson

Roger Perry

Darrel Plane

John & Lisa Rawinski

Arnold Salazar

Karla & Doug Shriver

Virginia Simmons

Mike Spearman

Dan and Patty Stotler

Amy Uhrich

George Whitten

Jamie Williams

Harold Ziegler
144 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix A. Glossary

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy

decisions are implemented within a framework of

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of

results help managers determine whether current

management should continue as is or whether it should be

modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative: 1) A reasonable way to fix the identified

problem or satisfy the stated need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2)

Alternatives are different means of accomplishing refuge

purposes and goals and contributing to the System mission

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Animal Unit Month: A measure of the quantity of livestock

forage. Equivalent to the amount of forage needed to

support a 1,000 pound animal (or 1 cow/calf pair) for 1

month.

Avian Cholera: A contagious disease resulting from

infection by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida that

affects migratory birds. High concentration of the bacteria

can be found for several weeks in waters where birds die

from the disease. The bacteria can be transmitted through

ingestion by birds and other animals scavenging off of

diseased carcasses, direct contact between birds, and by

airborne particulate (Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases,

1999-001).

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes,

including the variety of living organisms, the genetic

differences among them, and the communities and

ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW

1.12B). The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic

communities, and ecological processes. Also referred to as

Biodiversity. 

Biological Control: The use of organisms or viruses to

control weeds or other pests.

Breeding Bird Survey: A cooperative program of the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service

for monitoring population changes in North American

breeding birds by using point counts along roads (Koford, et

al. 1994).

Categorical Exclusion: (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX). A

category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively

have a significant effect on the human environment and

have been found to have no such effect in procedures

adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A wildlife-dependent recreational use or

any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional

judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with

or detract from the fulfillment of the Mission of the System

or the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603

FW 3.6). A compatibility determination supports the

selection of compatible uses and identified stipulations or

limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP): A document that

describes the desired future conditions of the refuge; and

provides long-range guidance and management direction

for the refuge manager to accomplish the purposes of the

refuge, contribute to the mission of the System, and to meet

other relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW

1.5). 

Concern: See definition of “Issue.” 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or

objects used by people in the past. 

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted

study designed to locate and evaluate evidence of cultural

resources present within a defined geographic area.

Inventories may involve various levels, including

background literature search, comprehensive field

examination to identify all exposed physical manifestations

of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site

distribution and density over a larger area. Evaluation of

identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource Overview: A comprehensive document

prepared for a field office that discusses, among other

things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and

extent of known cultural resources, previous research,

management objectives, resource management conflicts or

issues, and a general statement on how program objectives

should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview should

reference or incorporate information from a field office

background or literature search described in Section VIII

of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Depredation: Damage inflicted upon agricultural crops or

ornamental plants by wildlife. 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or

composition. May be natural (e.g., fire) or human-caused

events (e.g., timber harvest). 

Ecological Succession: The orderly progression of an area

through time from one vegetative community to another in

the absence of disturbance. For example, an area may

proceed from grass-forb through aspen forest to

mixed-conifer forest. 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant

and animal communities and their associated nonliving

environment. 

Ecosystem Management: Management of natural resources

using system-wide concepts to ensure that all plants and

animals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levels in

native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species (Federal): A plant or animal species

listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its

range. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 145

Endangered Species (State): A plant or animal species in

danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in a particular

State within the near future if factors contributing to its

decline continue. Populations of these species are at

critically low levels or their habitats have been degraded or

depleted to a significant degree. 

Endemic Species: Plants or animals that occur naturally in a

certain region and whose distribution is relatively limited to

a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment (EA): A concise public

document, prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the

purpose and need for an action, alternatives to such action,

and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to

determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact (40 CFR

1508.9). 

Fauna: All the vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an

area. 

Federal Trust Resources: A trust is something managed by

one entity for another who holds the ownership. The FWS

holds in trust many natural resources for the people of the

United States of America as a result of Federal Acts and

treaties. Examples are species listed under the Endangered

Species Act, migratory birds protected by international

treaties, and native plant or wildlife species found on a

national wildlife refuge. 

Federal Trust Species: All species where the Federal

government has primary jurisdiction including federally

endangered or threatened species, migratory birds,

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): A document

prepared in compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act, supported by an Environmental Assessment,

that briefly presents why a Federal action will have no

significant effect on the human environment and for 

which an Environmental Impact Statement, therefore, will

not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Fire Regime: A description of the frequency, severity, and

extent of fire that typically occurs in an area or vegetative

type. 

Flora: All the plant species of an area. 

Forb: A broad-leaved, herbaceous plant; for example, a

columbine. 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of

desired future conditions that conveys a purpose but does

not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW

1.5). 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system

capable of storing and manipulating spatial data. 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions

required by an organism for survival and reproductions.

The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to

move ecosystems to desired conditions and processes,

and/or to healthy forest lands, rangelands, and aquatic

systems. 

Indicator Species: A species of plants or animals that is

assumed to be sensitive to habitat changes and represents

the needs of a larger group of species. Also referred to as a

key species. 

Inholding: Privately owned land inside the boundary of a

national wildlife refuge. 

Integrated Pest Management: Methods of managing

undesirable species (such as weeds) including: education,

prevention, physical or mechanical methods of control,

biological control, responsible chemical use, and cultural

methods. 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management

decision; e.g., a Service initiative, opportunity, resource

management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit,

conflict in uses, public concern, or the presence of an

undesirable resource condition (Draft Service Manual 602

FW 1.5).

Maintenance Management System (MMS): A national

database which contains the unfunded maintenance needs of

each refuge. Projects included are those required to

maintain existing equipment and buildings, correct safety

deficiencies for the implementation of approved plans, and

meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates.

Management Alternative: See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to

another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of a unit’s purpose

and reason for being. 

Mitigation: Measures designed to counteract environmental

impacts or to make impacts less severe. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track

changes of selected parameters over time. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate

environmental information, and use public participation in

the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal

agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning

requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents

to facilitate better environmental decision-making (from 40

CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge: A designated area of land, water,

or an interest in land or water within the Refuge System. 
146 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

National Wildlife Refuge System: Various categories of

areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for the

conservation of fish and wildlife, including species

threatened with extinction, all lands, waters, and interests

therein administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges,

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife

that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game

ranges, wildlife management areas, or waterfowl production

areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission 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. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a

particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird: A bird species that breeds

north of the U.S./Mexican border and winters primarily

south of this border. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): In the case of a Federal action, such

as analyzed in this documentation, an NOI is a notice that a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and associated NEPA

document will be prepared and considered (40 CFR

1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

Notice of Availability (NOA): An NOA is a notice that

documentation is available to the public on a Federal action,

in this case, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Published in the Federal Register. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or

State law as generally possessing one or more of the

following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage;

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or disease; or

nonnative, new, or not common to the United States.

According to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a

noxious weed is one that causes disease or had adverse

effects on man or his environment and, therefore, is

detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United

States and to the public health. 

Objective: An objective is a concise target statement of

what will be achieved, how much will be achieved, when and

where it will be achieved, and who is responsible for the

work. Objectives are derived from goals and provide the

basis for determining management strategies. Objectives

should be attainable and time-specific and should be stated

quantitatively to the extent possible. If objectives cannot be

stated quantitatively, they may be stated qualitatively

(Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Planning Area: A planning area may include lands outside

existing planning unit boundaries that are being studied for

inclusion in the System and/or partnership planning efforts.

It may also include watersheds or ecosystems that affect

the planning area. 

Planning Team: A planning team prepared the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Planning teams are

interdisciplinary in membership and function. Teams

generally consist of a planning team leader; refuge manager

and staff; biologists; staff specialists or other

representatives of Service programs, ecosystems or

regional offices; and other governmental agencies as

appropriate. 

Planning Unit: A single refuge, an

ecologically/administratively related complex of refuges, or

distinct unit of a refuge. 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities

based on the similarity in dominants of all layers of vascular

species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in

its composition; occurs in particular locations under

particular influences; a reflection or integration of the

environmental influences on the site -- such as soil,

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and

rainfall; denotes a general kind of climax plant community,

i.e., ponderosa pine or bunchgrass. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined

(by the decision maker) to best achieve the Refuge purpose,

vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission,

addresses the significant issues; and is consistent with

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The skillful application of fire to natural

fuels under conditions of weather, fuel moisture, soil

moisture, etc., that allow confinement of the fire to a

predetermined area and produces the intensity of heat and

rate of spread to accomplish planned benefits to one or

more objectives of forest management, wildlife

management, or hazard reduction. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of

Federal, State, and local government agencies; Indian

tribes; and foreign nations. It may include anyone outside

the core planning team. It includes those who may or may

not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect

them. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers affected and

interested individuals and organizations an opportunity to

become informed about, and to express their opinions on,

Service actions and policies. In the process, these views are

studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public Involvement Plan: Broad long-term guidance for

involving the public in the comprehensive planning process. 

Purpose(s) of the Refuge: The purpose of a refuge is

specified in or derived from the law, proclamation,

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation

document, or administrative memorandum establishing,

authorization, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge

subunit. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 147

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of

decision prepared by the Federal agency, pursuant to

NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision,

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of

the environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as

to whether all practical means to avoid or minimize

environmental harm from the alternative selected have

been adopted (and if not, why they were not), and a

summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable

for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS): The Refuge

Operating Needs System is a national database which

contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge.

Projects included are those required to implement

approved plans, and meet goals, objectives, and legal

mandates. 

Refuge Use: Any activity on a refuge, except

administrative or law enforcement activity carried out by or

under the direction of an authorized Service employee. 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: The purposes specified in or derived from

the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public

land order, donation document, or administrative

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a

refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing: A 1978 Act (Public Law 95-469)

which authorizes payments to counties in which Serviceowned land is located. The amount of the payment is

computed based on things such as the appraised value of

Service fee land, number of acres of fee land, and net

receipts collected by the Service for certain activities

permitted on reserve lands (lands withdrawn from the

public domain). 

Riparian: Refers to an area or habitat that is transitional

from terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems; including streams,

lakes wet areas, and adjacent plant communities and their

associated soils which have free water at or near the

surface; an area whose components are directly or

indirectly attributed to the influence of water; of or relating

to a river; specifically applied to ecology, “riparian”

describes the land immediately adjoining and directly

influenced by streams. For example, riparian vegetation

includes any and all plant-life growing on the land adjoining

a stream and directly influenced by the stream. 

Special Status Species: Plants or animals which have been

identified through either Federal law, State law, or agency

policy, as requiring special protection of monitoring.

Examples include federally listed endangered, threatened,

proposed, or candidate species; state-listed endangered,

threatened, candidate, or monitor species; U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service species of management concern and species

identified by the Partners in Flight Program as being of

extreme or moderately high conservation concern. 

Species of Management Interest: Those plant and animal

species, while not failing under the definition of special

status species, that are of management interest by virtue of

being Federal trust species such as migratory birds,

important game species including white-tailed deer,

furbearers such as American marten, important prey

species including red-backed vole, or significant keystone

species such as beaver. 

Step-down Management Plans: Step-down management

plans provide the details necessary to implement

management strategies identified in the comprehensive

conservation plan (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Sound Professional Judgement: A finding, determination, or

decision that is consistent with principles of sound fish and

wildlife management and administration, available science

and resources, and adherence to the requirements of the

Refuge Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, or technique or

combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to meet

unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Threatened Species (Federal): Species listed under the

Endangered Species Act that are likely to become

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or

a significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species (State): A plant or animal species likely

to become endangered in a particular State within the near

future if factors contributing to population decline or

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Trust Species: Species for which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service has primary responsibility including most federally

listed threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish

once they enter inland U.S. waterways, and migratory

birds. Also see “Federal Trust Species.”

Understory: Any vegetation whose canopy (foliage) is

below, or closer to the ground than canopies of other plants. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mission: The mission of the

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to

conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and plants

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the

American people. 

Vegetation Type, Habitat Type, Forest Cover Type: A land

classification system based upon the concept of distinct

plant associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of the desired future

condition of the planning unit, based primarily upon the

System mission, specific refuge purposes, and other

relevant mandates (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Watershed: The region draining into a river, river system,

or body of water. 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that occurs on

wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 
148 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Wildlife Corridor: A landscape feature that facilitates the

biologically effective transport of animals between larger

patches of habitat dedicated to conservation functions. Such

corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, including

frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the

once in a lifetime dispersal of juvenile animals. These are

transition habitats and need not contain all the habitat

elements required for long-term survival or reproduction of

its migrants. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation: A use of a refuge involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or

environmental education and interpretation. The National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 specifies

that these are the six priority general public uses of the

System. 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 149

Appendix B. References

Andrews, Robert and Robert Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds:

A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver

Museum of Natural History. 442 pages.

Bryant, P. June 1998. Personal communication.

Busch, J.D., M.P. Miller, E.H. Paxton, M.K. Sogge, and P.

Keim. 2000. Genetic Variation in the Endangered

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Auk: 117:586-595. 

Ciruli and Associates. 1998. 1998 Indicators in the San Luis

Valley. http://www.ciruli.com/sanluis1.html

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. 2000.

November 2000 not seasonally adjusted labor force

data. (http://lmi.cdle.state.co.us/ali/nov001f.htm) 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.

1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats

of the United States. Series: U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service. Biological Services Program; FWS/OBS-79/31.

Diebboll, R.A. 1999. Cattle Grazing in Wetlands on

Alamosa/ Monte Vista NWR. MS Thesis. University of

Missouri-Colombia. Dr. Leigh Fredrickson, Thesis

Supervisor. 

Dixon, H. N. 1986. Checklist of the flowering plants of the

San Luis Basin, Colorado. Adams State College,

Alamosa, CO. 49pp.

Drewien, R. September 2000. Personal communication.

Eggers, S.D. and D.M. Reed. 1997. Wetland plants and

communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Northern Prairie

Wildlife Research Center Homepage.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/mnplant/mnp

lant.htm. (Version 03Sep98) 

Emery, P. A., R. J. Snipes, J. M. Dumeyer, and J. M. Klein.

1973. Water in the San Luis Valley, south-central

Colorado. Colorado Water Resources Circular 18.

Colorado Water Conservation Board, 1845 Sherman

Street, Denver, CO 80203. 27pp.

Ferriday, J. and J. Jones. 2002. Strategic Ranchlands at Risk

in the Rockies - Mapping the threats to prime ranchland

in the Rocky Mountain West. American Farmland

Trust, Rocky Mountain Regional Office.

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994.

“Mammals of Colorado.” Denver Museum of Natural

History. 467 pages. 

Fredrickson, L. H. and T.S. Taylor. 1982. Management of

seasonally flooded impoundments for wildlife. Fish &

Wildl. Svce. Resour. Pub. 148. Wash. D.C. 32pp.

Gerstle, J. April 2001. Hydrosphere, Colorado Division of

Water Resources.

Gilbert, D. W., D. R. Anderson, J. K. Ringelman, and M. R.

Szymczak. 1996. Response of nesting ducks to habitat

and management on the Monte Vista National Wildlife

Refuge, Colorado. 44pp.

Harrington, H. D. 1954. Manual of the plants of Colorado.

Sage Books, Denver, CO (second edition 1964).

Harvey, L. October 2000. Personal communication.

Higgins, K. F. and M. H. Kjellsen. 1990. Grasslands: Benefits

of management by fire. SD State U., Pub. FS857.

Hopper. 1982. Fish and Wildlife Report for Closed Basin

Division, San Luis Valley Project, Colorado.

Knopf, F.L., R.R. Johnson, T. Rish, F.B. Samson, and R.C.

Szaro. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the

United States. Wilson Bulletin 100:272-284. 

Koford, R.R., J.B. Dunning Jr., C.A. Ribic, D.M. Finch. 1994.

A glossary for avian conservation biology. Wilson

Bulletin 106(1):121-137. Jamestown, ND. Northern

Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

http://npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/avian/avian.htm 

Natural Resources Committee Report. February 1938.

Regional Planning, Part VI - The Rio Grande Joint

Investigation in the Upper Rio Grand Basin in

Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas 1936-1937. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Olson, E. February 1997. Personal communication

Owen, J.C. and M.K. Sogge. 1997. Banding and Genetic

Sampling of Willow Flycatchers in Colorado: 1996 and

1997 Summary Report. Oct. 1997. USGS Colorado

Plateau Field Station at Northern Arizona University.

Flagstaff. AZ. 

Paxton, E.H. 2000. Molecular centetic Structuring and

Demographic History of the Willow Flycatcher

(Empidonaz trailii). MS Thesis. Northern Arizona

University, Flagstaff, AZ. 33 pp. 

Rocchio, J., D. Culver, S. Kettler, R. Schoor. 2000. Biological

inventory of Rio Grande and Conejos Counties,

Colorado. Vol. 2: A natural heritage inventory and

assessment of wetlands and riparian areas in Rio

Grande and Conejos Counties.

Ryder, R. February 1999. Personal communication

San Luis Valley Water Conservancy District. 2001. Rio

Grande Headwaters Restoration Project Technical

Advisory Committee, Colorado Water Conservation

Board. Rio Grande Headwaters Restoration Project,

unpublished report.

Savory, A. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Island

Press, Washington D. C., U.S.A.
150 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Shuford, W. David. 1999. Status Assessment and

Conservation Plan for the Black Tern (Chlidonias niger

surinamensis) in North America. USFWS. 

Siebenthal, C.E., 1910. Geology and water resources of the

San Luis Valley, Colorado. Geological Survey Water

Supply Paper 240. 124pp.

Simmons, Virginia McConnell. The San Luis Valley: Land of

the Six-Armed Cross, 2d ed. Niwot, Colorado:

University Press of Colorado, 1999 [1979].

Stehn, Tom. 2000. Personal communication.

Stehn, Tom. 2001. Personal communication.

Stehn, Tom. 2002. Personal communication.

Swift, Dean. May 2000. Personal communication.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jan 1878. Land Classification

Map of Part of southwestern Colorado atlas sheet

number 61(D) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, issued

Jan. 1878

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999a. County population estimates for

July 1, 1999 and population change for April 1, 1990 to

July 1, 1999. (http://www.census.gov/population/

estimates)

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999b. Population estimates for

counties by race and Hispanic origin: July 1, 1999.

(http://www.census.gov/population/estimates)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

1975. Colorado field office technical guide. Range site

descriptions.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

1980. Soil survey of Rio Grande County Area, CO.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1989. Draft San Luis resource management plan and

environmental impact statement.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1962. Master plan for physical

and biological development of Monte Vista National

Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1992. National Wetlands

Inventory maps: Colorado (scale 1:24,000), U.S.

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Compiled

from all San Luis Valley quadrangles. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1994. Whooping Crane

Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, NM. 92pp.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1995. Southwestern willow

flycatcher: Final rule. Federal Register 60(38):10693-

10715. (http://eco.fws.gov/species_profile/species_

profile.html?spcode=B094) 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1998. Rocky mountain

population greater sandhill crane management plan.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2001. Southwestern Willow

Flycatcher Draft Recover Plan. Prepared by

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recover Team

Technical Support. http://southwest.fws.gov

Vandiver, S. May 2002, Personal communication. Division

III Engineer, Colorado Department of Water

Resources.

Young, J. A., C. E. Turner, L. F. James. 1995. Perennial

Pepperweed. Rangelands 17(4)
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 151

Appendix C. Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)

Projects

RONS Projects

RONS No. Goal-Objective Project Description First Year

Need

Recurring

Annual

Need

FTE1

AL2 - 00004 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all,

5-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8.1,

8.2, 9-all

Biological Monitoring Program 157,000 55,000

MV3

 - 00007 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all,

5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all, 8-

all, 9-all

Improve Water

Management/Monitoring on Monte

Vista NWR

65,000 54,000 1.0

MV - 00004 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all,

5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2

Invasive Weed Management

Program

76,000 60,000

AL - 00003 8.1, 8.2, 9-all Inventory and Restore Riparian

Habitat and Wildlife

62,000 20,000

MV - 00022 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all,

5-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8.1,

8.3, 9-all

Conduct Long-term Habitat and

Wildlife Monitoring to Comply with

Compatibility Lawsuit Settlement

38,000 27,000 .5

MV - 98016 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all,

6-all, 7-all

Provide Fall Migration Habitat by

Increasing Fall Well Pumping

54,000

AL - 00100 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all,

5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2

Expand Integrated Pest

Management of Invasive Weeds

230,000

AL - 00002 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all,

5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all, 8-

all, 9-all

Improve Maintenance on Alamosa

NWR

65,000 54,000 1.0

MV - 00008 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2-all,

3-all, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2

Improve Habitat with Fire and

Grazing

65,000 63,000 1.0

MV - 00002 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all,

5.1, 5.3, 6-all, 7-all,

8.1, 8.2, 9-all

Improve Water Planning and

Management

65,000 63,000 1.0

AL - 97001 1-all, 2-all, 3-all, 4-all,

5-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8.1,

8.2, 9-all

Initiate Biological Inventories 65,000 53,000 1.0

MV - 97002 13.3 Expand Refuge Public Use Facilities

- Construct Wildlife

Photography/Observation Blinds

196,000 5,000

Totals $1,138,000 $454,000 5.5

1- FTE=Full-time Equivalent; 2 - AL=Alamosa NWR; 3 - MV=Monte Vista NWR
152 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix D. Maintenance Management System (MMS)

Projects

MMS Projects

MMS No. Goal-Objective Description Cost

MV1 - 00002 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all Replace 20+ year old worn-out and unsafe

backhoe

$130,000

AL2

 - 95001 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8-

all, 9-all

Replace worn-out backhoe $115,000

AL - 01004 11.3 Rehabilitate River Walking Trail $50,000

MV - 01003 5.1, 5.3 Replace Unit 14 farm irrigation system $25,000

MV - 00003 5.1, 5.3 Replace worn-out 14' land-plane $18,000

MV - 00006 5.1, 5.3 Repair and move Unit 13 center pivot sprinkler $52,000

AL - 01001 2-all, 3.2, 3.3, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 8.1, 8.2 Replace 1978 6' pull behind mower $10,000

AL - 91016 11.2 Rehabilitate hunter road/parking areas $25,000

MV - 97009 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all Replace D7 dozer $360,000

AL - 97006 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 8-

all, 9-all

Replace track hoe $207,000

AL - 98007 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 6-all, 7-all, 9-

all

Replace 1970 Allis-Chalmers motor grader $220,000

MV - 00008 1-all, 2-all, 3.1, 4-all, 5.1, 5.3, 6-all,

7-all, 9-all

Replace 60 water control structures that

minimally or no longer function

$62,000

Total $1,074,000

1 - MV=Monte Vista NWR, 2 - AL=Alamosa NWR
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 153

Appendix E. Compatibility

Determinations

Station Name:

Alamosa-Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Date Established:

Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge was approved for

acquisition on June 27, 1962 by the Migratory Bird

Conservation Committee.

Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge was approved for

acquisition on June 10, 1952 by the Migratory Bird

Conservation Committee.

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge - Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929, Public Land Order 3899

dated December 1965.

Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge - Migratory Bird

Conservation Act of 1929, Public Land Order 2204

dated September 1960.

Purpose for which Established:

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)

Description of Proposed Uses:

Wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, environmental

education and interpretation

Waterfowl and small game hunting are allowed on both

refuges during the fall. Hunter parking areas are provided

on both Refuges. Additionally, overnight camping is

permitted at two hunter parking areas on Alamosa NWR

and six parking areas on Monte Vista NWR. Camping is

permitted only during hunting season, is restricted to the

parking areas only, and is operationally limited to hunters

as a convenience to accommodate their use of the Refuge.

Fishing is limited to “Kids Fishing Day” on Monte Vista

NWR. This is a multi-agency collaboration held annually

during National Fishing Week. A small pond (less than two

acres) 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 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.

Wildlife observation and photography are facilitated by an

auto tour route on each Refuge, two hiking trails on

Alamosa NWR, wildlife observation pull-outs on Monte

Vista NWR, a wildlife viewing platform on Monte Vista

NWR, and the bluff overlook on Alamosa NWR.
154 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

The Monte Vista Crane Festival is the largest wildlife

observation event in Colorado. The Refuge has

approximately 10,000 visitors during the period a week

before and a week following this early March festival. All

wildlife observation facilities on both Refuges are heavily

used during this period. Bus tours are given on Monte Vista

NWR twice daily during the three day event. All but one of

the tours is confined to wildlife viewing areas open to the

public. One tour is given on each Refuge in areas normally

closed to public access. Refuge staff guide all Refuge bus

tours, discussing the National Wildlife Refuge System,

refuge management, natural history, local water issues and

natural resource partnerships in the San Luis Valley and

Colorado.

Environmental education and interpretation is provided for

via a visitor contact station on Alamosa NWR and a

seasonal contact station on Monte Vista NWR, interpretive

signs along the auto tour routes, Refuge field trips, and

classroom presentations. The Comprehensive Conservation

Plan proposes construction of a new multiple-use education

and visitor center on Monte Vista NWR. This facility would

house the primary environmental education and

interpretation facilities for the Alamosa-Monte Vista NWR

Complex, a reception area, and general office space.

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan proposes to

continue the above uses and add the following to improve

public use of the Refuges:

Construct multi-purpose education and visitor center

on Monte Vista NWR.

Construct fully accessible walking tour on Monte Vista

NWR.

Construct fully accessible wildlife observation deck and

hunting blind on each Refuge.

Implement cultural resources interpretation program.

Construct 3 new auto pull-outs along State Highway 15

on Monte Vista NWR.

Explore feasibility of seasonal expansion of auto tour

route, wildlife observation sites along Parker Road,

and wildlife observation decks along County Road 3E

on Monte Vista NWR.

Explore feasibility of constructing an observation deck

adjacent to Refuge Headquarters on Alamosa NWR.

Hire Outdoor Recreational Planner (ORP) and

assistant ORP.

Enhance and expand environmental education through

various initiatives, such as educational displays,

presentations, and web sites that feature Refuge

purposes and wetlands.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands, Water, and

Interests:

Minimal disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat will

result from these uses at current and proposed levels.

Adverse impacts are minimized through careful timing and

placement of activities. The greatest potential threat to

wildlife is the annual Crane Festival; however, disturbance

is minimized by closing Refuge roads to private vehicles

and by the presence of Refuge staff and volunteers that

monitor visitor activity.

Appropriate Environmental Assessments for the proposed

education and visitor center on Monte Vista NWR will be

conducted when that project enters the planning phase.

Justification:

Based on the biological impacts described in the CCP and

Environmental Assessment, the six public uses described

here will have minimal, if any, adverse impacts on the

wildlife-oriented purposes for which the Refuges were

established.

At the same time, these six public uses help carry out the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

mandate to “ensure that opportunities are provided within

the System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational

uses.”

Additionally, a secondary goal of the National Wildlife

Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the public to

develop an understanding and appreciation for wildlife. The

six uses described here are identified as priority public uses

in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act

of 1997 and will help meet that goal on the Alamosa-Monte

Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex with minimal

conflicts with the wildlife conservation mission of the

Refuge System.

Determination:

Wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing,

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental

education and interpretation are compatible.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

✓ Continue seasonal closures of some Refuge units

during the fall hunting season.

✓ Monitor use, regulate access, and maintain necessary

facilities to prevent habitat degradation and wildlife

disturbance in high public use areas.

✓ Monitor levels of use and effects on wildlife.

✓ Monitor participants to ensure activities are conducted

in compliance with Refuge regulations.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 155

Description of Proposed Use:

Cooperative Farming Program on Monte Vista NWR

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan calls for converting

the current farming program operated by Refuge staff to a

cooperative farming program. The cooperating farmer

would continue the current crop rotation of 2 years of small

grains followed by 2 years of alfalfa and then 1 year of

fallow. The cooperating farmer would be allowed to keep

all, or a portion of, the alfalfa crop based on yields of the

small grain crops. Refuge staff would be responsible only

for irrigating the crops; the cooperating farmer would

handle all other farming operations. The current mix of

organic and non-organic farming practices would continue

to focus on minimal use of petroleum based fertilizers and

herbicides.

The object of this conversion to cooperative farming is to

shift some of the time required from Refuge staff to the

cooperative farmer while maintaining at least the current

level of production of high energy food for migratory birds.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands, Water, and

Interests:

This action would cause no increased disturbance to wildlife

or wildlife habitat. Farming is already conducted on 510

acres on Monte Vista NWR. An additional 120 acres of

farmland is in the process of being acquired as part of a

larger acquisition. The specific management of this

farmland is currently undecided. It is likely that part of this

farmland will be restored to wetland habitat. The

remainder will continue producing small grains as part of

the Refuge farming program. These additional acres will

enhance the ability of the Refuge to work with a farmer

under a cooperative agreement. The cooperative farming

program would be conducted on at least some of the land

currently under cultivation with the same crops and

rotation currently being used. 

The cooperative farming program will provide the same

amount of high energy food for migrating cranes and

waterfowl as does the current farming program.

Justification:

Farming has been used as a management tool on Monte

Vista NWR since 1952. Its primary purpose is 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.

Based on the biological impacts described in the CCP and

Environmental Assessment, the farming program described

here will have a beneficial impact on the wildlife-oriented

purposes for which the Refuges were established. It

provides a high energy food source near quality roosting

and nesting sites.

At the same time, farming facilitates wildlife observation,

photography, and environmental education. Farming

attracts and concentrates wildlife to an area where they are

highly visible. Croplands are located near public roadways

to enhance viewing opportunities for Refuge visitors.

Determination

Cooperative farming of small grains is compatible when

used as a management tool.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

✓ Cooperative farming will be conducted under the terms

of a Cooperative Farming Agreement. The agreement

will contain general and special conditions to ensure

consistency with management objectives. Some of the

general stipulations are as follows:

If herbicides are required, the cooperating farmer

must coordinate with the refuge manager to

prepare a Pesticide Use Proposal. This restricts

and controls the use of chemicals to comply with

the Refuge’s Pesticide Use Plan.

Farming permittee must leave the entire small

grains crop and part of the alfalfa crop in the field

for use by wildlife.

Farming permittee must not hay alfalfa in the

spring until after meadowlarks, waterfowl, and

other ground-nesters are finished nesting, as

determined by the refuge manager.

Farming permittee must obtain permission from

the refuge manager to work in the fields after

opening of waterfowl season.

✓ Other stipulations will be considered depending upon

site and time specific circumstances.
156 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Description of Proposed Use

Development of three auto pull-outs along Colorado State

Highway 15 as it passes through Monte Vista National

Wildlife Refuge

Rio Grande County, Colorado, Colorado Department of

Transportation, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and U.S. Fish

& Wildlife Service are building three wildlife observation

pull-outs along Colorado State Highway 15, south of Monte

Vista, Colorado, as it passes through Monte Vista National

Wildlife Refuge. Two pull-outs will be located on the west

side of the highway and one on the east side. The two

northernmost pull-outs will be approximately 640 feet in

length. The southernmost pull-out will be approximately

1,000 feet in length. All pull-outs will extend approximately

80 feet from the highway surface on to the Refuge. The two

pull-outs on the western side of the highway will be located

on existing levee berms while the one on the east will be

new construction that will impact approximately one acre of

shortgrass habitat on Refuge property. The pull-outs will

provide safe and accessible wildlife viewing opportunities

year-round for Refuge visitors. In order to protect from

disturbance to loafing and roosting sandhill cranes, the

turnouts will be designed primarily for vehicles, which act

as natural blinds. The pull-outs will also include viewing

stations landscaped as partial blinds and outfitted with

permanent scopes in order to accommodate pedestrians and

bicyclists. Additional landscaping and interpretive signage

will complete the wildlife viewing experience. 

Most importantly this project will alleviate dangerous

traffic and pedestrian congestion that occurs along this

State highway, especially during the spring and fall

migration of sandhill cranes. This highway was constructed

with practically no shoulder, and consequently drivers have

no way to safely pull out of the 65 mile per hour traffic path

to view wildlife. 

These pull-outs will allow wildlife viewing enthusiasts to

pull off the highway and either park and leave their vehicles

to enjoy viewing stations or slowly drive through the

turnout lane and leave the area. The turnouts will be paved

to accommodate bicyclists and wheelchairs year-round. 

This use is proposed for Refuge lands since no other site is

available in the San Luis Valley that has such spectacular

concentrations of wildlife visible from a public highway. By

constructing these pull-outs not only will a safety hazard be

eliminated but the opportunity will be created for wildlife

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education

and wildlife interpretation.

Availability of Resources:

The construction budget for this project is as follows:

Colorado Enhancement Program (TEA-21) . . $188,000

Rio Grande County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,600

Colorado DOW, Watchable Wildlife Program . . . . 8,000

Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . 6,000

Total: $225,600

Annual Maintenance:

Fences, mowing, litter removal, snow removal, 

sign upkeep, etc. (Monte Vista NWR) . . . . . . . . $1,000

Asphalt maintenance (Rio Grande County) . . . . . . . 500

Of the above mentioned costs, Monte Vista NWR will incur

an additional estimated $1,000 in recurring annual

maintenance costs associated with this project. 

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands, Water, and

Interests:

Impacts from this project can be categorized as either due

to habitat disturbance or disturbance to individual animals,

especially sandhill cranes. Habitat disturbance will be most

noticeable on the east side of Highway 15 where

approximately one acre of shortgrass habitat will be

destroyed by the footprint of the pull-out. Currently, this

habitat type comprises about 1,700 acres of the Refuge. The

loss of one acre near the highway is insignificant. 

Disturbance to sandhill cranes roosting on the west side of

the highway is potentially the most significant negative

impact of this project. The wetlands on this side of the

highway serve as roost sites for several thousand cranes

during their spring and fall migrations. From these roost

sites, cranes typically travel to nearby feeding sites in the

morning and return in the evening. Many return to these

wetlands to “loaf” during the middle of the day. They will

be observable from proposed pull-outs during all daylight

hours. The impacts from this source of disturbance is

anticipated to be minor. Crane viewers will be 80 feet closer

to these flocks than conditions currently allow, displacing

birds a maximum distance of 80 feet farther west where

more than an adequate amount of additional roosting

habitat exists. Through the use of vegetative screening

between cranes and people, this distance will be minimized.

Public Review and Comment:

Notice of this project was posted at Refuge headquarters

and visitor kiosks on both Alamosa and Monte Vista NWR

between April 9 and April 22, 2001. Instructions for

providing comments were included on the notice.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 157

Determination:

Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

No stipulations are required to ensure this use will not

materially interfere with the purpose of the Monte Vista

National Wildlife Refuge or detract from fulfillment of the

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

However, vegetative screening and interpretive material

will be employed to minimize disturbance to cranes near all

three pull-outs and improve wildlife viewing opportunities.

Clearances have been received from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, from

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for archaeological

resources and Section 7 consultation of the Endangered

Species Act. Engineering clearances and hazardous waste

clearances were provided for the Colorado Department of

Transportation. 

Justification:

A determination that this project is “compatible” is justified

since disturbance to wildlife, in addition to that already

occurring along Highway 15, will be insignificant and only a

small loss of a habitat type will occur that is very common in

the San Luis Valley. 

Description of Use

Grazing Research

Settlement of the 1992 Refuge Compatibility Lawsuit

requires that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service initiate a

scientifically credible research project that assesses how

various management tools can assist management of the

refuges to achieve habitat goals. One component of the

research project looked at how grazing influenced

vegetation on refuge lands. 

The grazing methods tested are similar to those in use at

the time the Compatibility Lawsuit was filed. An average of

2,600 acres of Monte Vista NWR are grazed with

approximately 1,600 Animal Unit Months. Animals are

segregated in four different grazing cells and are rapidly

moved from paddock to paddock. Periods of rest between

paddock grazing episodes ranges from 25 to 40 days,

depending upon rate of plant growth.

A second component of the research occurred on Alamosa

NWR in 2000 and assessed the impact of high densities of

livestock grazing only during the spring to control noxious

weeds. This trial used a total of 40 acres of Alamosa NWR

and 19.5 animal units for approximately 1 month.

Anticipated Impacts on Service Lands, Water, and

Interests: 

Monte Vista NWR was included in the Refuge

Compatibility Lawsuit due to the litigants’ belief that

grazing practices on the Refuge were resulting in excessive

negative impacts to vegetation and waterfowl production

compared to the stated benefits of improved health of the

vegetative community. For this reason, they asserted that

Monte Vista NWR was allowing a use that significantly

detracted from the ability to manage the Refuge for its

established purpose.

This research project will provide information that will help

better determine negative and positive impacts on the plant

community and migratory bird habitat on both Refuges.

The apparent impacts of using livestock during the study

appear to be limited negative impacts to noxious weeds,

limited overutilization of preferred plants, and limited

stimulation of growth of preferred plants. These impacts

are from casual observation and should not be used to

prejudge the outcome of the analysis of data acquired by

this extensive research project. 
158 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Determination:

Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

This use will remain compatible as long as it is conducted as

part of the compatibility research project and grazing

practices tested continue to result in a minimal negative

impact to preferred vegetation and have a significant

potential for improving vegetative health of the plant

community.

Justification:

Scientific assessment of habitat management tools,

including grazing, and the ability of these tools to help

achieve Refuge goals is best tested in the context provided

on Refuge land and under refuge management conditions.

Signatures:

________________________________ _____________

Project Leader Date 

Concurrence:

________________________________ _____________

Refuge Supervisor Date

________________________________ _____________

Regional Chief, NWRS Date
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 159

Appendix F. Species List

Birds (* Known to nest on Complex; > Suspected to nest on

Complex)

Grebes

* Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

* Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

> Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets

* American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

* Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea

* Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron Butorides virescens

* Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Ibises and Spoonbills

* White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

New World Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Swans, Geese, and Ducks

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii

* Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

* Gadwall Anas strepera

* American Wigeon Anas americana

* Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

* Blue-winged Teal Anas discors

* Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera

* Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata

* Northern Pintail Anas acuta

* Green-winged Teal Anas crecca

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

* Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris

Greater Scaup Aythya marila

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Common Merganser Mergus merganser

* Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Osprey, Kites, Hawks, and Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

* Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii

* Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni

* Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Falcons and Caracaras

* American Kestrel Falco sparverius

Merlin Falco columbarius

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

Gallinaceous Birds

* Ring-necked Pheasant IntroducedPhasianus colchicus

Rails

* Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

* Sora Porzana carolina

* American Coot Fulica americana

Cranes

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Plovers

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

* Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

Stilts and Avocets

* Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus

* American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Sandpipers and Phalaropes

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

* Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa

Sanderling Calidris alba

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

* Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

* Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Skuas, Jaegers, Gulls, and Terns

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

> Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Pigeons and Doves

* Rock Dove Introduced Columba livia

Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata

* Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
160 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Barn Owls

Barn Owl Tyto alba

Typical Owls

* Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus

> Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

* Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

Nightjars

> Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Swifts

White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis

Hummingbirds

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Kingfishers

> Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Woodpeckers

Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Tyrant Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi

* Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus

* Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii

* Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya

Cassin’s Kingbird Tyrannus vociferans

> Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Shrikes

* Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor

Vireos

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

Crows, Jays, and Magpies

* Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Common Raven Corvus corax

Larks

* Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris

Swallows

* Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina

> Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

* Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

* Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Titmice and Chickadees

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla

Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli

Nuthatches

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Wrens

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus

* House Wren Troglodytes aedon

* Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris

Kinglets

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula

Thrushes

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

* American Robin Turdus migratorius

Mimic Thrushes

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

* Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus

Starlings

* European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Wagtails and Pipits

American (Water) Pipit Anthus rubescens

Wood Warblers

* Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendi

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei

* Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Tanagers

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Sparrows and Towhees

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus

Cassin’s Sparrow Aimophila cassinii

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

* Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri

* Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys

* Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

* Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

* White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 161

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

* Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

* Western Meadowlark Surnella neglecta

* Yellow-headed Blackbird

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

* Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus

* Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater

* Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii

Finches

Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii

* House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

> American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow Introduced Passer domesticus

Mammals (* breeding species on Complex)

Marsupials

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Insectivores

* Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

* Montane Shrew Sorex monticolus

* Water Shrew Sorex palustris

Bats

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis

Little brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii

Brazilian Free-tailed Bat Tadarida brasiliensis

Lagomorphs

* Desert Cottontail Sylvilgus audubonii

* Mountain Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

* White-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii

Rodents

* Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus

Yellow-bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris

* Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Cynomys gunnisoni

* Botta’s Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae

* Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides

* Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens

* Silky Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavus

* Ord’s Kangaroo Rat Dipodimys ordii

* Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

* Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatis

* Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster

* House Mouse Mus musculus

* Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps

* Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus

* Montane Vole Microtus montanus

* Meadow Vole Mecrotus pennsylvanicus

* American Beaver Castor canadensis

* Common Porcupine Erithizon dorsatum

Carnivores

* Coyote Canis latrans

* Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Black Bear Ursus americanus

* Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea

* Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Mink Mustela vison

* American Badger Taxidea taxus

Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilus

* Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitus

Mountain Lion Felis concolor

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Ungulates

* American Elk Cervus elaphus

* Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

Reptiles

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentia

Short-horned Lizard Phrynosoma douglassii

Eastern Fence Lizard Sceloporous undulatus

Variable Skink Eumeces gaigeae

Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum

Bullsnake Pituophis melnoleucus

Western Terrestrial Garter SnakeThamnophis elegans

Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis

Amphibians

Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Plains Spadefoot Scaphiopus bombifrons

Western Frogs Bufo boreas

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus

Woodhouse’s Toad Bufo woodhousii

Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens
162 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Vegetation

Agavaceae

Yucca Yucca spp.

Alismataceae

Arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata

Alliaceae

Wild Onion/Garlic Allium spp.

Amaranthaceae

Rough Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus

Asclepiadaceae

Showy Milkweed Asclepias speciosa

Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata

Asparagaceae

Garden Asparagus-fern Asparagus officinalis

Asteraceae

Aster species Aster spp.

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense

Common Cocklelbur Xanthium strumarium

Common Mare’s-tail Hippuris vulgaris

Common Sagewort Artemesia campestris

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale

Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvense

Fringed Sage Artemisia frigida

Horseweed Conyza canadensis

Marsh Sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Povertyweed Iva axillaris

Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus

Russian Knapweed Acroptilon repens

Russian Thistle Salsola iberica

Silver Sage Artemesia cana

Snakeweed Gutierrezia lucida

Sunflower Helianthus spp.

Wild Lettuce Lactuca serriola

Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Brassicaceae

Flixweed Descurainia sophia

Hoary Cress (small whitetop) Cardaria draba

Peppergrass Lepdium montanum

Small Whitetop Cardaria draba

Tall Whitetop Lepidium latifolium

Tansymustard Descurainia spp.

Cactaceae

Prickly Pair Opuntia spp.

Capparaceae

Rocky Mountain Bee Plant Cleome serrulata

Slender Spider Flower Cleome multicaulis

Caryophyllaceae

Chickweed Cerastium spp.

Chenopodiaceae

Four-wing saltbush Artriplex canescens

Goosefoot Chenopodium murale

Greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus

Kochia Kochia scoparia

Lambsquarters Chenopodium album

Pickleweed Salicornia rubra

Seepweed Suaeda depressa

Winterfat Ceratoides lanata

Cyperaceae

Hardstem Bulrush Scirpus acutus

Nebraska Sedge Carex nebrascensis

Nevada Bulrush Scirpus nevadensis

Sedge Spp. Carex spp.

Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus

Spikerush Eleocharis spp.

Three Square Scirpus spp.

Three-Square Scirpus americanus (Scirpus pungens)

Elaeagnaceae

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Equisetaceae

Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense

Scouring Rush Equisetum hyemale

Horsetail Equisetum spp.

Euphorbiaceae

Prostrate Spurge Euphorbia spp.

Fabaceae

American Vetch Vicia americana

Colorado Locoweed Oxytropis lambertii

Goldenpea Thermopsis rhombifolia

Swainson Pea Sphaerophysa salsula

Sweet Clover Melilotus officinalis?

Wild Licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota

Gentianaceae

Genatin Gentiana detonsa

Haloragaceae

Eurasian Watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Water Milfoil Myriophyllum exalbescens

Hippuridaceae

Mare's Tail Hippuris vulgarisListed 

(as an Asteraceae in CCP)

Iridaceae

Wild Iris Iris missouriensis

Juncaceae

Baltic Rush Juncus balticus

Juncaginaceae

Seaside Arrow-grass Triglochin maritimum

Lamiaceae

Field Mint Mentha arvensis

Spearmint Mentha spicata

Leguminosae

Alfalfa Medicago sativa

Clover Trifolium spp.

Lemnaceae

Duckweed Lemna spp.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 163

Malvaceae

New Mexico Checkermallow Sidalcea spp.

Scarlet Globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea

Najadaceae

Pondweed Potamogeton spp.

Onagraceae

Yellow Evening Primrose Oenothera hookeri?

Plantaginaceae

Common Plantain Plantago major

Poaceae

Alkali Cordgrass Spartina gracilis

Alkali Muhly Muhlenbergia asperfolia

Alkali Sacaton Sporobulus airodes

Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crusgalli

Beardless Wildrye Elymus inerme

Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis

Bluejoint Reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis

Brome spp. Bromus spp. Calimagrostis, Slimstem

Common Rye Secale cereale

Creeping Wildrye Elymus triticoides

Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum

Grass spp. Gramancea spp.

Indian Ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides

Johnsongrass Sorghum halipense

Mat Muhly Muhlenbergia richardsonis

Nuttall's Alkali Grass Puccinellia nuttalliana

Phragmites Phragmites australis

Prairie Wedgegrass (Reedgrass) Spenopholis obtusata

Rabbitfoot Grass Polypogon monspeliensis

Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinaceae

Reedgrass Calimagrostis neglecta

Saltgrass Distichlis spicata

Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sandhill Muhly Muhlenbergia pungens

Short-awn Foxtail Alopecurus aequalis

Slender Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum

Slimstem Reedgrass Calimagrostis neglecta

Sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne

Spike Bentgrass Agrostis exarata

Spike Dropseed Sporobolus contractus

Squirrel Tail Sitanion hystrix

Timothy Phleum pratense

Tufted Hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa

Weeping Alkaligrass Puccinellia distans

Western Wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

Polygonaceae

Curly Dock Rumex cirspus

Prostrate knotweed Polygonum erectum

Smartweed Polygonacae amphibium

Smartweed (unid spp). Polygonacae spp.

Western Dock Rumex occidentalis

Portulacaceae

Common Purslane Portulaca oleracea

Potamogetonaceae

Horned Pondweed Zannichellia palustris

Pondweed (unid. species) Potamageton spp.

Sago Pondweed Potamageton pectinatus

Ranunculaceae

Buttercup Ranunculus cymbalaria

Rosaceae

Herbaceous Cinquefoil Potentilla nivea

Silverweed Cinquefoil Potentilla anserina

Salicaceae

Coyote Willow Salix exiqua

Crack Willow Salix fragilis

Narrow-leaf Cottonwood Populus angustifolia

Peach-leaf Willow Salix amygladoides

Sparganiaceae

Giant Bur-reed Sparganium eurycarpum

Typha

Cattail Thypa latifolia
164 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix G. Section 7

The Section 7 Consultation for the Implementation of this

CCP has been submitted to the Ecological Services field

office for review. It will be completed prior to final approval

of this Plan.
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 165

Appendix H. Compatibility

Lawsuit Actions

In 1992 Monte Vista NWR was included in a lawsuit filed

by National Audubon Society et al. versus Babbitt alleging

the Fish and 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 Fish and 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 the following actions:

1. Alamosa Unit of the Alamosa/Monte Vista National

Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Service will permit

grazing within the refuge during 1995 within such

terms as were in place from 1987-1994. Grazing in the

refuge shall not exceed 3,824 AUM’s (1994 level).

2. The Service will not permit grazing on Monte Vista

NWR in 1995.

3. The Service agrees to implement a process leading to a

“Comprehensive Management Plan” (CMP), with

appropriate NEPA compliance for the Alamosa/Monte

Vista NWR Complex. The CMP will describe the

purposes and management objectives of the

Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR Complex. The Service

agrees to begin the CMP process by October 1, 1995.

4. As soon a practicable in the CMP process, the Service

will initiate a scientifically credible study to determine

which management practices may be most effective in

achieving the purposes and objectives of the refuge.

Such management practices may include, by not be

limited to, various livestock grazing strategies,

prescribed fire, water management, integrated pest

management, and haying. The Service will consult with

the plaintiffs and others, in selecting a person to lead the

study. Grazing may be conducted in appropriate

locations with Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR in accordance

with the experimental prescriptions described in the

study beginning in 1996.

5. Except with the terms of the above study, the Service

shall not issue grazing permits or otherwise authorize

grazing within the Alamosa/Monte Vista NWR Complex

after 1995, unless the Service makes a written

determination with appropriate NEPA compliance that

grazing is compatible with the primary purposes of the

refuge, and that within the framework of existing

Service policy, grazing is a practical, effective, and

ecologically sound tool for achieving management

objectives for the refuge. If grazing is determined to be

compatible, the Service shall implement a monitoring

program to evaluate the efficacy of grazing treatments

in meeting refuge management objectives.

6. The Service will defer completion of the NEPA process

begun with Draft Environmental Assessments for the

grazing programs at the units of the Alamosa/Monte

Vista NWR Complex to the CMP/EA/EIS process

described above. 

This lawsuit and the resulting settlement have had a

substantial influence on day to day operations of both

refuges. The outcome of the research project described

above 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. 
166 Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002

Appendix I. Synopsis of Goal Setting Meeting

 
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - September 2002 167
168 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 169
170 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 171
172 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 173
174 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 175
176 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 177
178 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 179
180 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 181
182 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 183
Alamosa - Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge Complex

9383 El Rancho Lane

Alamosa, Colorado 81101

719/589 4021

email: alamosa@fws.gov

website: http://alamosa.fws.gov/

For Relay Service Connection

TTY/Voice: 711

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning

For Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

September 2002

Wetlands on Monte Vista NWR © Robert Sanders, Ducks Unlimited