Plan Template

CHAPTER 3 Alternatives Pintail © Cindi Brunner Chapter 3—Alternatives © Joe Zinn Greater sandhill cranes and other waterfowl forage on a cold spring morning at Monte Vista Refuge. Many birds begin migrating north in late February. This chapter describes the proposed management tion 3.10. We selected the following four alternatives alternatives for Monte Vista, Alamosa, and Baca Ref- for detailed discussion and analysis in the EIS: uges. Alternatives are different approaches to management that are designed to achieve the purposes of ■■ Alternative A—No-action Alternative each refuge, promote the vision and goals of each ■■ Alternative B—Wildlife Populations, Stra- refuge, and further the mission of the Refuge Sys- tegic Habitat Restoration, and Enhanced tem. We have formulated four alternatives, including Public Uses (Preferred Alternative) the no-action alternative, to address significant ■■ Alternative C—Habitat Restoration and issues that have been identified by the Service, coop- Ecological Processes erating agencies, interested groups, tribal govern- ■■ Alternative D—Maximize Public Use ments, and the public during the public scoping Opportunities period and throughout the development of the final plan. Chapter 1 contains a discussion of the issues These alternative themes examine different ways addressed in this CCP and EIS. of restoring and permanently protecting fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other resources and for providing opportunities for the public to engage in compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation. Each alternative theme incorporates specific actions that 3.1 Criteria for Alternatives are intended to achieve the goals described in chapter 2. The no-action alternative would continue the Development current refuge management strategies and may not meet every aspect of every goal. The no-action alter- Following the initial scoping process during the native provides a basis for comparison with action spring of 2011, we held meetings and workshops with alternatives B, C, and D. The action alternatives may the cooperating agencies and the public and identified vary with regards to how well they meet each of the a range of preliminary alternatives. Some ideas were goals. This is discussed further in chapter 5, section eventually dropped, and those are discussed in sec- 5.12. 38 Final CCP and EIS — San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Colorado ■■ By law and policy, we will continue to abide 3.2 Elements Common to All by all State water regulations regarding the Alternatives use of surface and ground water. It is impor- tant to note that the ability to use all water sources on these national wildlife refuges is Regardless of the alternative selected, the Ser- the result of the adjudication process of the vice will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, Colorado Water Court. The resulting court and policies for management activities that could decrees often define when, where, and for affect refuge resources such as soil, water, air, what beneficial use water can be diverted, threatened and endangered species, and archaeologi- used, and consumed. All changes in water cal and historical sites. A list of key legislation and use described in this plan must either be policies that we adhere to is found in appendix A. All within the limits described in the existing the alternatives would adhere to the following decree for the specific water source or result guidelines: from a successful application to and approval by the State Engineer and the ■■ Significant cultural resources will be identi- court. fied and protected. Individual projects may require consultation with the Colorado ■■ We will continue to acquire land within the State Historic Preservation Office, tribal authorized boundary areas of the refuge historic preservation offices, and other complex. These lands will be purchased interested parties. from willing sellers as money becomes available. ■■ Access to private inholdings and facilities involving BOR’s Closed Basin Project will ■■ We will continue to manage game in accor- continue. dance with Service policy. All hunters will be required to possess valid State-issued ■■ Grazing, haying, and water lease fees will hunting licenses and Federal and State continue to be collected in accordance with stamps for waterfowl hunting (as applicable) Region 6 policies. and must have these with them while hunting. Hunting will be allowed only in desig- ■■ Collaboration with our partner agencies or nated hunting areas as posted and shown on organizations will continue for established the maps. Hunters will be required to park agreements, including the BOR Project in designated parking areas and must abide Authorization Act of 1972, the Fish and by all other refuge-specific regulations. Bird Wildlife Reclamation Project Authorization collection for falconry will not be allowed. of 1972, and the Fish and Wildlife Report for the Closed Basin Division, San Luis Val- ■■ All Service polices regarding rules and reg- ley Project, Colorado, 1982. Cooperation and ulations for oil, gas, and mineral extraction collaboration with Federal, State, tribal, on refuge lands will be adhered to. Many of and local governments; nongovernmental the minerals underlying the Baca Refuge organizations; and adjacent private land- are privately owned (not owned by the owners will continue. Section 3.11 describes United States). Access to these minerals by existing and potential partnerships. the private owner is regulated by Federal and State law which, in part, requires the ■■ All prescribed fire activities will be carried U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as owner of out under an approved and current fire the surface estate, to place reasonable management plan that conforms with DOI restrictions on the mineral owner’s access and FWS policies. so as to reduce disturbance to the surface estate. ■■ Control of invasive weeds and integrated pest management will continue, using a ■■ We will continue to manage all Visitor Ser- variety of tools such as grazing and biologi- vices programs (including hours of opera- cal, chemical, and mechanical controls. We tion, pets, and other refuge regulations) in will continue to work in partnership with accordance with existing Service policy and others to reduce weed infestations. refuge regulations. Chapter 3—Alternatives 39 ■■ We will conduct surveys as necessary for New Mexico jumping mouse prior to habitat Habitat and Wildlife Resources management, restoration activities, or improvements for visitor services. On all three refuges, we would continue to manage wetland areas, especially wet meadows, to provide for a variety of waterbirds. Riparian and upland habitats would be managed for migratory birds. We would continue to produce small grains at current 3.3 Structure of Alternative levels on the Monte Vista Refuge (up to 270 acres) to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes. Descriptions There would be few changes made in managing big game populations. Elk numbers would continue to Since each alternative is designed to address the fluctuate from 1,000 to 4,000 individuals, with most of goals described in chapter 2, the alternatives are the population on the Baca Refuge. Population distri- organized by the following goal headings: bution and control would be limited to nonlethal dispersal, agency culling, and public dispersal hunts (also called distribution hunts) on the former State ■■ Habitat and Wildlife Resources lands of Baca Refuge. Details of these proposals are ■■ Water Resources now available as part of an interim elk management ■■ Visitor Services plan (FWS 2013d). ■■ Cultural Resources We would continue to protect populations of and ■■ Partnerships and Refuge Complex Operations manage habitats for threatened and endangered species as well as for species of concern. These species ■■ Research, Science, and Wilderness Review include southwestern willow flycatcher, Rio Grande The alternative maps that follow are conceptual sucker, Rio Grande chub, and northern leopard frog. and are intended to spatially show the types of activi- We would phase out the existing arrangement ties that would occur under each alternative. with TNC for season-long bison use on those parts of Detailed site planning or other factors could influence the Medano Ranch that are within the Baca Refuge the final layout of trails, roads, other facilities, or boundary, and we would not use bison as a manage- habitat restoration activities. ment tool in the future. We would continue to use prescriptive livestock grazing, haying, and cooperative farming as management tools for maintaining habitats within the refuge complex. We would continue to control invasive and 3.4 Alternative A (No Action) noxious weeds. Similarly, we would continue to follow fire funding guidelines in the prioritization of fuels Under the no-action alternative, we would make treatments and use of fuels funding. We would pur- few changes in how we manage the various habitats sue alternative funding sources for prescribed fire and wildlife populations throughout the refuge com- implementation. plex. We would continue to manage habitats on the Monte Vista and Alamosa Refuges through the manipulation of water as described in the 2003 CCP (FWS 2003). Water management on the Baca Refuge Water Resources would continue under the guidance found in the conceptual management plan for Baca Refuge. All the We would maintain our ability to use our water refuges would adhere to new State regulations rights within the refuge complex. The use of ground regarding water use. There would be few added pub- water would continue, except as modified by chang- lic uses outside of those that already occur on the ing State rules, regulations, and policies. All the ref- Monte Vista and Alamosa Refuges (figure 13 and uges within the refuge complex will continue to use figure 14). Baca Refuge would remain closed to public and augment water supplies in accordance with State use except for potential access to a refuge office or law. contact station (figure 15). We would keep our existing partnerships in and around the refuge complex. 40 Final CCP and EIS — San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Colorado Figure 13.

Load more