Land Protection Plan 

Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 

Colorado and New Mexico 

August 2012 

Prepared by 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

8249 Emperius Road 

Alamosa, CO 81101 

719 / 589 4021 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6, Mountain–Prairie Region 

Division of Refuge Planning 

134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

303 / 236 8132 

CITATION for this document: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico.

Lakewood, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 172 p. 
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, an environmental assessment and land protection plan have been prepared to analyze the effects of establishing 

the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. 

■	 The environmental assessment analyzes the environmental effects of establishing the Sangre de Cristo 

Conservation Area. 

■	 The Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area land protection plan describes the priorities for acquiring up to 

250,000 acres through voluntary conservation easements. 

Both documents, which stand alone, are contained within this volume. 

Note: Information contained in the maps within these documents is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership information may not be complete. 
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
 

Chapter 1—Introduction and Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

Purpose of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

Alamosa and Monte Vista Refuge Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
 

Baca National Wildlife Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 

Public Review of and Comments on the Draft EA and LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 

National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

Related Actions and Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Service). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

USDA Forest Service (USFS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

National Park Service (NPS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

State of Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Land Trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Habitat Protection and the Easement Acquisition Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Chapter 2—Area Description and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Minerals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Water and Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 

Biological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 

Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

Prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

Early History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 

Political Boundaries, Land Grants, and Public Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Native Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Summary of Known Historic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 

Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Socioeconomic Profi le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Land Use and Ownership Changes Surrounding the Conservation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
 

Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area Land Conservation Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 

Water Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
 

Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Contents
 
Threats to Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Fragmentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Effects on the Natural and Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Chapter 4—Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Land Protection Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Conservation Easements under the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area (Proposed Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Project Objectives and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Easement Terms and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
 

Contaminants or Hazardous Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Acquisition Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Protection Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Species-Habitat Mapping Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
 

Landscape Prioritization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Evaluation of Easement Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Ecosystem Management and Landscape Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Incorporating Science and Strategic Habitat Conservation in the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
 

Socioeconomic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Public Involvement and Coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
 

Public Review of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Distribution and Availability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A. Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
 

Appendix B. List of Preparers and Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

Appendix C. Species List of the San Luis Valley Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
 

Appendix D. Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
 

Appendix E. Finding of No Signifi cant Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
 

Appendix F. Environmental Action Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
 

Appendix G. Environmental Compliance Certifi cate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
 

Appendix H. Director’s Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
 

Appendix I. Section 7 Biological Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
 

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
 

II Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Contents III 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Boundary and location of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
 

Figure 2. Southwestern willow fl ycatcher and Lewis’ woodpecker habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area,
 

Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Figure 3. Canada lynx habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

Figure 4. Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation populations, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, 


Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Figure 5. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

Figure 6. Sage thrasher shrubland habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . . 44
 

Figure 7. Spatial conservation prioritization, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico . . . . . . . 46
 

TABLES 

Table 1. Population statistics for the counties in Colorado and New Mexico that contain the Sangre de Cristo
 

Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Table 2. Income, education, unemployment, and poverty rates for counties in Colorado and New Mexico 


that contain the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 

Table 3. Percentage employment by sector for counties in Colorado and New Mexico that contain the
 

San Luis Valley region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
 
Abbreviations
 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CCP comprehensive conservation plan 

CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board 

EA environmental assessment 

LPP land protection plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NAWCA North American Wetland Conservation Act 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NWR national wildlife refuge 

SCCA Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 

Service U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SLVCA San Luis Valley Conservation Area 

USFS USDA Forest Service 

USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U. S. Geological Survey 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 
Chapter 1—Introduction
 

and Project Description
 

“The Sangre de Cristo Mountains...have the 

glamour of lost history – dim memories of 

Indian bands, of French explorers and Spanish troops; they have the spell of the remote, 

the mystery of recesses that are little known; 

they are the kind of mountains one’s imagination builds.”

 – Albert Ellingwood after completing the 

first ascent of Crestone Needle, 1916 

Rising as a singular wall of rock to heights of more 

than 14,000 feet from the surrounding valleys and 

plains, the Sangre de Cristo Mountains strike an impressive and poetically inspiring profile. They are also 

the southernmost range of the Rocky Mountains, and 

thus mark a transition from the Intermountain West 

to the ecosystems of the shortgrass prairie and desert 

southwest. Through the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area (SCCA; figure 1), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or USFWS) hopes to permanently 

protect an important piece of these mountains. 

As with many of the mountain ranges of the western 

United States, much of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains are conserved in perpetuity as national forest 

land. However, the central part of the range, from 

Blanca Peak in Colorado to northern Taos County 

in New Mexico, is entirely private. While there are 

some large ranches protected by conservation easements in this part of the range, there are still large 

gaps. This region has been identified as an important 

corridor linking populations of federally threatened 

Canada lynx in northern New Mexico with the larger 

population in the Rockies. In addition to the montane 

forests and alpine areas of the mountains themselves, 

the western slope of these mountains borders the San 

Luis Valley, a large intermountain valley bounded by 

the San Juan Mountains on the west and the Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains on the east, whose rain shadows result in high desert conditions. The southeastern corner of the valley is essentially the edge of the 

West’s “sagebrush sea,” and contains potential habitat 

for the Endangered Species Act candidate Gunnison 

sage-grouse and other declining sagebrush-dependent 

species. This western slope is also riddled with riparian corridors that provide important habitat for the 

Endangered Species Act candidate Rio Grande cutthroat trout, the federally endangered southwestern 

willow flycatcher, and countless other migratory birds. 

Anthropogenic factors, including agriculture, changes 

in fire regime, and climate change, have changed the 

historical vegetation of the San Luis Valley. Low human population density associated with the largely 

agricultural economy of the valley have enabled the 

San Luis Valley and central Sangre de Cristo Mountains to keep substantial parts of their biological value, 

particularly for migratory birds. However, rising agricultural costs, including those resulting from the 

recent State of Colorado requirement to augment 

surface fl ows to offset the impacts of ground water 

use, have led to an unsettled agricultural economy. 

The risk of second home development in the already 

heavily subdivided Costilla County continues, and 

would substantially reduce the quality of that habitat 

for sagebrush-dependent species. Substantial residential development or unsustainable logging practices in 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains would also degrade 

that habitat for threatened and endangered species. 

The SCCA will conserve a network of vital wildlife habitat through up to 250,000 acres of voluntary 

conservation easements. The SCCA acquisitions will 

focus on the protection of sagebrush habitat as well 

as riparian corridors and associated uplands. 

Planning for the SCCA began as part of the proposed San Luis Valley Conservation Area (SLVCA), 

for which a draft environmental assessment and land 

protection plan (EA and LPP) was released in May 

2012. The Service has chosen to decelerate planning for 

the SLVCA to more effectively incorporate its goals 

with those of the ongoing comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP) process for the San Luis Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex. The SLVCA LPP, 

should be completed sometime in or before 2014. In 

the interim, the Service recognizes the conservation 

need and opportunity on the west slope of the central 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and because this land is 

less integrated with the goals of the three refuges in 

the valley, we are moving forward to authorize the 

smaller Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area as part 

of the original vision. 
Figure 1. Boundary and Location of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico. 

2 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 3 

Purpose of the Sangre de 

Cristo Conservation Area 

The purpose of the SCCA is to protect the high-elevation 

wildlife habitats of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains 

and the uplands of the southeastern San Luis Valley, 

with an emphasis on migratory birds and imperiled 

species. Acquisitions within, and administration of, 

the SCCA will focus on promoting the adaptive capacity and resilience of these ecosystems by ensuring 

connectivity between existing protected areas and by 

protecting wildlife movement corridors, particularly 

riparian areas. 

This aligns with, but does not supersede, the vision 

and purposes of the three existing refuges—Alamosa, 

Monte Vista, and Baca—within the San Luis Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, as described below. 

SAN LUIS VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPLEX 

Vision: 

The San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, set in a high expansive desert 

valley, is cradled between the snowcapped 

peaks of the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo 

Ranges. Mountain snowmelt feeds the Rio 

Grande, numerous streams, and a dynamic 

ground water system, creating a diverse mix 

of playas, wet meadows, and willow and cottonwood riparian corridors that are in stark 

contrast with the surrounding arid landscape. 

As reflected by 12,000 years of human history 

in the valley, the San Luis Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex attracts many people. Visitors experience the ancient song of 

the sandhill crane, witness evening fl ights of 

thousands of waterfowl, and listen to bugling 

elk. Through ever changing conditions, the 

refuges support and foster a collaborative 

spirit between their neighbors and partners 

to conserve the valley’s treasured resources. 

The Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area contains a rich mosaic of working ranch lands and important wildlife habitat. 

© Trinchera Ranch 

ALAMOSA AND MONTE VISTA NATIONAL 

WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX 

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 
4 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

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 proper, 

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 and Wildlife Service. 

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.” 

BACA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Purpose: 

The purpose of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge shall be to restore, enhance, and maintain 

wetland, upland, riparian, and other habitats 

for native wildlife, plant, and fi sh species in 

the San Luis Valley. In administering the 

Baca National Wildlife Refuge, the Secretary 

shall, to the maximum extent practicable – (A) 

emphasize migratory bird conservation; and 

(B) take into consideration the role of the refuge in broader landscape conservation efforts; 

and (C) subject to any agreement in existence 

as of the date of enactment of this paragraph, 

and to the extent consistent with the purposes 

of the refuge, use decreed water rights on the 

refuge in approximately the same manner that 

the water rights have been used historically. 

Issues Identifi ed and 

Selected for Analysis 

The Service solicited comments about the SLVCA 

from the public through direct mailings, news releases, 

public meetings, and direct contacts. These comments 

were incorporated into what has become the SCCA. 

■	 On March 15, 2011, the Service opened a scoping 

period for the public with the publication of a notice of intent in the Federal Register (FR Doc. 

2011–5924). The notice of intent notified the public 

of the Service’s intention to begin the coplanning 

and NEPA review for the CCP and LPP for the 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

■	 Public scoping meetings were held on March 29, 

2011, in Alamosa, Colorado; March 30, 2011, in 

Monte Vista, Colorado; and March 31, 2011, in Moffat, Colorado. The scoping meetings were attended 

by approximately 50 people, many of whom provided input for the scoping process. Additionally, 

14 written comments were received from organizations and members of the public. 

■	 A press event and public meeting was held at Adams State College in Alamosa, Colorado, on January 4, 2012, at which the Secretary of the Interior, 

Ken Salazar, organized the presentation of several 

complementary initiatives for the San Luis Valley 

and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. One of these initiatives was landscape scale conservation, which 

Dan Ashe, the Director of the Service, presented 

as being embodied by the SLVCA. Questions were 

answered and comments taken at a breakout session following the main meeting. 

■	 The project’s planning Web site (http://www.fws. 

gov/alamosa/planning) was established in early 

March of 2011. The site provides information about 

meetings and downloadable versions of public documents. Individuals can also sign up to be on the 

project mailing list through the Web site. 

During scoping, the CCP and LPP were still being 

planned simultaneously. However, the two plans have 

since been separated and the LPP process has been 

moved up to take advantage of conservation opportunities that may not exist in the future. As such, 

many of the issues identifi ed during scoping are not 

specific or relevant to the LPP. The applicable issues 

and questions identifi ed during the scoping process 

and during internal conversations among the SCCA 

planning team are: 

■	 The SCCA must protect the wildlife habitat, specifi cally wetlands, riparian corridors, grasslands, 

and shrublands, of the San Luis Valley, while also 

supporting the rural agricultural aesthetic that 

defines the region. 

■	 What role can the conservation area play in protecting listed species and species of concern? 

■ How will the SCCA affect water use in the valley? 

■	 The SCCA should not negatively affect private 

property rights in the valley. 

■ Develop partnerships for land protection. 

■	 How will the public be able to use lands protected 

under the SCCA? 

■	 Make sure that the SCCA planning process incorporates the importance of protecting cultural 

resources. 

■	 How will the SCCA increase the capacity to adapt 

to climate change on the existing refuges and habitat throughout the valley? 
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 5 

■ The plan should account for air, soil, sound, and 

visibility effects. 

Public Review of, and 

Comments on, the Draft 

Environmental Assessment 

and Land Protection Plan 

The Service released the draft SLVCA EA and LPP 

on May 9, 2012 for a 30-day public review period. This 

draft has become the basis for the final SCCA EA and 

LPP. The draft documents were made available to the 

public via the project Web site, as well as to Federal 

officials and agencies, State officials and agencies, 17 

Native American tribes with aboriginal interests, and 

members of the public who had asked to be added 

to the project mailing list. In addition, three public 

meetings were held in Alamosa, San Luis, and Moffat, Colorado on May 14, 15, and 16, 2012, respectively. 

Approximately 50 members of the public attended 

these three meetings. In addition to several comments 

voiced at these public meetings, the Service received 

eight written comments from government agencies 

and nongovernmental organizations and corporations, 

and six written comments from individuals. Comments 

were reviewed and incorporated into the administrative record. Comments and responses to substantive 

comments are included in appendix D. 

Of those comments that showed a clear opinion in 

favor or opposed to the project, 75 percent were supportive in nature. The comments generally in favor 

of the SLVCA (which then included what has since 

become the SCCA) mention items such as: 

■	 The SLVCA is entirely a willing seller program, 

not an imposition 

■	 The Service has emphasized the collaborative nature of the project – The SLVCA is one of many 

conservation initiatives 

■ The plan was comprehensive 

■	 The Service’s conservation goals are complementary with those of residents in Crestone and Baca 

Grande who would like to see perpetual conservation easements in those municipalities 

■	 The prioritization strategy emphasizes promoting 

capacity for climate change adaptation 

■	 Easement language should allow changes in water use only if benefi cial to wildlife; and similar 

comments arguing for a more aggressive stance 

by USFWS to restore historical hydrology in the 

San Luis Valley 

■	 An emphasis on sustainability in the San Luis Valley could help bolster its already strong or growing 

nonagriculture sectors such as fi nance, services, 

and tourism. 

■	 The land protection strategy is transparent and 

guided by habitat needs for identified trust species 

■	 Recognition that conservation easements are effective and more popular than new Federal land 

acquisition 

■	 Appreciation of the landscape-scale nature of the 

project 

■	 In addition to full market value, the Service should 

consider bargain sales for easements 

■	 Appreciation for the gradual nature of and phased 

approach to the SLVCA 

■	 Suggestions to include more areas in northern New 

Mexico (Chama Peaks area, Jicarilla Apache lands) 

in project boundary 

■	 In addition to habitat value, the Service consider 

other qualities such as historical, open space, and 

public access 

■	 Easement program should accommodate small 

parcels, such as the vara strips associated with 

acequia irrigation practices. 

■ Program will protect both wildlife and agriculture 

Comments not in support of the project identifi ed the 

following concerns: 

■	 Bad past experiences with easements restricting 

changes in agricultural operations 

■	 Request that the Service consider impacts of easement restrictions on ability of utility companies to 

promote electrical reliability and renewable energy 

■ Industry was not reached during scoping 

■	 General dissatisfaction with the impact of the Federal Government on land access and quality of life 

■	 Concerns by the Rio Grande Water Conservation 

District about the potential competition between 

the USFWS easement program and their attempts 

to acquire land for mitigation for the San Luis Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. 

The following substantive questions were raised that 

were neither in opposition to nor in support of the 

SLVCA and SCCA: 

■	 How will being within the SLVCA boundary infl uence decisionmaking (for example grazing permits) 

by other Federal agencies? 

■	 How will the presence of an easement on an adjacent property affect a landowner who chooses not 

to sell an easement? 

■	 How will the SLVCA’s establishment affect traditional use rights for Hispanos in Costilla County? 
6 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System and Authorities 

The SCCA will be part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, whose mission is “...to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where proper, restoration of the 

fi sh, 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). National 

wildlife refuges provide important habitat for native 

plants and many species of mammals, birds, fi sh, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. They also play a vital 

role in conserving threatened and endangered species. 

Refuges offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and many have visitor centers, 

wildlife trails, and environmental education programs. 

Conservation of more wildlife habitat in the SCCA 

will be consistent with the following policies and management plans: 

■ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) 

■	 Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

Act (1934) 

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

■ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1962) 

■ Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965) 

■ Endangered Species Act (1973) 

■	 Migratory Non-Game Birds of Management Concern in the U.S. (2002) 

■	 Alamosa and Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2003) 

■	 Baca National Wildlife Refuge Conceptual Management Plan (2005) 

The acquisition authorities for the proposed easements 

and property acquisition are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–j) and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), as amended. Land will be acquired with 

the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

which is derived primarily from oil and gas leases on 

the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and 

the sale of surplus Federal property. As proper, the 

Service could also buy land interest through the use 

of Federal Duck Stamp revenue from the Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934. 

There could also be more money to acquire lands, 

water, and interests for fish and wildlife conservation 

purposes as identified by Congress or donations from 

nonprofit organizations. Any acquisition from willing 

sellers would be subject to available money. 

Related Actions and 

Activities 

The Sangre de Cristo Mountains and San Luis Valley 

contain many public lands and private protected areas, 

some of which are contiguous with other protected 

areas and some of which are isolated. Several existing State, Federal, and private land trust programs 

promote the conservation of habitats in the SCCA. 

SAN LUIS VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPLEX (SERVICE) 

The San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

has three existing units: the Alamosa, Baca, and Monte 

Vista National Wildlife Refuges. These refuges were 

established for different purposes, as outlined earlier 

in this chapter, and protect 12,026 acres, 92,500 acres, 

and 14,800 acres, respectively. All three refuges now 

contain a variety of habitats, with a special emphasis 

on wetlands and riparian systems. Management practices include vegetation manipulation and the artifi cial 

movement of water. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE (USFS) 

The Rio Grande, San Isabel, and Carson National Forests border the SCCA to the north, east, and south. 

These forests contain nearly 4.5 million acres of public lands in the Sangre de Cristo, Saguache, and San 

Juan Mountains. The forests contain habitat ranging 

from pinyon-juniper savanna in the lower areas up 

to alpine tundra and scree fi elds at elevations more 

than 14,000 feet. Much of this is designated wilderness. These national forests are important habitat for 

Federal trust species, including Canada lynx and Rio 

Grande cutthroat trout, and for nonlisted but climate 

change-imperiled species, such as American pika and 

white-tailed ptarmigan. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) 

Much of the land between the national forest boundaries and the largely private valley floor is administered 

by the BLM as the San Luis Resource Area. The BLM 

is actively working to restore the historical playa wetlands in the South San Luis Lakes and Blanca Wetlands areas, the latter of which has been designated 

as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. These 

intermittent wetlands are particularly important for 

migratory shorebirds, some of which nest in the valley, and are also a priority habitat for the Service. 

There is also a proposal to establish a Rio Grande del 

Norte National Conservation Area in northern New 

Mexico next to the SCCA boundary. This initiative 

would place certain added management guidelines on 

public lands within that boundary. 
Chapter 1 — Introduction and Project Description 7 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS) 

Just to the northwest of the SCCA boundary is the 

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve. Together these comanaged NPS units protect approximately 150,000 acres, from valley fl oor rabbitbrush 

scrub and the tallest sand dunes in North America to 

peaks more than 13,000 feet in the Sangre de Cristo 

Mountains. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 

(NRCS) 

The NRCS actively works in the San Luis Valley 

through its Wetlands Reserve Program, a voluntary 

easement program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on 

their property. They do not own land in fee title, but 

rather provide technical and financial support to help 

landowners with wetlands restoration efforts. 

STATE OF COLORADO 

The State of Colorado owns thousands of acres throughout the region and administers State Wildlife Areas 

and State Habitat Areas on many private lands. There 

are several school sections, managed by the State 

Land Board to provide revenue for K–12 education 

in the State. Some of these State Land Board parcels, 

such as La Jara Reservoir, allow recreational use as 

part of the Public Access program with Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife. There are a handful of regionally 

important wetlands and riparian corridors managed 

as State Wildlife Areas, including Russel Lakes; San 

Luis Lakes; and Rio Grande, Higel, and Hot Creek 

State Wildlife Areas. South of Baca National Wildlife 

Refuge and west of Great Sand Dunes National Park 

and Preserve is San Luis Lakes State Park, which 

provides important habitat for migratory birds as 

well as opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation 

and watersports. 

LAND TRUSTS 

Tens of thousands of acres are protected in either fee 

title and easement programs paid for, or administered 

by, several conservation and land trust organizations, 

including but not limited to the Wetlands America 

Trust, The Nature Conservancy, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Colorado Open Lands, the 

American Farmland Trust, Ducks Unlimited, the Rio 

Grande Headwaters Land Trust, and the Colorado 

Cattleman’s Agricultural Land Trust. These organizations have many different objectives; some focus on 

the preservation of undeveloped agricultural land to 

provide resources for the future, some are interested in 

protecting specific wildlife resources such as wetlands, 

and some have cultural or recreational objectives. The 

efforts of each of these organizations complement each 

other as well as efforts being undertaken by public 

agencies, including the Service. The locations of easements on private land are largely confi dential, but 

there are some important land trust properties held 

in fee title as well, such as The Nature Conservancy’s 

Medano-Zapata Ranch, which borders Baca National 

Wildlife Refuge and Great Sand Dunes National Park 

and Preserve. This property is a 103,000-acre working ranch and is home to a herd of 2,500 bison that are 

managed to mimic natural grazing patterns in the high 

desert shrub and grasslands. 

Habitat Protection and 

the Easement Acquisition 

Process 

Habitat protection will occur through the purchase 

of conservation easements. It is the Service’s longestablished policy to acquire the minimum interest in 

land from willing sellers to achieve habitat protection 

goals, and conservation easements are an effective 

tool for achieving these goals. 

The acquisition authority for the SCCA is the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–j). The 

Federal money used to acquire conservation easements 

will largely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is derived from oil and gas leases 

on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel tax 

revenues, and the sale of surplus Federal property. 

There could be more money to acquire interests in 

habitat and water through direct congressional appropriations, donations, and the Federal Land Trust 

Facilitation Act if Congress votes to reauthorize it. 

Conservation Easements 

An easement is a conservation tool that has been 

extensively employed in the SCCA project area and 

throughout the larger region by other organizations. 

Easements involve the acquisition of certain rights to 

the property, such the right to subdivide or develop 

certain types of new infrastructure, while leaving the 

land title in the hands of the private property owner. 

Easements tend to be a cost-effective and socially 

acceptable means of habitat conservation. Many of 

the current agricultural land use practices are consistent with wildlife resource protection, and the use 

of easements will help ensure a strong and vibrant 

rural lifestyle. 

Chapter 2—Area Description and
 

Resources 

This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and 

socioeconomic resources within the proposed SCCA 

that could be affected by its establishment. The SCCA 

consists of approximately 1 million acres within the 

Southern Rockies and Arizona and New Mexico Plateau 

ecoregions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2011). The project encompasses nearly all of Costilla 

County in Colorado, as well as a part of northern Taos 

County, New Mexico. Almost the entire project area 

is privately owned. 

Because of the nearly 7,000 feet in elevation change 

across the project area, the SCCA contains a diverse 

array of plant communities, ranging from rabbitbrush 

scrub and sagebrush on the valley floor to alpine tundra and scree fi elds on the peaks of the surrounding 

mountains. As described in detail in this chapter, the 

habitats of the valley and surrounding mountains are 

crucial to the breeding and migration of migratory birds, 

and provide important opportunities for persistence 

or reintroduction of populations of imperiled species 

that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. 

Physical Environment 

GEOLOGY 

The project area is in the southeast corner of the San 

Luis Valley, which in turn is part of the much larger 

Rio Grande Rift Zone that extends from southern New 

Mexico northward through the San Luis and Upper 

Arkansas valleys to its northern termination near 

Leadville, Colorado (McCalpin 1996). The San Luis 

Valley is bordered on the east by the linear Sangre 

de Cristo Mountains, which were created by extensive block faulting during the Laramide Orogeny. The 

north-northwest part of the valley is bordered by the 

southernmost reach of the Sawatch Mountains. The 

west side of the valley is flanked by the San Juan Mountains, the result of extensive Tertiary-aged volcanism. 

In sharp contrast to the steeply rising mountains on the 

eastern side of the valley floor, the Oligocene volcanic 

rocks of the San Juan Mountains dip gently eastward 

into the valley floor, where they are interbedded with 

valley-fill deposits. Valley-fill deposits consist of sedimentary rocks that interfinger with volcanic deposits. 

Quaternary deposits include alluvium, sand dunes, and 

pediments along the mountain fronts (USFWS 2011). 

MINERALS 

Sand and gravel are the major mineral commodities 

that are mined near the San Luis Valley. Rock, sand, 

and gravel mines are scattered throughout the valley, 

but are concentrated around the cities of Alamosa and 

Monte Vista and the town of Del Norte, Colorado. No 

coal mining permits are active in the SCCA (Colorado 

Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety 2012). 

Other minerals that are mined in the area include 

gold, silver, peat, and limestone. There is also nascent 

oil and gas exploration in the valley (USFWS 2011). 

Little active mining occurs within the SCCA boundary. 

WATER AND HYDROLOGY 

The SCCA is located in the upper headwaters of the 

Rio Grande watershed, of which the drainages from 

the west slope of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains are 

tributary. Because of its position in a high-mountain 

desert, the valley floor receives little precipitation, and 

most surface and ground water is a result of runoff 

from the surrounding mountains. There are many perennial and intermittent drainages that descend from 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, including Sangre de 

Cristo, Trinchera, and Costilla Creeks. 

The project area is in the San Luis Valley part of 

the Rio Grande Aquifer System. The San Luis Valley 

is the northernmost part of the aquifer system that 

stretches from Saguache County, Colorado, to west 

Texas (Robson and Banta 1995). The thick basin-fi ll 

deposits in the San Luis Valley consist of interbedded 

clay, silt, sand, gravel, and volcanic rock. These form 

many separate aquifer systems, which are generally 

grouped into two major aquifers, a shallow unconfi ned 

aquifer and a deep confined aquifer, though the lines 

between these features are not absolute. The unconfined aquifer is separated, but not totally disconnected, 

from the confined aquifer by clay layers and lava fl ows. 

The unconfined aquifer is recharged through infi ltration of precipitation, irrigation water, runoff, and upward seepage of ground water from the confi ning bed. 

Discharge from the unconfined aquifer is from ground 

water withdrawals, ground water fl ow to the south, 

discharge to streams or drains, and evapotranspiration. Water levels in the unconfi ned aquifer respond 

to local climatic events and fall or rise with the availability of precipitation. Wells drilled into the deep 

confi ned aquifer are artesian and are buffered from 

climatic conditions. The confined aquifer is recharged 
10 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

from precipitation and snowmelt in the high San Juan 

Mountains and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Discharge 

from the confined aquifer is from ground water withdrawals, ground water flow to the south, and upward 

leakage through the confining bed (USFWS 2012). 

CLIMATE 

The climate of the San Luis Valley is consistent with its 

high mountain desert setting, with substantial 24-hour 

temperature swings because of cold air drainage from 

the surrounding mountains. This cold air also creates 

winter overnight temperatures that are often much 

lower than at many other places at similar elevations 

and latitudes. The mid-January high averages 34 °F 

while the low averages –2 °F, and the mid-July high 

averages 83 °F while the low averages 37 °F. The montane and alpine parts of the SCCA have much cooler 

weather because of their 10–14,000-foot elevations. 

Precipitation in the valley is strongly infl uenced 

by the surrounding mountains. The windward side of 

the mountain ranges, particularly the San Juan Mountains, receives a substantial amount of orographic 

precipitation, which is caused when air masses rise 

and subsequently cool, dumping their precipitation 

at higher elevations. This results in a marked rain 

shadow effect on the lee side of the mountains, with 

annual precipitation in Alamosa, the nearest major city 

to the SCCA, averaging 7.25 inches per year (National 

Weather Service 2012). 

Biological Environment 

PLANT COMMUNITIES 

The vegetation across the project area varies greatly, 

depending on hydrology, slope, aspect, and elevation. 

The San Luis Valley’s hydrology is strongly infl uenced 

by surface runoff and ground water flows from the surrounding mountains. These conditions have created a 

network of riparian corridors and wetlands that break 

up large expanses of associated desert and upland habitats across a 7,000-foot elevation gradient, resulting 

in high plant diversity. The broader San Luis Valley 

ecosystem contains 1,132 species of plants (appendix 

B; Colorado State University Herbarium 2012), which 

is more than a third of the total plant species present 

in Colorado. However, the more limited area of the 

SCCA suggests that the number actually present 

inside the project boundary may be somewhat lower. 

Similarly, the discussion of vegetation types below, 

particularly about wetlands, applies to the San Luis 

Valley and its surrounding mountains, though some 

of these vegetation types are only found in restricted 

patches in the SCCA itself. 

Wetlands 

Wet Meadows. Wet meadow habitat is naturally present in the San Luis Valley in both areas that have 

shallow water tables and areas that are periodically 

shallowly inundated early in the growing season. Wet 

meadows are the most widespread wetland type in the 

San Luis Valley. Dominant plants include Baltic rush, 

hair grass, and sedges. Most of the naturally occurring wet meadows have been modified by changes in 

water use, but in some areas this has resulted in an 

expansion of wet meadow areas because of artifi cial 

irrigation for hay fields and cattle grazing. These agricultural uses, while not without their own problems, do 

create habitat for a variety of wildlife (USFWS 2005). 

The combination of plant structure and density 

coupled with water depth and duration creates rich 

habitat diversity within each larger area of wet meadow. 

This richness of habitat creates tremendous foraging 

and nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species. 

Among these are many species of ducks and geese as 

well as sora, Virginia rail, white-faced ibis, American 

avocet, Wilson’s snipe, and Wilson’s phalarope. Wet 

meadows provide critical roosting and foraging areas 

for the Rocky Mountain population of greater sandhill 

cranes, which migrate through the valley in the spring 

and fall. Wet meadows also provide habitat for a variety of regionally rare or unusual amphibian species, 

such as northern leopard frog and Plains spadefoot 

toad (USFWS 2005). Also present in this habitat, particularly in areas of alkali soils, is the somewhat rare 

slender spiderflower, which once had a wide range in 

the southern Rocky Mountains but now occurs almost 

exclusively in the San Luis Valley. 

Seasonal and Semipermanent Wetlands. Seasonal and 

semipermanent wetlands have hydrologic regimes that 

typically allow for the persistence of water throughout the growing season. Water in these areas is often 

deeper than 1 foot. Semipermanent wetlands may have 

substantial areas of open water with aquatic vegetation beds, and are often fringed by tall emergent vegetation. Tall emergent wetlands can also be seasonal 

and are typically dominated by bulrush and cattails. 

Swimming birds, including grebes, coots, and waterfowl, as well as aerial species such as swallows 

and terns, use open-water areas of these wetlands 

for foraging. Emergent vegetation provides breeding habitat for diving and dabbling ducks, Canada 

geese, American bitterns, snowy and cattle egrets, 

black-crowned night-herons, white-faced ibis, and 

marsh passerines such as marsh wrens, common yellowthroats, and yellow-headed blackbirds. Northern 

harriers and short-eared owls will also nest in residual 

patches of tall emergent vegetation. Tall emergent 

wetlands with a high density of sedges and a shallow 

seasonal water regime host rails and provide nesting 

sites for dabbling ducks. 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 11 

Riparian Habitats 

Riparian habitat has trees, shrubs, and other streamside vegetation and is associated with intermittent and 

perennial waterways . This community may fl ood every 

year. Its historical extent on the valley floor has been 

reduced because of surface water diversion. Woody riparian habitat is sensitive to excessive grazing, which 

limits regeneration of the dominant willows and narrowleaf cottonwood trees. Shrubs that contribute to 

the structural diversity of riparian habitat include 

redosier dogwood and greasewood. These shrublands 

and forests provide important stopover habitat for migratory passerines, as well as nesting habitat for species such as Lewis’ woodpecker, willow fl ycatcher, and 

possibly yellow-billed cuckoo. In addition, the shade 

and streambank stabilization provided by riparian 

vegetation is important in keeping temperature and 

water quality in streams and rivers for species such as 

the endemic Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Rio Grande 

chub, and Rio Grande sucker. 

Riparian habitats provide both habitat and movement corridors for wildlife. Streams such as this one are important 

habitat for the imperiled Rio Grande cutthroat trout. 

Sue Oliveira / USFWS 

Upland Vegetation 

Semidesert Shrublands and Grasslands. Shrublands 

are the most common natural vegetation on the San 

Luis Valley fl oor. Many of the plants within these 

communities are drought resistant and tolerant of high 

soil salinity. These shrublands are characterized by an 

open to moderately dense assemblage of rubber rabbitbrush, greasewood, fourwing saltbush, shadscale, 

and winterfat. Also present in these communities are 

yucca, cactus, and various grasses. At slightly higher 

elevations, rabbitbrush shrublands transition to desert 

scrub and shrub-steppe habitats that have a substantial cover of big sagebrush or sand sagebrush and that 

intergrade with the pinyon-juniper woodlands above. 

Grasses in these areas include Indian ricegrass, alkali 

sacaton, western wheat grass, and blue grama. 

Bird diversity and density tend to be relatively 

low in semidesert shrublands because of structural 

and floristic simplicity (Wiens and Rotenberry 1981). 

Species common to this habitat include the horned 

lark, mourning dove, western meadowlark, and loggerhead shrike. Upland grassland habitats have the 

potential to support grassland-dependent species such 

as burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, and a variety of 

sparrows. The sagebrush-dominated habitats are also 

home to the declining sage thrasher and the Endangered Species Act candidate Gunnison sage-grouse. 
12 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Montane Forests. Above the semidesert shrubland, the 

vegetation transitions into pinyon-juniper woodland. 

This open-canopy forest is dominated by pinyon pines 

and junipers, with an understory consisting of shrubs 

and grasses. According to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, this woodland’s threat status is “fair” 

and its protection status is “poor–fair.” Pinyon-juniper 

woodland is particularly threatened by the spread of 

invasive grasses that increase its susceptibility to fi re 

(Colorado Natural Heritage Program and The Nature 

Conservancy 2008). Much of the existing pinyon-juniper 

woodland in the San Luis Valley is managed by BLM, 

though there are extensive stands on private lands in 

Costilla County. Pinyon jays are obligate nesters in the 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, and although their population is stable in Colorado, they are effective indicators 

of forest health and are therefore a priority species 

for Partners in Flight throughout the Intermountain 

West (Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Other pinyon-juniper associated species include black-throated 

gray warbler and juniper titmouse. 

As the elevation increases, the forest becomes a 

mixed conifer forest, which is sometimes part aspen, 

and finally becomes a subalpine spruce-fir forest. These 

forests are home to some bird species, including olivesided flycatcher, yellow warbler, and mountain chickadee; they also provide habitat and migration corridors 

for some important large mammals such as elk, black 

bear, and the threatened Canada lynx. 

Above Treeline. The highest elevations in the SCCA 

are dominated by alpine tundra, scree fields, and bare 

stone, which can have the appearance of being stark 

or even lifeless. Upon closer inspection, however, one 

observes a remarkable diversity of plants adapted to 

this cold and arid environment, including impressive 

displays of summer wildflowers. These plants provide 

the foundation for an ecosystem containing a suite of 

charismatic fauna, many of which are imperiled by 

habitat shifts because of climate change such as the 

American pika. The high elevations are also home to 

State game species such bighorn sheep. 

The semidesert shrublands and sagebrush habitats of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, while stark in appearance, 

are important habitat for declining bird species such as the sage sparrow and sage thrasher. 

© Trinchera Ranch 

WILDLIFE 

The diverse mix of wetland, riparian, shrubland, forest, and alpine habitats throughout the SCCA provide 

for the habitat needs of many assemblages of reptiles 

and amphibians, aquatic species, birds, and mammals, 

including several species of special concern. Appendix 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 13 

B lists the wildlife species found in the San Luis Valley and surrounding mountains. 

The conifer and aspen forests of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains 

Sue Oliveira / USFWS 

The American pika “hays” the alpine grasses as a means 

of surviving the harsh winters above the treeline in the 

Sangre de Cristo mountains. 

orbit / USFWS Steve T

Amphibians and Reptiles 

The San Luis Valley is a cold desert, so it supports 

only a limited number of reptiles and amphibians. The 

large areas of semidesert shrubland and the scattered 

wetlands and riparian areas are home to a handful of 

snakes and lizards as well as the snapping turtle. The 

arid nature of the region restricts amphibians largely 

to wetlands and riparian corridors; these areas provide 

habitat for tiger salamander and seven species of frogs, 

toads, and spadefoot toads. Among the latter group 

is the boreal toad, a high-elevation toad that appears 

to have declined substantially because of infection 

by Batrachochytrium dendrobatadis, a pathogenic 

fungus. This species is State listed as endangered by 

both Colorado and New Mexico (Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife 2012). 

Fish and Aquatic Species 

The project area contains the headwaters of the Rio 

Grande. The Rio Grande and its tributaries and the

valley’s marshes are home to several native fi sh as 

well as a range of introduced species. Most of the 

challenges faced by these aquatic species are due at 
14 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

least in part to anthropogenic causes such as competition with exotic species and water diversions. These 

impacts have been magnifi ed by persistent drought 

conditions since the 1990s. The SCCA easement program will help in the conservation of these species by 

ensuring that water use is tied to the land on which 

the easement is bought. 

The Rio Grande chub is thought to have once been 

the most common fish throughout the Rio Grande drainage and in the San Luis Closed Basin, but it has been 

extirpated from much of its range, including from the 

main stem of the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande chub is 

now found in several small streams in the San Luis Valley, including Crestone Creek on Baca National Wildlife Refuge. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

considers the Rio Grande chub to be an S1 (critically 

imperiled) species. It is thought to have declined because of habitat fragmentation by impoundments for 

diversions, habitat destruction because of poor land 

use practices, and predation by, and competition with, 

introduced fish species (Rees et al. 2005a). 

The Rio Grande sucker had a historical range similar to that of the Rio Grande chub, and faces similar 

threats. It appears to have been particularly hard 

hit by competition with the introduced white sucker. 

At one point, the Rio Grande sucker was reduced to 

a single population in Hot Creek in Conejos County, 

Colorado, but it has since been reintroduced to several 

more streams. It is considered a State endangered fi sh 

in Colorado (Rees et al. 2005b). 

In historical times, Rio Grande cutthroat trout1 

were found in large numbers in the main stem of the 

Rio Grande and its major tributaries, such as the 

Conejos River; one account from the Conejos River 

in 1877 states that “fi shing was so successful... our 

catch amounted to over a hundred pounds by midafternoon,” which the fishermen shipped off to a restaurant 

in Denver (Sanford 1933). Now, the native trout are 

restricted to high-elevation streams descending from 

the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The 

Rio Grande cutthroat trout occupies approximately 

10 percent of its historical range. Threats to the species include competition and hybridization with, and 

predation by, introduced trout; reduction in habitat 

quality because of water diversions and other hydrological changes; and changes in stream temperature 

because of human water use and global climate change. 

It is now a candidate species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and a decision on whether to 

list the species is due in 2014. 

Some 57 species of nonnative fi sh have been introduced to the San Luis Valley, either as naturalized 

1

76 Federal Register No. 207, Wednesday, October 26, 2011. 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of 

Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered 

or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted 

Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 

66403 

aquarium fish, escaped aquaculture species, or intentionally introduced sport fish. The latter category has 

rainbow, golden, brook, and brown trout; northern 

pike; bluegill; pumpkinseed; yellow bullhead; common 

carp; large and small mouth bass; blue, fl athead, and 

channel catfish; walleye; and yellow perch. Nongame 

species such as white suckers, Mozambique tilapia, 

grass carp, American eel, and even neotropical tetras 

and armored catfi sh have become naturalized in the 

Rio Grande drainage as well (USGS 2012). 

The Rio Grande cutthroat trout, once found throughout 

the Rio Grande and Pecos River watersheds, is now 

found only in scattered cold-water, high-elevation 

streams. 

USFWS 

Birds 

The diverse range of habitats along the elevational and 

hydrologic gradient of the SCCA provide habitat for 

at least 274 species of birds. Some of these birds are 

year-round residents, but many migrate through the 

valley on their way to and from wintering and breeding grounds while others come to the valley to breed 

or spend the winter. Among the migratory species 

are neotropical migrants that winter in Central and 

South America and breed in North America. Riparian corridors and forests are particularly important 

to these species. 

Cordilleran fl ycatchers breed in forested areas 

of the SCCA, including cottonwood riparian forest. 

These gallery riparian forests are also thought to host 

a limited number of yellow-billed cuckoos, a Federal 

candidate for listing as endangered. Olive-sided fl ycatchers breed in the coniferous forests of the mountains surrounding the valley. The southwestern willow fl ycatcher, a subspecies of the more widespread 

willow fl ycatcher, breeds in shrub riparian and tree 

riparian with a willow understory; the southwestern 

willow fl ycatcher is federally and State listed as endangered. Examples of other neotropical migrants in 

the SCCA include two species of phoebe, several more 

fl ycatchers, western tanager, gray catbird, Bullock’s 

oriole, and many species of warblers. 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 15 

Passerines are not the only migrants to make use 

of the area. Black-necked stilts and American avocets are shorebirds that migrate from winter ranges 

in Mexico and Central and South America to breed in 

the wetlands of the San Luis Valley. At least 25 other 

species of shorebirds use these wetlands as either 

stopover or breeding habitat. Six of these shorebirds, 

including the snowy plover, which breeds in the playa 

wetlands of the Closed Basin, are either focal species 

for the USFWS Migratory Bird Program or are USFWS Region 6 Birds of Conservation Concern. 

Given the scarcity of water in high desert and 

mountain environments, it is perhaps not surprising 

that the San Luis Valley is regionally important for 

both resident and migrant waterbirds. The marshes of 

the valley support 27 species of waterfowl. Approximately 30 percent of the cinnamon teal that summer 

in Colorado breed in the valley (S. Johnson, USFWS 

Migratory Birds, personal communication 2012). The 

secretive American bittern breeds in the valley, and 

has experienced population declines throughout its 

range, likely because of wetland disturbance. The 

white-faced ibis breeds in wet meadows and makes 

extensive use of natural and agricultural habitats in the 

valley. Nearly the entire Rocky Mountain population 

of sandhill cranes uses the San Luis Valley as migratory stopover habitat, particularly on and around the 

Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, where they are 

the focus of an annual crane festival and a draw for 

thousands of tourists every year. Rookeries of great 

blue herons, snowy egrets, and black-crowned nightherons are also present. Conservation of wet meadow, 

playa, and emergent wetland habitat is crucial for 

these species. While there are fewer wetlands in the 

SCCA than there are in other parts of the San Luis 

Valley, many of the aforementioned species are likely 

to use this area from time to time. 

The San Luis Valley hosts an array of diurnal raptors and owls throughout the year. Prairie falcons are 

common year-round residents and use uplands extensively for feeding and resting. The trees and snags along 

waterways are nesting sites for great horned and longeared owls, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, and 

Swainson’s hawks (USFWS 2011). The latter species 

is a bird of conservation concern in USFWS Region 6 

and is known to be sensitive to habitat fragmentation. 

Northern harriers and short-eared owls nest in wet 

meadows and emergent wetlands. These two species 

as well as ferruginous hawks, rough-legged hawks, 

and golden and bald eagles overwinter in the valley, 

where they forage for small mammals and other prey 

in riparian areas, uplands, and short-emergent wetlands where cover is abundant (USFWS 2011). The 

higher elevation parts of the project area are home to 

the northern goshawk, a generalist predator of rodents 

and birds that inhabits the montane forests of the surrounding mountains. It is probable that the forested 

canyons above the valley floor provide habitat for the 

Colorado and federally threatened Mexican spotted 

owl; these species are both State (Colorado) and federally listed as threatened, although no designated critical habitat for the species occurs in the project area. 

The San Luis Valley is also in the eastern corner 

of the sagebrush region of the Intermountain West 

(Pitkin and Quattrini 2010) and, as such, has some 

strongly sagebrush-associated or sagebrush-obligate 

bird species, meaning those species whose life history 

needs cannot be met in other habitats. The Gunnison sage-grouse has a small population at the north 

end of the San Luis Valley (D. Reinkensmeyer, personal communication with M. Dixon, February 2012). 

This species is now a candidate for listing under the 

Federal Endangered Species Act and is a species of 

special concern in Colorado. Gunnison sage-grouse 

likely had much broader distribution than they do 

now (Schroeder et al. 2004), and the Colorado Parks 

and Wildlife has identifi ed that some of this former 

range is still potential habitat for the species (Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 

2005). This potential range is mostly in Conejos and 

Costilla Counties, Colorado, but because the area of 

potential habitat crosses the State border, there is 

also some potential habitat in Rio Arriba and Taos 

Counties, New Mexico. Sage sparrows have similar 

habitat associations, preferring sagebrush-dominated 

habitats with open to closed canopies (Williams et al. 

2011). Sage thrasher is another denizen of the upland 

shrub habitats of the valley, including sagebrush and 

rabbitbrush scrub. It is a USFWS Migratory Bird focal 

species and a USFWS Region 6 species of concern. It 

is thought that the primary reasons for the decline of 

The endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests in 

the willows along the Rio Grande and its tributaries. 

Suzanne Langbridge / USGS C.
16 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Gunnison sage-grouse are the loss and fragmentation 

of sagebrush habitat (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001), so 

this species is likely to benefit from the protection of 

remaining potential habitat that the proposed action 

would provide. Given the overlap in habitat needs of 

sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligates (Rowland et 

al. 2006), species like sage thrasher and sage sparrow 

would likely benefi t from conservation of sagebrush 

and steppe habitat as well. 

Mammals 

The arid uplands, wetlands, and stream and river corridors of the SCCA provide habitat for large game 

species, including pronghorn, elk, and mule deer. The 

higher elevations hold Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. 

American bison were once an important part of both 

the San Luis Valley ecosystem and the socioeconomic 

system of the Ute and Pueblo peoples; however, the 

last bison were extirpated from the San Luis Valley 

by 1870 (Colville 1995). The Nature Conservancy now 

manages a bison herd on their Medano-Zapata Ranch 

as a means of simulating natural grazing regimes; however, their stated goal is to introduce a free-ranging 

genetically pure bison herd of at least 3,000 animals 

to the valley by 2015 (The Nature Conservancy 2008). 

These megafauna provide opportunities for hunting 

and wildlife viewing, but are not without controversy. 

Perceived overpopulation of elk, in particular, is contentious among farmers and ranchers in the valley, who 

are concerned about the crop damage and competition 

for forage between elk and cattle. The elk herd on the 

east side of the valley has been estimated to number 

approximately 5,000 animals (R. Rivale, Wildlife Biologist – CPW, personal communication, cited in USFWS 

2005). A recent study of elk carrying capacity in the 

Great Sand Dunes ecosystem found that, under current management practices, the carrying capacity of 

the region should be 6,104 elk (Wockner et al. 2010). 

Development of plans for elk management in the valley is ongoing. 

Small mammals in the SCCA are those typical of the 

greater southern Rockies ecosystem. Riparian areas 

and marshes provide resources for beaver and common 

muskrat. Forested areas are home to North American 

porcupine and snowshoe hare. Uplands contain other 

rabbits, such as white-tailed jackrabbits and mountain 

cottontails, as well as the Ord’s kangaroo rat. In the 

highest reaches of the project area, primarily above 

the tree line, are the charismatic American pika and 

the vocal and inquisitive yellow-bellied marmot. Of 

conservation concern is the Gunnison’s prairie dog, 

which inhabits the valley fl oor. This species has suffered a sharp decline for reasons that include human 

persecution and outbreaks of plague. It is a candidate 

for Federal Endangered Species Act protection, and 

a listing decision will be made following a genetic reevaluation of its taxonomic status.2 

The aforementioned species serve as prey for several predator species in the project area. Black bear is 

a generalist omnivore whose flexibility makes it common in many habitat types in the valley. The coyote 

is often found hunting small mammals and occasionally larger prey throughout the study area. Similarly, 

both mountain lion and bobcat are quite catholic in 

their habitat needs, though the mountain lion has 

much larger home ranges and tends to specialize in 

hunting ungulates, whereas the bobcat is more opportunistic. In contrast to those two cats, the State 

endangered and federally threatened Canada lynx is 

largely a specialist predator of snowshoe hare; in the 

SCCA, it is primarily found in the spruce-fir forests of 

2

Federal Register 76, No. 207. October 26, 2011. Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species 

That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; 

Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual 

Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 66389 

The San Luis Valley and Sangre de Cristo Mountains are home to thousands of elk. 

USFWS 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 17 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, where its preferred 

prey are found. 

The grizzly bear once roamed the mountains of the 

area but was extirpated from Colorado in the early 20th 

century; the San Luis Valley grizzlies are remembered 

now as the mascot of Adams State College in Alamosa, 

Colorado. Similarly, the gray wolf historically hunted 

in the San Luis Valley and surrounding mountains, but 

was extirpated from Colorado by 1945 (though it is 

still State and federally listed as endangered in Colorado). A mounting body of research shows the potential ecological benefits of natural or human-facilitated 

reintroduction of wolves, particularly on vegetation 

adversely affected by unnaturally high elk browsing 

(Ripple and Beschta 2012). However, this possibility 

was received with opposition by some local ranchers 

and some members of the big game hunting community during scoping meetings for the CCP for the San 

Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex in 2012; 

reintroduction will be discussed as part of one alternative during the NEPA review for the CCP. 

Finally, the SCCA is home to nine species of bats. 

All are insectivorous and hunt primarily by capturing 

insects in fl ight. The hoary bat and silver-haired bat 

are solitary tree-roosting bats that are present during 

the summer and migrate to warmer climates during 

the winter. The presence of mature cottonwood riparian forests likely supports their presence on the valley 

fl oor. The migratory Mexican free-tailed bat has an 

exceptionally large summer colony of approximately 

100,000 individuals (Freeman and Wunder 1988) in the 

historic Orient Mine in the northern San Luis Valley 

outside the SCCA, though there are certainly other 

old mines within the project area that may provide 

roosts for smaller colonies. The remaining species are 

either resident or regionally migratory hibernators. 

The central Sangre de Cristo mountains are an important movement corridor for the threatened Canada lynx. 

Steve Torbit / USFWS 

Cultural Resources
 

On the hottest days it is cool in the shade, and 

on the very coldest days it is comfortable in 

the sunshine.

 – Geologist C.E. Siebenthal, describing the 

San Luis Valley in 1910 

Humans have inhabited the San Luis Valley and surrounding mountains for more than 12,000 years. Their 

uses of the land refl ect both the traditions of those 

who moved to the valley and local adaptations. The 

following summary of the prehistory and history of 

the valley provides an overview of some of the major 

themes and events that illustrate the human interaction with the land. There is an abundance of prehistoric 

evidence as well as early historical accounts, records, 

photographs, and local histories for the valley. This 

synopsis provides only a glimpse into the resources 

and information available with an emphasis on environmental references. 

PREHISTORY 

Paleo-Indian Stage 

Current archaeological evidence shows that the earliest humans, called the paleo-Indians, migrated to the 

region near the close of the last ice age approximately 

12,000 years ago. These people had a highly mobile 

lifestyle that depended on the hunting of large, nowextinct mammals, including mammoths and a huge 

ancient bison. The hallmark of most paleo-Indian sites 

are the beautiful but deadly spear points that were 

launched with the aid of a simple yet expertly engineered spear-thrower called an atlatl. These projectile 

points are generally recovered as isolated occurrences 
18 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

or in association with animal kills, butchering sites, or 

small temporary camps. Although the timing of this 

stage varies throughout the region and is constantly 

being refined as more data become available, the stage 

generally lasted until about 7,500 years ago. 

Information from the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation shows that 62 paleoIndian resources have been identified in the San Luis 

Valley and surrounding mountains. These sites are 

often located near wetlands and along the shorelines 

of ancient lakes, reflecting the use of abundant fl oral 

and faunal resources available in these locations. Several paleo-Indian sites in the valley and surrounding 

mountains have been excavated, including the high altitude Black Mountain Site (5HN55) located at 10,000 

feet in the San Juan Mountains south of Lake City on 

the opposite side of the San Luis Valley from the proposed SCCA. This campsite dates from approximately 

10,000 to 7,000 years ago and has yielded a variety of 

stone tools suggesting animal procurement and processing (Jodry 1999a). 

Several paleo-Indian sites on the valley fl oor have 

been excavated and provide an extensive record of 

the early occupations. Three of these sites, the Cattle 

Guard site (5Al101), the Linger site (5AL91), and the 

Zapata site (5AL90), are located just south of Great 

Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and represent camps with an abundance of bison bone and associated stone tools (Cassells 1997, Jodry 1999a). The 

Reddin site (5SH77) near the town of Hooper yielded 

nearly 500 paleo-Indian artifacts suggesting a variety 

of activities and uses (Cassells 1997, Jodry 1999a). 

Climatic fl uctuations during the Holocene Epoch 

(which started about 12,000 years ago and has continued to the present) are often reflected in the archaeological record. Pollen remains, faunal assemblages, 

and geomorphological deposits suggest periods of 

significant and rather abrupt vegetation changes and 

variations in the amount of moisture (Jodry 1999b, 

Martorano 1999a). Bison remains associated with archaeological sites on the southern plains also show 

oscillations in bison numbers in response to climatic 

conditions (Creel et al. 1990). Although more research 

is needed and archaeologists’ ability to recover and 

interpret the prehistoric record is continually improving, these preliminary studies are an intriguing look 

The San Luis Valley contains archaeological sites extending thousands of years into prehistory. 

Meg Van Ness / USFWS 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 19 

into the evidence for and the consequences of longterm climatic change. 

Archaic Stage 

There was a gradual but definite shift in the pattern 

of human use of the region that began about 7,500 

years ago and continued until approximately 1,500 

years ago. The changes were the result of a combination of regional climatic fl uctuations and an increasing population coupled with technological innovation 

and regional influences. Although the Archaic stage is 

better represented in the archaeological record than 

the preceding paleo-Indian stage, the identifi cation 

and interpretation of the remains continues to be expanded and refi ned. Evidence of a greater diversity 

of tools and the use of a larger variety of plants and 

animals than during the preceding paleo-Indian stage 

is found on many sites. 

There have been 618 Archaic stage resources 

recorded in the Colorado part of the study area. As 

with the earlier inhabitants, the Archaic peoples 

made extensive use of the valley’s wetland resources 

and occupied the rockshelters and several high-altitude locations found in the surrounding mountains. 

Speaking of Archaic sites in the northeastern part of 

the valley, Hoefer states: “Most of the Closed Basin 

archaeological sites are open camps containing debitage and fi re-cracked rock scatters, approximately 

half of which contain ground stone implements such 

as metate fragments or manos. Many of these sites are 

located around seasonal wetland marshes and lakes” 

(Hoefer 1999). 

The use of the atlatl with spear points continued and 

basketry, cloth, and cordage came into use. Although 

still mobile, the population increasingly made shortterm use of small groupings of structures with storage features. Former hunting blinds and other rock 

structures are fairly common but often difficult to interpret. Archaic Stage rock art is scattered throughout 

the region and the influences of surrounding regions, 

particularly the Plains and the Great Basin, are identifiable at several sites. 

Late Prehistoric Stage 

Beginning approximately 1,500 years ago, several innovations greatly infl uenced life in the valley (Martorano 1999b). Although these changes were adopted 

at different rates and degrees throughout the area, 

the advent of pottery and the bow and arrow coupled 

with a larger and more sedentary population defi nes 

the period until approximately 600 years ago. Early 

archaeological research in the valley identifi ed many 

regional infl uences, with several sites exhibiting 

pueblo-inspired attributes (Renaud 1942). In 1694, 

Don Diego de Vargas documented his visit to the valley, thus providing an early historical written account 

and ushering in the historical period. 

The 442 Late Prehistoric resources in the Offi ce of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation database are 

listed under a variety of designations for this stage, 

but all date to about the same time period. The distribution of Late Prehistoric sites in the valley reinforces the trend of intensive use of wetland habitats 

(Martorano 1999b). This is not surprising as the available resources—both fl oral and faunal—would have 

continued to be abundant in these areas. Site types 

include camps, stone tool scatters, rock art, rock alignments and enclosures, and quarries where the lithic 

material for stone tools was collected. 

Protohistoric Stage 

By the late 1600s, Spanish incursions into the valley 

were beginning to affect the lives of the native populations. The Utes, who, based on archaeological evidence, came to the valley sometime after A.D. 1100 

(Reed 1994) and were the most prevalent occupants 

of the valley, quickly acquired horses and other trade 

items. Although many other Native American groups 

probably visited or traveled through the valley, the 

Comanche, Apache, Navajo, Arapaho, Cheyenne, and 

several northern Pueblos also had a significant if not 

sustained presence (Martorano 1999c). 

The 59 recorded Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation sites from this stage include the traditional stone tools and ceramics mixed with used or 

flaked glass, trade beads, and metal projectile points. 

Wickiups (conical timbered structures) and trees with 

peeled bark (indicating the harvesting of the edible 

cambium layer) were common, as is rock art with motifs and depictions of postcontact goods. 

EARLY HISTORY 

The historical period for the valley began with the 

reoccurring contact of the native peoples with people 

of European decent and ended in the mid-twentieth 

century. This interaction generally followed many 

years of occasional contact, often for the exchange of 

trade goods. The narrative below briefl y summarizes 

some of the major historical influences, patterns, and 

themes in the region. 

Early Exploration and Trade 

“...I take and seize one, two, and three times, 

one, two, and three times, one, two, and three 

times, and all those which I can and ought, the 

Royal tenancy and possession, actual, civil, 

and criminal, at this aforesaid River of the 

North, without excepting anything and without any limitation, with the meadows, glens, 

and their pastures and watering places. And 

I take this aforesaid possession, and I seize 

upon it, in the voice and name of the other 

lands, towns, cities, villas, castles, and strong 

houses and dwellings, which are now founded 
20 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

in the said kingdoms and provinces of New 

Mexico, and those neighboring to them, and 

shall in future time be founded in them, with 

their mountains, glens, watering places, and 

all its Indian natives...”

 – Capitán Gaspar Pérez de Villagrá in La 

Historia de la Nuevo Mexico, 1610 

With these bold words in 1598, Spain claimed all lands, 

structures, and people along the Rio Grande—including the San Luis Valley—forever. This followed several years of sporadic Spanish incursions into northern 

New Mexico and southern Colorado, which ushered 

in several decades of trade, confl ict, and settlement. 

Many Spanish traveled along the North Branch of 

the Spanish Trail, which had both western and eastern routes through the valley. Although the Spanish 

relinquished ownership of the valley in 1821, their 

influence survives as a vital part of the landscape and 

people today. 

There are many explorers and settlers who left a 

legacy of journals, maps, and other accounts of their 

time in the San Luis Valley. These documents offer 

a wide variety of historical and environmental information. The examples summarized below provide 

a glimpse into the types of information and insight 

available in these early accounts. 

Don Diego de Vargas: 1694. The 1694 journal of Don 

Diego de Vargas survives as the earliest written account of the San Luis Valley. The journal is a wealth 

of information about the native peoples, topography, 

and environment (Colville 1995). After leaving Santa 

Fe, De Vargas followed the North Branch of the Spanish Trail northward, traveling east of the Rio Grande, 

and entering the valley just southeast of Ute Mountain. From there he continued north, crossing what 

would become the New Mexico and Colorado State line 

and paralleling the western side of San Pedro Mesa 

before heading west along Culebra Creek. When he 

reached the Rio Grande, he turned south and crossed 

the river about five miles south of the confl uence. His 

return trip to Santa Fe took him along the Rio San 

Antonito on the west side of the Rio Grande, exiting 

the valley on the west side of San Antonio Mountain 

(Colville 1995). 

His six days in the valley included contact, trade, 

and occasional skirmishes with the Utes and confrontations with Taos Puebloans. He also documented 

large herds of bison and some “very large deer.” This 

reference is the earliest known historical account of 

bison in the valley (Colville 1995), the last being a 

brief mention of bison by Juan Bautista Silva along 

the Rio San Antonio south of present-day Antonito in 

the spring of 1859 (Kessler 1998). During de Vargas’s 

travels, the use of sign language and smoke signals 

for communication is well documented, as is the need 

to be near water during midsummer. 

Notable features of the de Vargas journal include 

the advantageous yet temporary alliance of de Vargas’ 

men with the Utes and Apaches to combat a mutual 

enemy: the Comanche. As he traveled along the west 

side of the valley, de Vargas refers to the San Juan 

Mountains by their early Spanish name: Sierra de la 

Grulla, or Mountains of the Cranes. And, in an interesting meteorological observation, de Vargas states 

on August 24 that: “From the beginning of the march 

we suffered from bitter cold”—this during a month 

that now has an average daytime high temperature 

in the upper 70s. 

Juan Bautista de Anza: 1779. Eighty-five years later in 

1779, Juan Bautista de Anza, the Governor and Military Commander of New Mexico, left Santa Fe and 

headed north to quell the Comanche raids that were 

devastating Spanish settlements in the region. Traveling by night to avoid detection, de Anza followed the 

North Branch of the Spanish Trail along the eastern 

foothills of the San Juan Mountains, crossed Poncha 

Pass, and then headed east to the plains near Pikes 

Peak. From there he headed south along the foothills, through the areas that would become Colorado 

Springs and Pueblo, where he fought several victorious battles with the Comanche. He concluded his 

campaign by crossing back into the valley at Sangre 

de Cristo Pass (which is also known as La Veta Pass) 

and taking the eastern route of the North Branch of 

the Spanish trail back to Santa Fe (Kessler 1998). He 

initially entered the valley on August 19, 1779, and by 

September 4 of that year he had reentered the valley near Fort Garland on his return trip to Santa Fe. 

Zebulon Montgomery Pike: 1807. Unlike the earlier 

Spanish explorers, Captain Zebulon Montgomery 

Pike entered the San Luis Valley from the east, having traveled west from St. Louis across Missouri, 

Kansas, and the plains of Colorado. Pike’s mission was 

to map and describe the southern parts of the newly 

acquired Louisiana Purchase. On January 27, 1807, he 

and most of his men (except five that were left along 

the trail because they were unable to walk on their 

frozen feet) crossed the Sangre de Cristo Mountains 

and entered the valley near the Great Sand Dunes 

(Carter 1978, Hart and Hulbert 2006, Ubbelohde et 

al. 2001). Pike built a simple stockade near where the 

current town of Sanford is located and stayed there 

until February 26, when Spanish offi cials took him 

prisoner and escorted him down to Santa Fe because 

“...it was necessary his Excellency should receive an 

explanation of my business on his frontier...” (Zebulon 

Pike, Thursday, February 26, 1807). 

Although Pike’s journal in the days preceding the 

ascent into the valley often mentions seeing “a gang 

of buffalo,” including in the Wet Valley, there is no 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 21 

mention of buffalo after he enters the San Luis Valley. 

In contrast, deer are often mentioned in the valley and 

goose was a part of at least one meal. Pike grew fond 

of the valley and concluded that “...it was at the same 

time one of the most sublime and beautiful prospects 

ever presented to the eyes of man” (Zebulon Pike, 

Thursday, February 5, 1807). 

Jacob Fowler: 1821 to 1822. The journal of Jacob Fowler, 

which dates from 1821 to 1822 and which The New 

York Times referred to as “quaint and interesting” 

(The New York Times 1898), is a wealth of information 

about the environment and the interactions between 

the various peoples who occupied the valley (Coues 

1965). The New York Times further describes the 

journal—just published by noted ornithologist Elliott 

Coues—as “...a notable contribution to our knowledge 

of early adventure and pioneering in the Great West. 

His style is straightforward and his wonderful power 

of observation has made the narrative very attractive.” 

Fowler was a fur trader who left Fort Smith, Arkansas, in September 1821 and entered the valley 

via La Veta Pass on February 4, 1822. For the next 

3 months, he traveled between Taos and the central 

part of the valley, going as far north as near where 

Fort Garland would be later established. Many animals are noted in the valley, including beaver, elk, 

deer, bear, pronghorn, otter, big-horned sheep, wild 

horses, geese, ducks, and a wolf. Although great herds 

of “buffelow” were noted as the party crossed the 

Plains, and as far west as the Wet Valley, there is no 

mention of them once they reach the San Luis Valley. 

As with the references to animals, the descriptions of 

plants, particularly the distribution (or lack thereof) 

of cottonwoods and willows along specifi c creeks, is 

frequent and often detailed. These descriptions are 

mixed with wonderful accounts of life in the many 

small Spanish settlements that dotted the landscape 

and interactions with the native peoples. 

Fowler recorded an exceptionally astute observation while crossing the southern part of the valley on 

February 18, 1822: 

I Have no doubt but the River from the Head 

of those Rocks up for about one Hundred miles 

has once been a lake of about from forty to 

fifty miles Wide and about two Hundred feet 

deep – and that the running and dashing of 

the Watter Has Woren a Way the Rocks So as 

to form the present Chanel. 

With this Robert Fowler had speculated about some 

of the complex geological processes that formed the 

valley—processes that were studied and confi rmed a 

hundred years later. 

Many other explorers and settlers visited the valley and left behind journals of varying detail (Hart and 

Hulbert 2006, Kessler 1998, Preuss 1958, Richmond 

1990, Sanchez 1997). Among these are: 

■ George Frederick Ruxton, 1846 

■ John C. Fremont, 1848 to 1849 

■ Charles Preuss, 1848 to 1849 (traveling with Fremont) 

■ Gwinn Harris Heap, 1853 

■ John Williams Gunnison, 1853 

■ John Heinrich Schiel, 1853 (traveling with Gunnison) 

■ Randolph Barnes Marcy, 1858 

■ William Wing Loring, 1858 

■ Juan Bautista Silva, 1859 

POLITICAL BOUNDARIES, LAND GRANTS, AND 

PUBLIC LANDS 

The San Luis Valley has endured many changes in 

governance over the last 300 years. Following nearly 

12,000 years of sovereignty by various Native Americans, the control (or at least the declared control) and 

political boundaries of the region shifted continually 

until Colorado and New Mexico obtained statehood. 

The brief timeline below summarizes some of these 

changes in “ownership” of the San Luis Valley: 

1598 Don Juan de Onate claims the San Luis 

Valley and surrounding areas for Spain. 

1763 The Treaty of Paris at the end of the 

French and Indian War divides much 

of the North American interior between 

Spain and France. The San Luis Valley 

is considered Spanish territory. 

1803 The Louisiana Purchase is negotiated 

between the United States and France 

but the western boundaries are not clarified and remain ambiguous. 

1819 The United States negotiates the AdamsOnis Treaty with Spain to clarify the 

boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase. 

The San Luis Valley remains part of 

Spain’s New Mexico Territory. 

1821 Mexican War of Independence (1810 to 

1821). The valley becomes a part of the 

new nation of Mexico. 

1836 The Republic of Texas achieves independence from Mexico. Texas claims the 

land in the valley east and north of the 

Rio Grande. Mexico does not recognize 

the Republic, disputes this boundary, 

and continues to claim the entire valley. 

1837 The United States recognizes the Republic of Texas, including the San Luis 

Valley. 

1845 The United States annexes Texas, including the San Luis Valley, and Texas 

achieves statehood. 
22 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

1848 Following the Mexican-American War 


(1846 to 1848), the Treaty of Guadalupe 


Hidalgo establishes the present Mexico–United States border except for the 


later 1853 Gadsden Purchase (southern 


Arizona and southern New Mexico).
 

1850 Amid much controversy about the admittance of free versus slave States, 


and as a result of the Compromise of 


1850, Texas surrenders its claim to New 


Mexico, and the New Mexico Territory, 


including the San Luis Valley generally 


south of the Rio Grande (38th parallel), 


is established. 


1854 The Kansas Territory, which includes 


the northern part of the San Luis Valley 


(above the 38th parallel), is established 


out of unorganized lands of the Louisiana Purchases.
 

1861 The Colorado Territory is created by 


the Colorado Organic Act with the same 


boundaries that would later become the 


State of Colorado.
 

1876 Colorado becomes a State.
 

1912 New Mexico becomes a State.
 

Beginning in 1833, many Mexican land grants were 

issued in the valley as a direct result of the political 

turmoil noted above and the desire for Mexico City 

to keep control over the distant northern borderlands 

of their newly independent nation. These land grants 

were intended to encourage Mexican settlement in 

the borderlands, thereby dissuading any thoughts of 

Texas independence and discouraging encroachment 

by American fur traders. 

The fi rst grants consisted of many small parcels 

along the Conejos River in Colorado in 1833 (Athearn 

1985). These small grants were ineffective in establishing permanent settlement, but the much larger 1842 

Conejos Grant proved to have more success in persuading the founding of farms and towns. This grant 

covered more than 2.5 million acres and included all 

of what would become the Colorado counties of Conejos and Rio Grande with parts of the counties of Mineral, Saguache, and Alamosa. As with other Mexican 

land grants in the valley, the grants were considered 

invalid following the Mexican-American War. The 

Court of Private Land Claims in 1900 ruled against 

the grantees and negated the claim (Colorado State 

Archives 2001). 

The Sangre de Cristo grant included all of what is 

now Costilla County and extended a short distance 

into the current State of New Mexico. The grant consisted of 1 million acres and was originally awarded 

to two Mexican nationals in 1844, but following their 

deaths during the Pueblo Revolt of 1847, the land was 

sold to Charles (Carlos) Beaubien. Unlike the Conejos 

Grant, Beaubien’s claim to the land was upheld by the 

courts in 1860. The land was later sold to William Gilpin 

(Colorado’s first Territorial Governor) in 1864. Large 

tracts of the grant have been sold to various developers and disputes over the rights of local people to use 

the land have continued through 2009 (The Center 

for Grant Studies 2003, The Pueblo Chieftain 2009). 

The Baca “Land Grant” in the San Luis Valley was 

the result of a land dispute. The Baca land patents, of 

which there are five, were granted to the heirs of Luis 

Maria Baca in replacement for his 1825 grant near Las 

Vegas, New Mexico, which was also claimed by Juan 

de Dios Maiese in 1835. These confl icting claims came 

to light when the United States took control of the 

lands in the mid-1840s. The Baca claim was settled in 

1860 and patented in 1903, when the Baca heirs were 

given five parcels of land: two in New Mexico, two in 

Arizona, and one in the San Luis Valley—Baca #4. In 

various confi gurations and sizes, the Baca #4 lands 

have changed hands many times over the ensuing 

hundred years, with a large part established as the 

Baca National Wildlife Refuge in 2000. 

While there is little public land in the SCCA, the 

broader San Luis Valley region is about 40 percent 

public land. This includes large parts of the Rio Grande 

and the Pike-San Isabel National Forests in Colorado, 

with small sections of the Carson National Forest in 

New Mexico. The national forest system was established at the turn of the 20th century as the American 

public became alarmed at the destruction of forests 

by timber and mining interests. The BLM was established in 1946 as a result of combining several agencies 

and policies into one Bureau and now owns large parcels of land in the area, primarily in the western and 

northern parts of the valley floor. Great Sand Dunes 

National Park and Preserve was initially established 

as a national monument in 1932 and was expanded to 

include many upland parcels in 2004. Three national 

wildlife refuges, Monte Vista (1953), Alamosa (1962), 

and Baca (2003), were established to protect wetland 

habitat for migratory birds along the central fl yway. 

Additional lands are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of Colorado. 

NATIVE PEOPLES 

The postcontact history of Native Americans in the 

San Luis Valley involves both cooperation and confl ict 

and ends with the establishment of reservations outside of the valley. Although several Native American 

tribes are now represented in the valley, today they 

compose less than 1 percent of the current population. 

The Utes consist of several bands and at the time 

of contact were the primary Native American inhabitants of much of Utah, central and western Colorado, 

and parts of northern New Mexico. Increased settlement after the United States gained possession of 

the valley in 1848 and the surrounding gold rush of 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 23 

1859 brought new people to the valley and ushered in 

several decades of escalating pressure to remove the 

Utes (Ellis 1996). Fort Massachusetts (1852 to 1858) 

and Fort Garland (1858 to 1883) were established in 

the valley primarily to protect settlers from Ute attacks. The 1863 and 1868 treaties between the United 

States and the Utes gave parts of Colorado, including the San Luis Valley, to the United States. Over 

the next four decades, a series of treaties and agreements continued to reduce Ute lands and relocate the 

Ute peoples, with the eventual establishment of three 

reservations in southwestern Colorado and northern 

Utah by the early years of the 20th century. 

Many other Native Americans visited or lived in 

the valley, including the Apache, Arapaho, Cheyenne, 

Comanche, Kiowa, and Navajo (NPS 2011). Early 

historical accounts frequently mention various members of pueblos along the Rio Grande coming north 

into the central San Luis Valley to hunt bison, causing occasional confrontations with the Utes (Carson 

1998, Colville 1995). The first Pueblo revolt of 1680, a 

response to the expanding Spanish control in northern New Mexico, effectively ceased Spanish rule in 

the region until Don Diego de Vargas reestablished 

control over the pueblos in 1692 and 1696. The Taos 

Pueblo rebelled against the occupation of United 

States troops during the Mexican-American War in 

1847, but the rebellion was soon repelled, effectively 

ending major conflicts in the region. 

SETTLEMENT 

Settlement of the San Luis Valley refl ects cultural, 

economic, and political infl uences as well as creative 

adaptation to a unique environment. Following the 

1610 establishment of Santa Fe as the capital of the 

New Mexico province, explorers and traders slowly 

made their way north into the central San Luis Valley. Jacob Fowler encountered several small Spanish 

settlements during his travels north of Taos and into 

southern Colorado in 1821 and 1822 (Coues 1965). 

The Catholic Church, which was a primary infl uence 

during the initial exploration of the region, continued 

to play a major role in the establishment of settlements 

and in the day-to-day lives of most of the inhabitants. 

Members of various church orders were often part of 

the early explorations, such as the 22 Franciscans who 

accompanied de Onate during his 1598 exploration and 

settlement in northern New Mexico (Athearn 1989). 

The church was instrumental not only in matters of 

faith, but also as educators, trade coordinators, keepers of public records, and builders of comparatively 

grand architecture. On the other hand, the oppressive 

condemnation and suppression of the Native American religious practices were a major contributor to 

the unrest that led to the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 and 

the destruction of several missions. Nonetheless, the 

Catholic church began the 18th century as one of the 

few institutions in the area to prosper, and soon missions were established throughout the region (Athearn 

1989). The journals of a Jesuit order near Conejos from 

1871 to 1875 reveal days full of baptisms, marriages, 

deaths, prayers, attending to the sick, and rituals, 

with a persistent concern for obtaining basic supplies 

(Stoller and Steele 1982). 

In her 1997 book on the San Luis Valley, Olibama 

Lopez-Tushar describes the first attempted settlement 

of the valley as that of George Gold (Gould) near the 

town of Costilla in 1848 (Lopez-Tushar 1997. This settlement was found to be in trespass of the lands held 

by the Sangre de Cristo Grant and Gold was evicted 

before establishing a colony, although the town of San 

Luis de Culebra was established on the land grant 3 

years later (Athearn 1985, Wyckoff 1999). The establishment of towns on the land grants was encouraged 

and within a few years the towns of San Pedro, San 

Acacio, Chama, and San Francisco were on the Sangre 

de Cristo Grant and the towns of Conejos, Guadelupe, 

Ortiz, and Magote were on the Conejos Grant. 

Early settlements in the valley were established 

based on the traditional pattern of the Spanish plaza 

with homes, churches, and public buildings clustered 

around a central square and long narrow fi elds radiating out around the buildings and fronting a nearby 

creek—sometimes referred to as cordillera or plaza 

farming (Colville 1995). The extensive systems of early 

irrigation canals and water control structures supported small grain fields and gardens, some of which 

are still in use today. Several large canals and their 

associated laterals, including the Travelers Canal, the 

Empire Canal, and the Monte Vista Canal, were built 

in the 1880s in response to the increasing demand for 

the valley’s beans, corn, grains, and other vegetables. 

The extensive irrigation in the valley was recognized 

early as a source of future problems as noted by Major 

John Wesley Powell in his 1890 testimony before the 

Senate Special Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of Arid Lands: 

Passing into New Mexico, then, the water 

that practically heads in the high mountains 

of Colorado is largely, almost wholly, cut 

off from the Rio Grande, so that no portion 

of the water that heads in these mountains 

where there is great precipitation will cross 

the line into New Mexico (in the dry season). 

In a dry season, nothing can be raised in the 

lower region and sometimes the dry seasons 

come two or three together. (Siebenthal 1910) 

The mining boom in the surrounding mountains in 

1859, the completion of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad over the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and into 

the valley in 1877, and a vigorous advertising effort 

by land speculators led to a slow but steady increase 

in population in the latter half of the 19th century. 
24 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Before the discovery of gold in 1859, the valley was 

the home of Colorado’s largest non-Native American 

population, and by 1870 the population of Conejos, 

Costilla, and Saguache Counties is estimated to have 

been approximately 5,000 (Wyckoff 1999). Speculators 

capitalized on the increasing number of immigrants 

heading west from the eastern United States and Europe, as is illustrated by the description of the valley 

in a 1884 promotional brochure: 

Society is very good. The intelligence of average western people is far above those of the 

eastern States. Under the duck or buckskin 

coat of many a miner, farmer or stockman of 

Colorado is concealed diplomas from the best 

colleges of the east and Europe. 

The climate is almost perfect. Extremes 

of heat or cold are unknown, and the land 

is one of almost perpetual sunshine by day, 

and cloudless skies at night. The healthfulness of the country is notorious, sickness 

almost unknown. No malaria, no cyclones, 

no deluges, and when the orchards of small 

fruits, apples, cherries and plums, and groves 

of shade trees are planted, the country will be 

as fruitful and beautiful as the land of Italy. 

(The Republican Publishing Company 1884) 

By the early 1870s, the effect of hunting and development was already taking a toll on Colorado’s wildlife. 

In 1872, the Colorado Territorial Governor Edward 

N. Cook passed the first game laws to protect certain 

birds, bison, deer, elk, and bighorn sheep (Colville 

1995). His words sounded the alarm that the wildlife 

needed protection: 

I desire to say a word in favor of protecting 

our game—birds, beasts, and fi shes—all of 

which are being wastefully destroyed...and 

unless some law is passed...the buffalo, elk, 

deer antelope and trout will soon become 

extinct, and Colorado will be robbed of the 

many attractions she today possesses. 

SUMMARY OF KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Information about the recorded resources in the Colorado part of the San Luis Valley is summarized from 

data obtained from the Colorado Office of Archaeology 

and Historic Preservation in February 2012. Similar 

trends can be extrapolated for the New Mexico part 

of the area. The Offi ce of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation data represent the efforts of hundreds of 

agencies, organizations, and individuals to document 

and study the past. The counts include sites, buildings, 

structures, and isolated finds; however, an individual 

resource may have many of these elements and may 

represent more than one time period (multicomponent) and therefore may be counted more than once. 

It is also important to note that the distribution of the 

known resources often shows where modern activities 

have mandated cultural resource surveys and may 

also potentially show recorder bias as much as actual 

prehistoric or historic settlement or use patterns. 

A total of 6,490 cultural resource sites or properties have been recorded in the Colorado part of the 

San Luis Valley. Another 2,740 isolated artifacts or 

features have also been recorded in this area. These 

resources include 4,719 prehistoric components, 4,091 

historic components, 62 components lacking a temporal designation, and 3 paleontological locations, with 

some resources representing multiple components. 

Nearly 20 percent of the prehistoric components 

are lithic scatters. These locations consist of stone 

tools or the remains associated with stone tool manufacture. Camps, which are lithic scatters in association 

with the remains of a campfire, are only slightly less 

common and have been recorded at approximately 

19 percent of the sites. The third most frequent prehistoric site type, representing 4 percent of the sites, 

is architectural, and generally consist of stone circles 

or alignments. Other relatively frequent site types 

found in the valley but never consisting of more than 

1 percent include peeled trees, rock art, and human 

burials. More than half of the prehistoric components 

on sites in the valley have not been classifi ed into a 

particular type. 

The 4,091 historic components include standing 

buildings or structures or historic archaeological deposits. Many of these are homes, commercial buildings, 

or public buildings within the towns in the valley, with 

100 or more each recorded in Alamosa, San Luis, and 

Monte Vista. Rural sites with historical components 

often include water control structures (111 recorded), 

cabins or homesteads (68 recorded), roads or trails (62 

recorded), and railroad-related features (28 recorded). 

The 1,635 historical archaeology components include 

both isolated rubbish scatters and small features in 

addition to artifacts or deposits associated with a 

building or structure. 

Two resources in the valley have been designated 

as National Historic Landmarks. These include Pike’s 

Stockade (5CN75) from 1808 and the Pedro Trujillo 

Homestead (5AL706) from the late 19th century. Approximately 100 cultural resources in the valley are 

listed on the National or State Register of Historic 

Places. Another 435 resources are officially eligible to 

be listed on the National or State Registers but have 

yet to be formally nominated. 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 25 

Socioeconomic Environment 

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE 

Population 

The SCCA includes two counties: Costilla County in 

Colorado and Rio Arriba County and northeastern 

Taos County in New Mexico. Table 1 lists population 

statistics for these counties, which have a combined 

population of roughly 36,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a), though most of the population of Taos 

County is outside of the project boundary. Over the 

past decade, population growth in the broader San 

Luis Valley region has been slow, and the region has 

experienced some out-migration. Slow growth may 

be the result of increasing unemployment, decreasing nonresidential construction, and declining prices 

of key agriculture commodities (such as barley, alfalfa, 

and potatoes in 2009) (Colorado Legislative Council 

Staff 2011). From 2000 to 2010, the nine-county region 

experienced a 2-percent increase in population, representing slow growth relative to the statewide fi gures 

for Colorado (which had a 17-percent increase from 

2000 levels) and New Mexico (which had a 13-percent 

increase from 2000 levels). In the SCCA, Taos County 

(10-percent increase from 2000 levels) experienced 

the largest increase in population. Costilla County experienced negative growth during these years (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2010a). 

Population growth in the San Luis Valley region 

is expected to continue at a slow pace over the next 

decade. From 2010 to 2025, the population of the local 

area is projected to increase by 14 percent, indicating 

slow growth compared to the projected statewide fi gures for Colorado (which has a projected 26-percent 

increase) and New Mexico (which has a projected 

19-percent increase) (Colorado Department of Local 

Affairs 2002, University of New Mexico 2002). In the 

SCCA, the smallest projected increases are in Costilla 

County (8 percent) (Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2002, University of New Mexico 2002). 

Race, Ethnicity, and Education 

Hispanic and Latino residents (57 percent of the total population) represent the largest ethnicity in the 

nine-county San Luis Valley region. The prevalence 

of this ethnic group is because of the presence of two 

large Hispanic communities in the local area. The region is home to a large population of White residents 

who consider themselves to be of Hispanic or Latino 

ethnicity. This is particularly true in Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Saguache, Rio Arriba, and Taos Counties, where, collectively, White Hispanics represent 

32 percent of the county-wide population on average 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). The occurrence of this 

race-ethnicity pairing in the San Luis Valley may be 

because of residents of Hispano heritage (such as descendants from Spaniards) (Sangre de Cristo National 

Heritage Area 2012). Hispanics of Mexican descent also 

represent a substantial share of the population in Costilla County (34 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

Whites (including Whites of Hispanic and Latino 

origin) represent the largest race in the nine-county 

region (66 percent of the total population). Native 

Americans and Alaska Natives account for 8 percent 

of the total population of the region, though this percentage is lower within the SCCA boundary. Collectively, Black or African-American residents, Asians, 

and native Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders account for about 1 percent of the total population of the 

region (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). 

Table 2 shows the percent of the population that 

has obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher within each 

of the SCCA states and counties. Of the two States, 

Colorado has the highest percentage of individuals 

with a bachelor’s degree or higher (36 percent of the 

population), followed by New Mexico (26 percent) (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2010a). Costilla County residents were 

less likely to hold a bachelor’s degree than the average Colorado resident; in New Mexico, the opposite is 

true for Taos County (30 percent of the county-wide 

population with a bachelor’s degree or higher) relative to the State average (26 percent) (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010a). 

Table 1. Population statistics for the counties in Colorado and New Mexico that contain the Sangre de Cristo 

Conservation Area. 

Percentage Percentage 

Persons per square population change population change 

Residents (2010) mile (2010) (2000–2010) (2010–2025)† 

Colorado 5,029,196 48.5 17 26 

Costilla County 3,524 2.9 –4 8 

New Mexico 2,059,179 17 13 19 

Taos County 32,937 15 10 17 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010a and †Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2002, University of New Mexico 2002 
26 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Regional Economy, Employment, and Income 

Table 2 also shows median household income and poverty rates for each of the SCCA States and counties. 

Among the two States, Colorado had the highest median household income in 2010 ($56,456 per year), followed by New Mexico ($43,820 per year) (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010b). At a statewide level, New Mexico had 

the highest poverty rate at 18.4 percent, and Colorado 

had the lowest at 12.2 percent. However, the San Luis 

Valley is one of the most impoverished regions of Colorado. Costilla County has the highest poverty level, 

more than twice the State average, and its median 

household income is less than half the State average 

at $24,388 per year. Taos County has somewhat higher 

median household income ($35,441 per year) and its 

poverty level is lower than the State of New Mexico’s. 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2010b). 

Table 3 shows the percent of employment by sector within the San Luis Valley region. The combined 

nine-county region had a total employment of more 

than 62,000 individuals in 2009 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2009). The highest percentage of total 

employment in 2009 was in public administration (18 

percent of total local employment), the second highest was in the arts, entertainment, recreation, and 

accommodation and food services (11 percent), and 

the third highest was in agriculture, forestry, fi shing, 

hunting, and mining (11 percent) (U.S. Department 

of Commerce 2009). 

Table 2. Income, education, unemployment, and poverty rates for counties in Colorado and New Mexico that 

contain the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area. 

Median Percentage unemployed‡ Percentage of 

household individuals 

income Percentage below poverty 

(average bachelor’s degree (average 

2006-2010)† or higher† 2008 2011 2006-2010)† 

Colorado $56,456 36 4.8 7.9 12 

Costilla County $24,388 14 7.7 12.4 28 

New Mexico $43,820 26 4.5 6.6 18 

Taos County $35,441 30 5.5 10.4 17 

Sources: †U.S. Census Bureau 2010b and ‡ Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011a, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011b, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2008 

Table 3. Percentage employment by sector for counties in Colorado and New Mexico that contain the San Luis 

Valley region. 

Percentage of nine-county

Employment sectors region employed 

Total employment in 2009a was 62,121 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining 11 

Arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services 11 

Construction 6 

Educational services, health care, and social aid 8 

Finance and insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing 6 

Information 1 

Manufacturing 2 

Other services, except public administration 4 

Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste-management services 5 

Public administration 18 

Retail trade 10 

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 2 

Wholesale trade 2 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2009 

aNot every sector category for every county was fully disclosed because of confidentiality requirements; the table reflects the best and 

most correct information available. 

Agriculture, Recreation, and Tourism 

Agriculture is a prominent industry in the San Luis 

Valley. Crops grown in the valley include alfalfa, native grass hay, wheat, barley, sorghum, canola, spinach, 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 27 

lettuce, carrots, and potatoes (Colorado Division of 

Wildlife 2010). Agriculture, forestry, fi shing, hunting, 

and mining accounted for roughly 11 percent of the 

total jobs in the region in 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2009). The total number of agricultural jobs in the 

local area increased from about 3,700 jobs in 1970 to 

4,446 in 2009 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2010a). 

Costilla County, Colorado, had the largest percentage of employment in agriculture in the region (22 

percent) (U.S. Department of Commerce 2010a, U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2010b [data complied using EPS–HDT]). Approximately 29 percent of the 

land in the nine-county region is in agriculture (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2009 [data complied using EPS–HDT]). 

Tourism is a cornerstone of the local economy, and 

the tourism industry in the San Luis Valley shows 

strong development potential. With a diverse collection of natural and heritage assets, the local tourism 

industry is able to cater to a variety of recreationalists, including outdoor recreationalists; visitors to the 

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve; resort 

tourists; vacation and second home owners; ecotourists; heritage, arts, and cultural tourists; and visitors 

who pass through the area on their way to other regional attractions (Center for Rural Entrepreneurship 

2008). According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, approximately 3.1 million residents took part in wildlifeassociated recreation activities in Colorado and New 

Mexico in 2006 (USFWS 2008). It was estimated that 

residents and visitors combined spent $3.8 billion on 

wildlife-associated recreational activities in 2006 in 

the two States combined, with Colorado accounting 

for approximately 79 percent of this spending. Among 

participants, wildlife watching was the most frequently 

reported activity, followed by fishing and hunting. In 

Colorado, 82 percent of individuals’ surveyed watched 

wildlife, 30 percent fi shed, and 12 percent hunted, 

while in New Mexico, 83 percent watched wildlife, 26 

percent fished, and 10 percent hunted (USFWS 2008). 

Agricultural practices such as haying and grazing are a primary part of the economy in the San Luis Valley, and often 

provide habitat for wildlife as well. 

USFWS 

LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP CHANGES 

SURROUNDING THE CONSERVATION AREA 

Current Land Use 

Unlike the broader San Luis Valley region where more 

than 40 percent of the land is protected and managed 

by the Service, the USFS, the BLM, the National 

Park Service, and the State of Colorado, the SCCA 

is largely comprised of private land. 
28 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

The nine-county region is relatively rural, and 

population densities in the San Luis Valley are among 

the lowest in Colorado. Only 2 percent of land cover in 

the region area is urban (NASA 2006 [data complied 

using EPS–HDT]), U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). Major municipalities in the region include Alamosa, San 

Luis, Saguache, Crestone, and Del Norte. Of these, 

only San Luis is within the SCCA boundary. San Luis 

is a historic community with Hispano heritage. 

Changes in Land Use 

The SCCA contains a rich diversity of trust species 

and habitat types. The San Luis Valley is the southernmost significant waterbird production area in the 

central fl yway and is the most important waterfowl 

production area in Colorado. According to Partners 

in Flight, riparian habitats in the region support the 

highest bird diversity of any western habitat type 

(USFWS 2010a). That said, the SCCA part of the San 

Luis Valley contains fewer wetlands relative to the 

broader region, and waterbird production is a lower 

priority there. 

Historically, land use remained unchanged in the San 

Luis Valley until the early 1800s, when Euro-American 

settlement began to alter the presettlement landscape 

(USFWS 2010a). During this period, livestock grazing, farming, and water development began to affect 

ecosystem processes such as the natural hydrological 

regime. Since then, nearly 50 percent of Colorado’s 

wetlands have been lost (Dahl 1990, 2000). 

Development pressure started to increase during 

the 1990s and early 2000s as land prices and agricultural operation costs in the SCCA began to rise. To 

continue ranching operations, many rural landowners 

were forced to sell parts of their property for housing and commercial development, creating more fragmentation and loss of critical wildlife habitat, including riparian habitat, in the SCCA (USFWS 2010a). 

As agricultural lands are subdivided, the resulting 

fragmentation can affect habitat use for a wide array of waterfowl, shorebirds, colonial waterbirds, 

and songbird species. Many of these species require 

specific habitat conditions for successful reproduction 

and building energy reserves for breeding and migration (USFWS 2010a). As habitats are lost, the spatial 

juxtaposition of available habitat is altered, disrupting 

wildlife movement, dispersal, and migration patterns. 

In addition to the direct loss of wildlife habitat from 

fragmentation, the water rights associated with these 

properties are often sold with the property, resulting 

in not only the loss of wetland habitat and wetland 

functions on the subdivided property, but also on adjoining lands as the water is redistributed off of the 

property (USFWS 2010a). Keeping the current connectedness of habitat through permanent protection 

would limit the risk for species movement patterns 

to be disrupted because of fragmentation and would 

also keep important migration corridors and linkages 

between seasonal ranges necessary to meet the life history needs for many wildlife species (USFWS 2010a). 

Because of the small agriculture-based human 

population in the area, however, the landscape has 

not been altered to the same extent as many other 

western regions with more rapid population growth 

(USFWS 2010). In recent years, the downturn in the 

national and regional economy has slowed growth and 

development pressures in the SCCA. See description 

of population trends above. 

In 2000, the American Farmland Trust identifi ed 

4.9 million acres of prime ranchlands in Colorado and 

2.6 million acres in New Mexico as being vulnerable 

to low-density development by the year 2020. Within 

the Rocky Mountain region (which includes 263 counties in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, 

Arizona, and New Mexico), Saguache County, Colorado, and Rio Arriba County, New Mexico (both close 

to the project area), ranked in the top 25 counties for 

acres of strategic ranchland at risk (American Farmland Trust 2000). While population densities are still 

low in these counties, development has been occurring within sensitive riparian areas in the valley fl oor. 

Taking added steps to conserve wildlife habitat in the 

San Luis Valley now, while land prices are still affordable and irreplaceable habitat has not been lost, may 

be proper. Protecting this land from development is 

the only way to ensure the long-term resiliency of 

the ecosystem and support viable wildlife populations 

and habitats in the face of climate change and other 

threats (USFWS 2010a). 

Water quantity, quality, and use issues are major 

threats to the sustainability of wetland and riparian 

habitats in the SCCA. Changes in water quality and 

quantity have adverse effects on the function of the 

wetland complex located in the valley floor. There are, 

for example, growing concerns about the impacts of 

new contaminants, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, that can affect water quality on both private and 

public lands (USFWS 2010a). 

Ground water usage, especially artesian well development, started during the early 1900s. The result 

has been the construction of more than 7,000 wells in 

the San Luis Valley and development of one of the 

world’s largest concentrations of center pivot irrigation 

systems, many of which depend solely upon ground 

water. As a consequence, water users and regulators 

have acknowledged that annual ground water use 

chronically exceeds recharge. Because legal and political circumstances, new ground water rules are now 

being developed by the Colorado Division of Water 

Resources and may soon be applied to water users in 

the San Luis Valley (USFWS 2010a). 

Once the new ground water rules are carried out, 

ground water users will be responsible for eliminating injury to senior water rights through a formal 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 29 

augmentation planning process with the State (USFWS 2010a). In most cases, this will require ground 

water users to acquire, and in many cases, remove 

senior water rights from other properties to augment 

their well use. 

These circumstances threaten healthy riparian systems along the tributaries of the Rio Grande, including 

in the SCCA, where senior water rights are now used 

in the fl oodplain. The evolving economic and regulatory environment in the SCCA will likely result in the 

acquisition of some of these water rights to augment 

distant wells, moving water out of the fl oodplain and 

degrading migratory bird habitat (USFWS 2010a). 

Additionally, this will increase the State’s diffi culty in 

managing water in the Rio Grande and administering 

the Rio Grande Compact. 

Energy development is also an emerging threat 

to wildlife in the SCCA. Colorado is among the most 

promising sources of solar energy nationwide, and the 

San Luis Valley receives more direct solar radiation 

than any other part of the State (National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2007a, National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory 2007b). Interest in the development of the solar energy industry in the San Luis Valley continues to expand, especially because Colorado 

State legislation requires that 30 percent of large 

utilities’ electricity come from renewable sources by 

2020 (Galbraith 2010). Prospective solar development 

in the local area is supported by Federal initiatives 

and money from the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. 

Department of Energy 2011, Jaffe 2011). The growth 

of the solar industry in the local area, however, is dependent on the ability of solar producers to obtain 

power purchase agreements from the Public Service 

Company of Colorado and may also be dependent on 

the future provision of transmission lines out of the 

valley (Colorado Department of Local Affairs 2011). 

Other norenewable (oil and gas) and renewable (wind) 

forms of energy development occur to a lesser extent in 

the SCCA than many western States (USFWS 2010a). 

The tributaries of the Rio Grande in the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area are some of the last refuges of genetically 

pure populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and provide important nesting and migration habitat for countless birds. 

Sue Olievira / USFWS 

SANGRE DE CRISTO CONSERVATION AREA LAND 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS 

Land protection is a relatively new practice in the San 

Luis Valley, as most conservation easements have been 

completed within the last 10 years. However, during 

this short timeframe, more than 232,000 acres of land 

have been protected in the region, which suggests 

that public support for land protection in the SCCA 

is strong (USFWS 2010a). In fact, there are so many 

landowners interested in entering into conservation 

easements that organizations like the Rio Grande 
30 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Headwaters Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, 

Ducks Unlimited, and the NRCS cannot handle the 

demand, either for time or money (USFWS 2010a). 

Citizens of the San Luis Valley understand that the 

rural lifestyle and wildlife habitat is what makes this 

area unique and have voiced their concern over the 

loss of these values. They recognize that conservation 

easements are a tool to keep both ranches and wildlife 

habitat intact (USFWS 2010a). 

The Service plans to conserve approximately 

250,000 acres to protect the remaining expanses of 

wildlife habitat in the SCCA. This would be accomplished primarily through the purchase of conservation easements by the Service on a voluntary basis 

from private landowners. Other Federal, State, and 

nongovernmental partners may help in acquiring conservation easements. Acquisition of these lands will 

occur over a period assumed to range from 15 to 20 

years, but based on past acquisition rates, could reasonably be expected to occur over a longer period, 

possibly up to 100 years. 

Conservation Easements 

One of the Service’s high-priority objectives is to guide 

residential and commercial development away from 

high-priority conservation areas by securing proper 

conservation easements. The SCCA will focus on the 

protection of wetlands, riparian areas, montane forests, 

and sagebrush habitats on private land within the area 

through acquisition of conservation easements from 

willing. Conservation easements leave land in private 

ownership, protecting private property rights, while 

providing the Service with a cost-effective conservation strategy that enables the conservation of large 

blocks of habitat. 

A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement entered into between a landowner and a conservation entity. Conservation easements are binding in 

perpetuity; the landowner reserves the right to sell 

or bequeath the property, but the easement and its 

associated restrictions remain with the property forever. Owners of land that does not contain a conservation easement have a set of rights associated with 

their land. For example, landowners have the right 

to run cattle, grow crops, harvest trees, build structures, and subdivide and sell their land. Under a conservation easement, landowners keep ownership of 

their property, but transfer some of their ownership 

rights to the conservation entity. The most common 

right transferred under a conservation easement is 

the right to develop or subdivide the land. 

Conservation easements in the SCCA may require 

the transfer of more rights. A conservation easement 

on a parcel of land may have restrictions for all types of 

human development, such as surface disturbance from 

solar, mineral, or wind energy development, depending upon the particular wildlife values of the habitat. 

Small areas of wetland habitat is present in the 

SCCA on private lands in areas where ranchers irrigate and use habitat for native hay meadows and pastureland for livestock. Protection of wetland habitat 

types will make sure that there are proper drying and 

flooding cycles while keeping historical water use patterns in wetland basins that are beneficial to wildlife. 

In most cases, a conservation easement acquired 

for wetland values will be associated with appurtenant 

irrigation water rights that have resulted in desirable 

wildlife habitat. Doing anything less may often result 

in separation of water use from the land, reducing the 

easement’s value to trust wildlife species. Water laws 

are sensitive to State requirements; therefore, water 

issues will need to be addressed individually for each 

easement. In all cases, the terms of a conservation 

easement must be mutually agreed-upon by the landowner and the easement holder. Conservation easements acquired from private landowners would not 

affect their property rights beyond those purchased 

through conservation easement. 

Subsurface rights are often severed from the surface rights of a parcel of land. Conservation easements 

apply only to surface rights; therefore, the mineral 

interest may be extracted at any time by the person 

who holds the qualified mineral right (Byers and Ponte 

2005). For this reason, the Service is unlikely to enter 

into a conservation easement agreement for a parcel 

of land that has a viable subsurface mineral interest. 

Exceptions may be made if the parcel has high habitat 

value and the probability of mineral extraction is low. 

WATER LAW 

Colorado 

Colorado is divided into seven water divisions using 

watershed boundaries. Each division has a Water Court 

and a division engineer who administers water rights 

by priority. The Rio Grande is in Division 3. 

Water rights in Colorado are subject to the prior 

appropriation doctrine; the fi rst entity to claim the 

water right has the first right to use the full amount 

of water they claimed for beneficial use. The prior appropriation doctrine allows State officials to properly 

manage and distribute water according to the decreed 

priority dates. There are four elements of a water right 

under the prior appropriation doctrine: intent, diversion, benefi cial use, and priority. An applicant must 

show that there is intent to use the water, construct 

the diversion works, put the water to benefi cial use, 

and establish a priority date. In Colorado, every water 

right must be adjudicated through the Water Court. 

There are now legal avenues to use water for benefi ­

cial use without a diversion, such as instreamfl ows. 

If there is not enough water to satisfy all water 

right holders in a particular stream, the State may 

shut off junior rights as necessary to make sure that 
Chapter 2 — Area Description and Resources 31 

senior water right holders receive their full appropriation. The Rio Grande basin in Colorado is considered 

over appropriated. 

Ground water in Colorado is designated as either 

tributary or nontributary. Tributary ground water is 

water contained in aquifers that have a direct hydraulic connection to surface water. The unconfi ned aquifer in the San Luis Valley is tributary ground water. 

Tributary ground water is treated administratively 

the same as a surface water diversion. The confi ned 

aquifer in the San Luis Valley is also considered tributary, though the hydraulic connection to the surface 

water system is poorly understood. 

Water rights in Colorado can be transferred from 

one entity to another, but a change application must 

be filed and approved by the State Engineer and the 

Water Court. The amount available for transfer is 

limited to the consumptive use part of the right. Water rights in Colorado are considered real property 

and they may be bought or sold. A water right can be 

conveyed either as part of a piece of property or separate from a property, as long as that water right has 

been severed from the land by an approved application through the State engineer and the Water Court. 

In 1973, the Colorado Legislature passed Senate 

Bill 97, creating the State’s Instream Flow Program. 

This program, one of the fi rst of its kind, vested the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) with 

exclusive authority to protect streamfl ow through a 

reach of stream rather than just at a point, and to protect levels in natural lakes. Until this law was passed, 

all appropriations of water in Colorado were required 

to divert water from the natural stream. 

Since 1973, Colorado clarified the CWCB’s authority to acquire existing, decreed senior water rights on 

a voluntary basis from willing owners for instream 

flow uses. New appropriations are new, junior water 

rights claimed by the CWCB to preserve the natural 

environment. New appropriations are considered by 

the CWCB each year and are filed annually with the 

Water Court for adjudication. New appropriations are 

generally limited to the minimum amount necessary 

to fulfill the purpose of the instream fl ow. 

New Mexico 

New Mexico’s water law is also based on the doctrine 

of prior appropriation. All waters in New Mexico are 

declared to be public and subject to appropriation for 

beneficial use. Apart from water rights acquired before 1907 and small-scale stockwatering (10 acre-feet 

or less), a permit from the State engineer is required 

to appropriate water, change the point of diversion, 

change the location of wells in declared basins, divert 

or store water, or change the place or purpose of water use. There is a new requirement in New Mexico 

that before obtaining a water right involving the use 

of public lands, the person seeking the right must 

prove that he or she actually has a permit to use the 

public lands. 

The New Mexico ground water code was enacted in 

1931. Ground water procedures closely parallel those 

for surface water, with several important differences. 

A permit to drill a well and appropriate water is not 

required in areas outside of declared “undergroundwater basins.” Within undergroundwater basins, 

however, use is regulated by the State engineer. The 

State engineer has the authority to establish these 

basins when regulation is necessary to protect prior 

appropriations, make sure that water is put to benefi cial use, and support orderly development of the 

State’s water resources. There are now 33 declared 

undergroundwater basins throughout New Mexico. 

Water rights in New Mexico can be transferred 

from one entity to another, but a change application 

must be filed and approved by the State engineer. Water rights in New Mexico are considered real property 

and they may be bought or sold. A water right can be 

conveyed as part of a piece of property or separate 

from a property, as long as that water right has been 

severed from the land by an approved application 

through the State engineer. 

New Mexico has had adjudicated water rights 

since 1907. In an adjudication suit, each claimant has 

an opportunity to present evidence of water right to 

the court. The completion of adjudication results in a 

court decree outlining the priority, amount, purpose 

(determination of use), periods, and place of water use. 

New Mexico’s instream flow program is complex, 

unclear, and continually evolving. New Mexico does 

not have a legislated instream flow program, and instream flow is not a recognized beneficial use. Recent 

case law, however, has allowed the development of an 

instream fl ow program in New Mexico. In 1998, the 

New Mexico Attorney General issued a legal opinion 

concluding that the transfer of a consumptive water 

right to an instream flow right is allowable under State 

law. The legal opinion found that instream uses such 

as recreation and fish and wildlife habitat are benefi ­

cial uses, and that transfers of existing water rights 

to instream flows are not expressly prohibited. Before 

this opinion, New Mexico was the only State that did 

not recognize instream flow as a benefi cial use. 

The 1998 Attorney General’s opinion is limited 

to the transfer of existing water rights. The opinion 

notes that new appropriations of water for instream 

fl ow are not subject to this precedent. Although the 

opinion concludes that there are no legal barriers to 

the transfer of existing water rights to an instream 

flow right, the State engineer still has the responsibility for approving such a transfer. Although instream 

flow in itself is not recognized as a beneficial use, it appears that water can be dedicated to instream fl ow for 

the purpose of recreation or fish and wildlife habitat. 
32 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

The Attorney General’s opinion does not explicitly address the issue of ownership of instream fl ow 

rights. Since ownership of other types of water rights 

are not limited, it could be interpreted that instream 

flow rights could be held by a public or private entity. 

Current law is unclear and continues to develop. 
Chapter 3—Threats to and Status of
 

Resources
 

Threats to Resources 

The land cover of the San Luis Valley was largely 

unaltered, except by natural processes, until the 19th 

century, when human land use associated with settlers 

of European origin began to alter the landscape. During this period, livestock grazing, farming, and water 

development also began to affect ecosystem processes 

such as the historical hydrological regime. Since then, 

Colorado has lost nearly 50 percent of its wetlands 

(Dahl 1990, 2000). The highest remaining concentration 

of wetlands in Colorado occurs in the San Luis Valley, 

and their protection is a high conservation priority. 

Sagebrush-dependent birds are often sensitive to vertical structure in their habitat, and thus the protection 

of these habitats from development is a priority. The 

spine of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains provides an 

important wildlife migration corridor for many species 

that could be deterred from moving through them if 

development or unsustainable logging practices were 

carried out in the montane forests. 

DEVELOPMENT 

Population growth, primarily exurban development, 

led to habitat fragmentation in the San Luis Valley 

in the latter part of the 20th and first part of the 21st 

centuries. The population of Colorado increased by 

nearly 17 percent between 2000 and 2010 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010a). The absolute population numbers and 

densities are still low in the project area, but habitat 

loss and fragmentation because of residential and commercial development remain a major recent threat to 

trust species in the SCCA. This rapid growth has tempered somewhat during the current economic downturn, with relatively stable populations in the counties 

of the San Luis Valley from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2010a). However, that same downturn, coupled 

with depressed agricultural markets and pending expensive changes to Colorado’s ground water law, have 

forced many farmers and ranchers to subdivide their 

properties so that they can continue operating. This 

proliferation of 5-, 10-, and 40-acre parcels that have 

appeared on the market is likely to exacerbate the 

ongoing impacts of exurban housing development on 

the habitats of the SCCA. 

Energy development is also an emerging threat 

to wildlife in the SCCA. The impacts to wildlife 

populations from solar energy development are of 

particular concern in the San Luis Valley, as interest 

in industrial solar-electric generating facilities has 

increased during the last decade. In fact, one of the 

largest photovoltaic plants in the United States is in 

the San Luis Valley. Economically viable wind energy 

potential is generally quite low in most of the valley 

(Hanser 2010) and thus unlikely to be an issue in the 

near term. Hydrocarbon potential is low throughout 

the valley (Copeland et al. 2009), although some oil 

has been found during mineral exploration (Watkins 

et al. 1995). There is potential for further oil and gas 

exploration in this region, which the Service has found 

is unlikely to have signifi cant impacts on the living 

resources of the valley (USFWS 2011). Reviews of 

hydrocarbon development impacts on ground nesting 

birds (Naugle et al. 2011), ungulates (Hebblewhite 

2011), and songbirds (Bayne and Dale 2011) have all 

found some evidence of mortality or behavior modifi ­

cation (such as avoidance of an area) associated with 

petroleum extraction. If commercially exploitable 

hydrocarbons are found during the planned exploration, petroleum extraction could be an added threat 

to the living resources of the SCCA. 

The forests along the Sangre de Cristo Mountains are a 

corridor for movement of wide-ranging species such as 

mountain lions. 

orbit / USFWS Steve T
34 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

FRAGMENTATION 

Changes in land cover because of exurban development, energy development, roads, and changes in 

agricultural land use (such as transition from fl ood 

irrigation to center-pivot irrigation) not only cause a 

loss of habitat, they also fragment the remaining habitat. There is a robust body of literature on the effects 

of habitat fragmentation, summarized eloquently by 

Collinge (2009). Countless manipulative and observational studies have shown that habitat area and connectivity among types of similar habitat are important 

for everything from soil decomposers (Rantalainen et 

al. 2005) to passerine birds (Telleria and Santos 1995). 

Corridors between fragments promote use of, and persistence in, those habitats by migratory birds (Haas 

1995), large carnivores (Shepherd and Whittington 

2006, Tremblay 2001), and ungulates (Tremblay 2001) 

that are native to the SCCA. Perhaps the most obvious way to protect corridors throughout the SCCA, 

while protecting valuable habitat at the same time, is 

to focus on the conservation of the riparian corridors 

that cross and connect existing protected areas. This 

action would protect wildlife movement corridors 

for both seasonal migration and colonization following large-scale disturbance or environmental change. 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Increased human disturbance associated with development has also been shown to negatively affect adjoining habitat because of the invasion and establishment 

of invasive plant species. Invasive plants can have 

many detrimental effects; besides displacing native 

vegetation, they can alter nutrient cycling and soil 

chemistry, change hydrology, increase erosion, and 

change fire regimes (Dukes and Mooney 2004). Noxious weeds, such as tall whitetop, Canada thistle, and 

Russian knapweed, can have severe negative effects 

on wildlife habitat (such as reducing the quality of 

nesting and foraging areas) when these weed species 

begin to replace native vegetation. The San Luis Valley already has one of the densest concentrations of 

Russian knapweed in the State of Colorado(Goslee et 

al. 2003). Other invasive species that could threaten 

resources in the SCCA include New Zealand mudsnail, 

quagga and zebra mussels, and Asian clam. Diseases 

such as white nose syndrome, chytrid fungus, whirling disease, and chronic wasting disease also threaten 

wildlife and fish in the San Luis Valley. 

WATER RESOURCES 

In addition to the threats of the direct loss of habitat 

and fragmentation that accompany subdivision for exurban development, water rights can be sold with the 

property, or can be severed and sold to other landholders. This can result in the loss of wetland habitat and 

wetland functions not only on the property, but also 

on adjoining lands as the water is redistributed off of 

the property, directly affecting wildlife populations 

that depend on the wetlands to complete their life 

cycle. As fragmentation increases, remaining habitats 

become geographically isolated and wildlife populations with limited dispersal abilities may potentially 

become genetically and spatially isolated. 

Another threat to the sustainability of wetland and 

riparian habitat in the SCCA is the chronic overuse of 

ground water. Because of legal and political circumstances, new ground water rules have been developed 

by the Colorado Division of Water Resources and 

will be applied to water users in the San Luis Valley starting in 2012. Ground water usage, especially 

artesian well development, started during the early 

1900s. The result has been construction of more than 

7,000 wells and development of one of the world’s largest concentration of center pivot irrigation systems, 

many of which depend solely upon ground water. As 

a consequence, water users and regulators have acknowledged that annual ground water use chronically 

exceeds recharge. It is important to note that in addition to traditional agricultural irrigation, the existing 

national wildlife refuges in the San Luis Valley also 

use ground water adjudicated for both wildlife and irrigation extensively for irrigation and impoundments 

to create wildlife habitat. Ways to reduce reliance on 

ground water are being explored in the planning process for the comprehensive conservation plan for the 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The SCCA is considered an important area for cultural resources because of the abundance of cultural 

sites that date to almost 12,000 years ago that are 

located throughout the valley; however, much of the 

archaeological research associated with the San Luis 

Valley has been conducted on public lands, such as the 

Closed Basin, San Juan National Forest, and Great 

Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve (Jones 2000). 

Permanent protection of wildlife habitat on private 

land would benefi t the preservation of cultural sites 

from future disturbance on all acquired lands. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change has quickly moved to the forefront of 

conservation challenges during the 21st century, and 

the Service has made it a high priority in conservation planning (USFWS 2010b). Mountain ecosystems 

in the western United States are expected to be especially sensitive to climate change. In fact, data show 

that many places in the Rocky Mountains have experienced three times the global average temperature 

increase over the past century. Measurements have 

shown that Colorado’s temperature has increased by 

approximately 2 ̊F between 1977 and 2006 (Ray et 

al. 2008). The western United States has seen a shift 

toward earlier spring snowmelt (Karl et al. 2009). 
Chapter 3 — Threats to and Status of Resources 35 

Wetland and riparian habitats, such as those found 

in the SCCA, that are dependent on snowmelt from 

surrounding high mountain ecosystems would be expected to be more acutely affected than other ecosystems. The San Luis Valley is predicted to have a 10-to 

-20-percent reduction in runoff by midcentury compared to the 1900 to 1970 baseline (Karl et al. 2009). 

As with many areas across the West, it is diffi cult to 

predict what the specific effects of climate change may 

be in a given area, particularly because of the complex 

interplay between the timing of temperature change 

and precipitation. The Western Water Assessment predicted that Colorado’s ecosystems will be affected by 

climate change in nine broad ways: increased frequency 

and severity of forest-insect interactions; increased 

frequency and severity of wildfi res; changes in the 

hydrologic cycle that affect aquatic species, including 

reduction in overall streamflow, shift to earlier spring 

runoff, and warming of water temperatures; northward 

and upward shift in animal ranges, causing shifts in 

ecosystem composition; increased range and spread of 

wildlife pathogens; increase in tree mortality because 

of drought stress; increased risk of desertifi cation in 

dryland ecosystems; and an overall reduction in biodiversity because of the above impacts (Averyt et al. 

2011). We must be cognizant of the potential impacts 

that climate change may have on wetland, riparian, 

and upland habitat in the SCCA. 

The SCCA intends to support and restore habitat 

connectivity to promote San Luis Valley and southern 

Rockies ecosystems that will be robust in the face of 

climate change. Protection of large intact expanses of 

wetland habitat types where natural ecosystem processes can be sustained will help wetland-dependent 

species resist some of the impacts of a changing climate. 

Some of these may not be the same type of wetland 

in the future, but the use of hydrogeomorphic modeling to assess historical hydrology should allow us to 

predict where and what kind of wetlands will persist 

in a potentially warmer and more arid future. We will 

respond by targeting these habitats for acquisition in 

the SCCA. Besides intrinsically providing habitat for 

wildlife, riparian areas also serve as corridors, as do 

the montane forests along the western fl anks of the 

Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Protection of such corridors will preserve a network through which wildlife can recolonize or disperse following disturbance, 

making the ecosystem more resilient to short-term 

change and increasing its adaptive capacity to longterm change. 

Effects on the Natural and 

Human Environment 

For a thorough discussion of the effects of the proposed easement program, see the EA (appendix A) 

in this volume. Effects of the land protection strategy 

discussed in this volume are analyzed as alternative 

B in the EA. 

Chapter 4—Project Implementation
 

Land Protection Choices 

NO ACTION 

Under the no-action alternative, the areas outside 

of existing protected areas would largely remain in 

private ownership and subject to changes in land use 

and land cover. Some protection in addition to the 

SCCA is likely because of ongoing conservation easement initiatives in the San Luis Valley and Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains by public entities such as NRCS and 

nongovernmental organizations such as The Nature 

Conservancy and Colorado Open Lands. 

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE 

SANGRE DE CRISTO CONSERVATION AREA 

(PROPOSED ACTION) 

It is the Service’s policy to acquire the minimum interest in a property necessary to accomplish its conservation objectives. It can be possible to achieve most 

of these objectives with conservation easements. The 

preservation of working landscapes such as farms and 

rangeland is more cost effective, socially acceptable, 

and politically popular than acquiring fee-title land, and 

it often promotes the preservation of unfragmented, 

quality habitat. Under the proposed action, the Service seeks to protect up to 250,000 acres through conservation easements in the SCCA. 

Project Objectives and 

Actions 

The SCCA sits in the San Luis Valley and the adjoining Sangre de Cristo Mountains of central southern 

Colorado and northern New Mexico. The project area 

contains land in Costilla County in Colorado, as well as 

a small part of Taos County in New Mexico. The SCCA 

boundary includes the Sangre de Cristo’s tributaries of 

the Rio Grande between Blanca Peak and the watershed of Costilla Creek. Within the project boundary, 

the Service will strategically fi nd and acquire from 

willing sellers a proper interest in upland, wetland, 

and riparian habitats on privately owned lands. 

The Service plans to buy or receive donated conservation easements on those identified areas within 

the project boundaries, and would consider accepting donated fee-title lands as well. These easements 

will connect and expand existing lands under public 

and private conservation protection. Based upon the 

area of privately held priority habitat in the SCCA 

boundary, and to allow for some fl exibility in easement acquisition, the objective of the SCCA project 

is to protect 250,000 acres of uplands, wetlands, and 

riparian areas through easements. 

EASEMENT TERMS AND REQUIREMENTS 

The Service has successfully carried out easements 

in many projects, and existing language and guidelines would contribute substantially to the drafting 

of the SCCA easement language. Given the Service’s 

conservation goals in the SCCA, the easements will 

be drafted with standard language to preclude subdivision and development and conversion of native 

vegetation to cropland, as well as to protect existing 

wetlands from being drained or fi lled. 

In addition, because of the scarcity of water resources 

in the valley and impending changes to ground water 

law in the State of Colorado, there may be provisions 

about water use. The types of wetland and associated 

upland habitats in which we are interested are largely 

supported by current water use practices. Easements 

may include a stipulation that changes in water use 

cannot adversely affect the quality of habitats that 

we seek to protect in the easements, and that water 

rights now owned for use on a property under an 

easement could not be sold or transferred for use on 

other properties unless such a transfer was deemed 

benefi cial to wildlife. These would be new easement 

terms for the Service, and require further investigation before they could be carried out as part of the 

SCCA program. 

The protection of riparian corridors is important 

in the SCCA, particularly because much of the lowerelevation habitat has, or has the potential to have, the 

constituent elements of critical habitat for the southwestern willow fl ycatcher3

. While easement language 

would not prescribe specific management practices on 

these lands, landowners with suitable or potentially 

3

FR 76(157), 50542–50629. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Action: Proposed Rule. August 15, 2011 
38 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

suitable riparian habitat would be encouraged to work 

with the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program or 

the new Working Lands for Wildlife Program (NRCS 

2012) to develop alternative strategies such as fencing of riparian corridors and off-river stock watering to prevent overgrazing of regenerating riparian 

vegetation. 

CONTAMINANTS OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Level 1 pre-acquisitionsite assessments will be conducted on individual tracts before the purchase of any 

land interests. The Service’s environmental contaminants specialists from the Ecological Services offi ces 

in Colorado and New Mexico will be contacted to make 

sure that policies and guidelines are followed before 

acquisition of conservation easements or fee title. 

ACQUISITION MONEY 

The Service will acquire easements in the SCCA primarily through Land and Water Conservation Fund 

monies. These monies are derived primarily through 

revenue generated from oil and gas leases on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale 

of surplus Federal property. These monies are not 

derived from general taxes. While Land and Water 

Conservation Fund monies are intended for land and 

water conservation projects, payment is subject to 

annual appropriations by Congress for specifi c acquisition projects. If it is reauthorized by Congress, 

the Federal Land Trust Facilitation Act could also 

be used to pay for specifi c acquisitions. This act is a 

law that allows the BLM to dispose of certain public 

lands to generate revenue for strategic conservation 

of habitat not now in Federal trust. 

The SCCA project area has several other government and nongovernmental organizations with overlapping conservation objectives. In the development of 

the SCCA, land for acquisition has been ranked by the 

Service, but the LPP may also guide acquisitions for 

conservation by the NRCS (WRP), The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Open Lands, and the Rio Grande 

Headwaters Land Trust, among others. 

Protection of habitat for Federal trust species will also 

ensure connectivity for state-managed species such as the 

American black bear. 

orbit / USFWS Steve T

Protection Priorities 

The Service, in consultation with internal divisions 

(Migratory Birds, Fisheries, Ecological Services), 

nongovernmental organization partners, Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife, and BLM, selected six focal species whose habitat needs have driven the prioritization 

of the SCCA. Each of these focal species represents a 

group of species that are vulnerable to the same threat 

processes (Lambeck 1997). The species selected were 

Canada lynx, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, willow fl ycatcher, Lewis’ woodpecker, Gunnison sage-grouse, and 

sage thrasher. All of these are Federal trust species 

or have State or regional conservation status, making them worthy of protection on their own; however, 

conserving habitat for these species will also protect 

habitat for other species with similar habitat needs. 

SPECIES-HABITAT MAPPING METHOD 

Some of the chosen species, by virtue of their having 

special conservation status, had already been the subject of detailed habitat mapping in the project area. 

For others, simple conceptual models were developed 

based upon literature reviews. 

The southwestern willow flycatcher is a genetically 

distinct subspecies (Paxton 2000) of willow fl ycatcher 

that inhabits the woody riparian corridors of the desert southwest. Its population has declined signifi cantly 

because of habitat loss, and it is listed as endangered 

by the States of Colorado and New Mexico as well as 

under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The willow and cottonwood riparian habitats necessary for 

willow flycatcher breeding in the San Luis Valley have 

been mapped in detail as part of the development of 

the draft San Luis Valley Habitat Conservation Plan 

for that species (ERO Resources, unpublished data). 
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 39 

The data also capture the gallery cottonwood habitat 

needed for both the Lewis’ woodpecker in this part of 

its range and for the breeding habitat of the yellowbilled cuckoo. The existing data were used as core 

habitat in this prioritization scheme; as a second priority, a n approximately 656-foot (200-meter) buffer 

was used to decrease disturbance of the core habitat 

(Terry Ireland, USFWS Ecological Services, personal 

communication, February 2012). These priorities are 

illustrated in figure 2. 

Canada lynx are federally listed as threatened and 

State listed in Colorado as endangered. Lynx range 

through the montane forests of the Rocky Mountains. 

They are resident in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, 

and the junction between the Sangre de Cristo Range 

and the Culebra Range of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains has been identifi ed as a particularly important 

corridor for the species (L. Ellwood, USFWS Ecological Services Colorado Field Office, personal communication, January 2012). Its habitat in the project 

area has already been mapped by Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife and the USDA Forest Service. A small part 

of the project area in northern New Mexico had not 

been covered by earlier mapping but is known to be 

actively used by lynx. Therefore, a minimum convex 

polygon for this region was created that captured the 

land cover that largely composes the Colorado Parks 

and Wildlife habitat (Rocky Mountain aspen forest 

and woodland, Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine forest, Southern Rocky Mountain mesic montane mixed 

conifer forest and woodland, and Rocky Mountain 

subalpine dry-mesic spruce-fi r forest and woodland) 

using approximately 98-foot (30-meter) Landfi re data 

(USGS 2010). Lynx habitat is identified in fi gure 3. 

The habitat of the Endangered Species Act candidate Rio Grande cutthroat trout has been mapped 

throughout the species’ range; in addition, information 

on barriers to fish passage and data on genetic integrity has incorporated into a spatial database. Because 

interbreeding has been a problem for cutthroat trout 

species, the signatory parties to the 2009 Rio Grande 

Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement identifi ed 

populations with less than 10-percent genetic introgression and defined them as conservation populations 

(Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team 2009). 

These conservation populations were chosen as representing priority habitat for the species in this land 

protection plan (fi gure 4). 

The range of the Gunnison sage-grouse is much 

more geographically limited than it once was. The 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Steering Committee revised 

earlier, coarser-scale historical range mapping for the 

species (Schroeder et al. 2004) and identifi ed current 

and suitable but unoccupied habitat (Gunnison Sagegrouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005). In the 

project area, there are no known leks, but there is a 

large expanse of vacant or unknown habitat identifi ed 

in Costilla County. Current range polygons were selected to represent priority habitat for this species; 

the historical range is also displayed for reference 

(fi gure 5). 

Sage thrasher is a migratory bird that has been 

declining throughout its range because of habitat 

loss and degradation, and is a Service Region 6 bird 

of conservation concern as well as a Migratory Birds 

focal species. A range-wide conceptual model for the 

species was developed by the American Bird Conservancy based on Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory sampling data (Beason, Levad, and Leukering 

2005) and ReGap land cover data. The population 

estimates they assign to these land cover classes are 

further stratified based on the classification of vegetation quality as good, fair, or poor, which was in turn 

derived from shrub cover density and prevalence of 

invasive plants. In the absence of data on vegetation 

quality for the San Luis Valley, the “fair” quality was 

selected for all land cover types. The model developers found that Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland, Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe, and Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland would support, on average, 0.0528252 birds 

per acre; this group of vegetation types was selected 

as the first priority in the sage thrasher-specifi c map. 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, 

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat, and InterMountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe support 

0.009348 birds per acre; these vegetation classes were 

selected as the second priority for the species. Within 

these two priority levels, only polygons greater than 

approximately 247 acres (100 hectares) in area were 

included because sage thrasher are known to be somewhat area sensitive and are found most commonly in 

patches of that size or greater (Knick and Rotenberry 

1995). Priority habitat for this species is displayed in 

fi gure 6. 

LANDSCAPE PRIORITIZATION 

The species-specific maps are useful for determining 

where in the landscape the key habitats are for the 

identifi ed focal species. However, they do not help 

decisionmakers with determining which areas would 

provide the most effective conservation returns overall. In addition to the presence or absence of habitat 

for individual species, it is important to take into account issues such as connectivity, cost, and unequal 

conservation need for each species. Therefore, the 

simulated-annealing algorithm conducted in the software package Marxan (Ball, Possingham, and Watts 

2009) was used to find “optimal” solutions for conservation prioritization within the SCCA. Marxan allows 

the user to specify individual conservation targets for 

conservation features (in this case, area of focal species 

habitat) and species-specific penalties for models that 

do not meet conservation targets. This allows the user 
Figure 2. Southwestern willow flycatcher and Lewis’ woodpecker habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation 

Area, Colorado and New Mexico. 

40 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Figure 3. Canada lynx habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico. 

Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 41
 
Figure 4. Rio Grande cutthroat trout conservation populations, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, 

Colorado and New Mexico. 

42 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Figure 5. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and 

New Mexico. 

[Note that there is no occupied or potential habitat for the Gunnison sage-grouse in the project area.] 

Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 43 
Figure 6. Sage thrasher shrubland habitat, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and 

New Mexico. 

44 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 45 

to individually weight features, for example, upweight 

penalties for not including enough habitat for species 

of higher conservation concern, or reduce the amount 

of land necessary for generalist widespread species. 

By designating a boundary length modifier, the user 

can generate a more compact reserve system. The 

landscape can also be classified by cost, which can be 

made as simple as just land area or made more complex and meaningful by accounting for variables like 

land costs or metrics of the human footprint. 

Because of the degree of fl exibility allowed by 

Marxan, the values for these parameters need to be 

optimized by successive iterations of the program. For 

this analysis, hexagonal planning units were selected, 

as these have been shown to result in less fragmented, 

more efficient reserve networks (Nhancale and Smith 

2011). Hexagons were 15 acres in area (approximately 

6.1 hectares), which provides resolution that is suffi cient for making land protection decisions while 

covering the SCCA in few enough planning units to 

not be computationally overwhelming. Hexagons already in a permanent protected status (existing conservation easements) may be locked out of the model, 

but because those easements may or may not meet 

the objectives of the Service, easement-encumbered 

lands were left in the model. Marxan was run for 100 

runs at 100 million iterations. The species-specifi c 

data were included as features in the Marxan model. 

In addition, we included the “Potential Conservation 

Areas” identifi ed by the Colorado Natural Heritage 

Program (Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2011). 

These potential conservation areas were selected based 

on their biodiversity value, and serve to incorporate 

State interests, in addition to Federal interests in 

the model. A boundary length modifier of 0.0001 was 

used to create a slightly more compact reserve network. Increasing that value to 0.001 oversimplifi ed 

the reserve network and did not meet the intent of 

the SCCA. Targets for protection were set at 50 percent of the land holding a particular conservation feature, except southwestern willow flycatcher and Rio 

Grande cutthroat trout, which because of inherently 

connective nature of their habitat, had their targets 

set at 75 percent. The frequency with which individual 

hexagons were selected in the final solution for each 

of the 100 models is shown in fi gure 7. 

EVALUATION OF EASEMENT POTENTIAL 

As described earlier, acquisition of conservation easements is not a new tool for achieving conservation 

objectives within the SCCA; the NRCS has a small 

number of easements, and nongovernmental organizations hold tens of thousands of acres of easements 

in the project area. These organizations have overlapping, but not identical missions to the Service. The 

Service does not now hold easements in the project 

area; however, the Service has more than 50 years of 

experience acquiring conservation easements in other 

parts of the country. 

The landscape modeling described above has generated maps of species-specifi c conservation priorities 

for each of the priority species, as well as a consensus 

map that shows where conservation returns for Federal money would be maximized for the suite of species examined. Biologists and realty specialists will 

work cooperatively to use these tools to fi nd parcels 

whose conservation will result in the greatest benefi t 

to trust species. 

When a willing seller approaches the Service or 

if the Service wishes to proactively seek out sellers, 

the following criteria will guide their decisionmaking: 

■	 Overall conservation value—Is the property located, 

in whole or in part, in an area that was selected in 

70 percent or more of the spatial conservation priority runs in Marxan, as shown by fi gure 7. 

■	 Trust species value—Does the parcel contain priority habitat that was identified in any of the speciesspecific maps in the earlier section? 

■	 Previously unidentifi ed conservation value—If 

neither of the preceding thresholds are reached, 

is there another compelling reason (for example 

securing of important water rights, promoting 

critical habitat connectivity, identifi cation of new 

species of conservation concern, simplifi ed management of an existing refuge unit, or donation of 

intact or easily restored habitat) which justifi es 

the property’s protection? 

Nothing in these guidelines is intended to limit the 

proper exercising of discretion and professional judgment by realty specialists and refuge staff. Acquisition would comply with realty policy and potential 

acquisitions would be scrutinized to see if the habitat 

for which the property was found to be a priority is, 

in fact, present on the parcel. As mentioned in the 

third criterion, there may also be more reasons why 

acquisition of interest in a parcel is justifi ed, even if 

it did not rank highly in models for selected priority 

trust species at the time that this plan was approved. 

Ecosystem Management and 

Landscape Conservation 

To carry out the project, the Service will engage the 

Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperative, which is intended to deliver applied science to 

inform resource management decisions on landscapescale issues such as climate change. The Landscape 

Conservation Cooperative incorporates State, Federal, 

nonprofit, and university partners; this planning across 

agency jurisdictions and boundaries is necessary to 
Figure 7. Spatial conservation prioritization, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New 

Mexico. 

46 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 47 

make sure that conservation happens at the scale necessary to make sure that wildlife can adapt, migrate, 

and colonize new areas in response to environmental 

change. The Southern Rockies Landscape Conservation Cooperative is still in its formative stages, but 

the framework for collaborative conservation in its 

area of responsibility, including the SCCA, has been 

developed. 

INCORPORATING SCIENCE AND STRATEGIC 

HABITAT CONSERVATION IN THE SANGRE DE 

CRISTO CONSERVATION AREA 

The SCCA encompasses approximately one million 

acres in a region where demand for conservation easements already far exceeds available money. Given the 

likelihood that there may be more land available for 

conservation easements than appropriated money, 

it is important to make sure that the money that is 

available is spent in a way that maximizes returns 

for trust species or helps ensure the connectivity, 

resiliency, and long-term function of the ecosystems 

in the project area. Toward this end, the SCCA will 

incorporate the elements of strategic habitat conservation. Strategic habitat conservation is based on an 

adaptive management framework and entails starting with strategic conservation planning, followed 

by conservation design, conservation delivery, and 

monitoring and research to assess results. 

Strategic Biological Planning 

Biological planning requires the identification of specifi c biological objectives or focal species so that the 

relative success of a strategy can be assessed following implementation. The focal species identifi ed to 

guide prioritization of the SCCA were chosen because 

of the Service’s obligations to them as Federal trust 

species (candidate, threatened, and endangered species and migratory birds), and because land protection 

undertaken to benefi t these species is likely to have 

conservation benefits for other species of conservation 

concern, such as species that are federally or State 

listed as threatened or endangered, USFWS Region 

6 Birds of Conservation Concern, and USFWS Migratory Birds focal species. For example, protection of 

cottonwood riparian habitat for Lewis’ woodpecker, a 

conspicuous regional bird of conservation concern, may 

also protect habitat for the more elusive yellow-billed 

cuckoo, an Endangered Species Act candidate species. 

Because of a lack of systematic nesting surveys for 

these species in the project area, assumptions were 

made based on scientifi c literature and expert opinion about which types of habitat were important for 

supporting viable populations of the focal species. In 

particular, given the limited amount of quality wetland 

and riparian habitat present compared to presettlement 

conditions, it was assumed that the continued presence 

of those riparian types was a limiting resource in the 

life history of species that are thought to be obligate 

breeders in such habitat. 

These focal species were chosen with the knowledge that there are gaps in existing data and that the 

habitat in the project area is likely to evolve over time 

in the face of environmental change and changes in 

human water use. As new data become available or 

as conditions change to the point that this conservation strategy is no longer effective, biological planning 

will be revisited. 

Conservation Design and Delivery 

Preventing loss of habitats identified for the diverse 

suite of focal species is the goal of the prioritization 

scheme outlined earlier in this chapter. Decisions about 

how to rank competing parcels with limited available 

money will follow the outline described in that section. 

The recovery plan for southwest willow fl ycatcher 

requires a minimum of 50 occupied breeding territories in the San Luis Valley (USFWS 2002), and specifi c 

reaches of the Rio Grande and Conejos River were 

identified to support that level.4 As discussed earlier, 

this habitat will be granted highest priority for land 

protection, and all easement opportunities within the 

priority lands for that species should be considered 

in the interest of providing redundancy to occupied 

habitat, even if they are unoccupied. 

In the absence of specific population goals for the 

remaining focal species, no acreage numbers or breeding pair densities have been selected. Following the 

principle that between 25 and 75 percent of a region 

must be conserved to meet targets for biodiversity 

(Noss et al. 2012), the initial targets for easement delivery are to protect 50 percent of existing priority 

habitat that now exists on private lands for the other 

focal species. As survey data for the valley informs 

the role of the SCCA in meeting specifi c regional or 

continental population objectives for other species, the 

delivery of easement and limited fee-title acquisition 

can be adjusted accordingly. 

Monitoring and Research 

Essential to the success of strategic habitat conservation is an effective monitoring program to make sure 

that conservation delivery is resulting in net positive 

benefi ts for the focal species around which the project was designed. While the consensus conservation 

model is primarily meant to guide effective easement 

acquisition, the individual species maps are intended 

to guide conservation delivery for those species. 

Checking populations will help ensure the effi cacy of 

the program; if negative population trends for those 

species are detected within the project area or at a 

regional or continental scale, then further literature 

review or targeted research can be applied to adjust 

4

FR 76(157): Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 

Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for Southwestern 

Willow Flycatcher. pp. 50542–50629 
48 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

conservation planning for the SCCA. Some of the monitoring phase of strategic habitat conservation can be 

carried out using the capacity of the refuge biologist 

and Service Inventory and Monitoring help. However, 

it is important to recognize that similar monitoring 

programs will be carried out by partner agencies, and 

communication among these agencies is crucial for 

effectiveness in the face of limited staff and fi nancial 

resources. Furthermore, Service staff should leverage 

biological expertise at regional academic institutions 

to facilitate basic and applied research while addressing research gaps as they are identifi ed. 

Specifically, monitoring and research should include: 

■	 Developing, improving, and assessing landscape 

models for priority species. Emphasis will be placed 

on the highest priority species with the greatest 

degree of uncertainty about limiting factors and the 

effectiveness of management actions, including acquisition under the SCCA program, at minimizing 

and reducing the limiting factors for those species. 

Data from existing surveys such as Breeding Bird 

Survey routes in the project area will be evaluated 

and incorporated into spatial models. When necessary, more data will be collected to evaluate assumptions used in the modeling process and assessments 

will be adjusted accordingly. These methods will 

provide an estimate of the population response of 

trust species on easement lands and on noneasement properties. Similar modeling approaches may 

be developed or incorporated for priority nontrust 

species in cooperation with partners such as State 

wildlife agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 

and universities. 

■	 Evaluating assumptions and addressing uncertainties identified through the biological planning, 

conservation design, and conservation delivery 

elements. When warranted, assumptions such as 

increased redundancy of occupied southwest willow 

fl ycatcher habitat through protection of riparian 

vegetation will be evaluated. 

■	 Naming proper population goals for priority species 

and assessing the contribution of land protection 

toward meeting the population goals. This will allow the Service and conservation partners to evaluate the contribution of the program to meeting the 

population goals and refine conservation delivery 

to ensure the greatest effectiveness. 

■	 Determining how changing environmental conditions may infl uence the effectiveness of this conservation design as increased evaporation, social 

and economically driven changes in water use, and 

evolution of the type and timing of precipitation 

and runoff influence the hydrology of the SCCA. 

Socioeconomic 

Considerations 

As discussed in detail earlier, the population in the 

project area is relatively low. Much of the land is 

cropland or rangeland. Landownership patterns vary 

widely, from dense 5 to 10-acre parcel subdivisions to 

ranches of more than 90,000 acres. Some facets of the 

agricultural economy are likely to be challenged by 

new ground water augmentation laws. The potential 

infusion of capital from the SCCA conservation easement program may provide farmers with resources 

to invest that would allow them to continue operation. That money will largely be invested within the 

San Luis Valley, so there will be short-term benefi ts 

to the local economy as well. Local governments are 

supportive of the initiative for these reasons, and because the program is easement based and therefore 

should not significantly affect revenues. 

Because the wildlife resources for which the SCCA 

was designed already occur in these agricultural lands, 

sustaining this cornerstone of the regional economy 

is important to the mission of the Service. Keeping 

these practices will also preserve the rural aesthetic 

that defines the region’s culture and the character of 

the San Luis Valley. 

Public Involvement and 

Coordination 

SCOPING 

At the beginning of the planning process, the planning 

for the SCCA was conducted in tandem with that for 

the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCP, at the time in the context of a broader, valley wide conservation area. Public scoping meetings 

were held on March 29, 2011, in Alamosa, Colorado; 

March 30, 2011, in Monte Vista, Colorado; and March 

31, 2011, in Moffat, Colorado. The scoping meetings 

were attended by approximately 50 people, many of 

whom provided input for the scoping process. Additionally, 14 written comments were received from organizations and members of the public. A press event 

and public meeting was held at Adams State College 

in Alamosa, Colorado, on January 4, 2012, at which the 

Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, organized the 

presentation of several complementary initiatives for 

the San Luis Valley and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. 

One of these initiatives was landscape-scale conservation, which the Director of the Service presented as 

being embodied by the then SLVCA. Questions were 
Chapter 4 — Project Implementation 49 

answered and comments taken at a breakout session 

following the main meeting. The meeting was attended 

by more than 300 members of the public. 

Together, these meetings and subsequent feedback 

helped the Service to see the questions and concerns 

of the public, as well as to refine the project boundary. 

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT AND LAND PROTECTION PLAN 

The Service released the draft EA and LPP on May 9, 

2012 for a 30-day public review period. The draft documents were made available to Federal elected offi cials 

and agencies, State elected offi cials and agencies, 17 

Native American tribes with aboriginal interests, and 

other members of the public who asked to be added 

to our mailing list. 

In February and May of 2012, refuge staff met 

with members of the land protection community in the 

San Luis Valley to discuss conservation priorities in 

the region. At these meetings, the Service discussed 

the SCCA with representatives from entities including Rio Grande Headwaters Trust, Colorado Open 

Lands, Orient Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, 

Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust, the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Trust for 

Public Lands, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Positive, constructive feedback received at those meetings 

guided the Service in the development of the draft and 

final LPP and EA. 

In addition, three public meetings were held in 

Alamosa, San Luis, and Moffat, Colorado on May 14, 

15, and 16, respectively. Approximately 50 residents 

and representatives of elected offi cials attended the 

3 meetings. While the meetings presented a broader, 

valley-wide vision for the conservation area, the SCCA 

is encompassed entirely within that boundary, and the 

Service is considering the SLVCA NEPA review to 

have captured the potential impacts of the SCCA. The 

Service received 14 written comments that have been 

entered into the administrative record. Please see appendix D for the submitted comments and responses. 

Distribution and Availability 

Copies of the land protection plan and environmental 

assessment were made available to Federal and State 

legislative delegations, tribes, agencies, landowners, 

private groups, and other interested individuals. Additional copies of the document are available from the 

following offices and contacts: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 6 Division of Refuge Planning 

P.O. Box 25486–DFC
 

Denver, CO 80225
 

303 / 236-8132
 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

8249 Emperius Road 

Alamosa, CO 81101 

719 / 589 4021 

 Appendix A 

Environmental Assessment 

Chapter 1—Purpose of and Need for Action
 

This environmental assessment (EA) documents the 

purpose of and the issues, alternatives, and analysis 

for the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area (SCCA). 

This conservation area grew out of initial planning 

for the San Luis Valley Conservation Area (SLVCA), 

that represents a broader vision for the headwaters of 

the Rio Grande. Planning for that conservation area 

will continue as the Service works to fi nd more specific goals for the SLVCA as it relates to the existing 

national wildlife refuges in the San Luis Valley. The 

Service is moving forward to establish the SCCA 

within the original SLVCA boundary. The SCCA will 

be located largely in southern Colorado, but a small 

part will be in northern New Mexico. See the LPP for 

background information and descriptions on the conditions that led to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service or USFWS) proposal to create the SCCA 

for the protection of important wetland and upland 

habitats, primarily through conservation easements 

with willing landowners. 

Introduction 

The SCCA is a landscape-level strategic habitat 

conservation initiative within the Southern Rockies 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative. The SCCA is in 

the headwaters of the Rio Grande in the southeastern 

corner of the San Luis Valley. The San Luis Valley is a 

large intermountain valley bounded by the San Juan 

and Sangre de Cristo mountain ranges, whose rain 

shadows create high desert conditions in the region. 

However, the complex hydrology of the valley, as well 

as the snowmelt runoff from the mountains, have created a variety of dynamic wetlands and riparian corridors on the mountain slopes and valley fl oor. These 

wetland areas support a diverse assemblage of plants 

and wildlife, including habitat for many trust species 

such as the southwestern willow fl ycatcher, western 

snowy plover, many species of migrating and nesting 

waterfowl, and 95 percent of the Rocky Mountain 

population of greater sandhill crane. The mountains 

themselves are also ecologically important, providing 

habitat for imperiled species such as Canada lynx and 

Mexican spotted owl, as well as serving as migration 

corridors for wildlife in this southernmost extension 

of the Rocky Mountains. 

Anthropogenic practices including agriculture, 

changes in fi re regime, and climate change have 

changed the historical vegetation of the San Luis Valley. Low human population density associated with 

the largely agricultural economy of the valley have 

resulted in the San Luis Valley and central Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains keeping substantial parts of their 

biological value, particularly for migratory birds. 

However, rising agricultural costs, including those 

resulting from the recent State of Colorado requirement to augment surface fl ows to offset the impacts 

of ground water use, have led to an unsettled agricultural economy. The risk of second home development 

of the already heavily subdivided Costilla County 

continues, and would substantially reduce the quality of that habitat for sagebrush-dependent species. 

Substantial residential development or unsustainable 

logging practices in the Sangre de Cristo’s would also 

degrade that habitat for the species discussed before. 

Through the SCCA, the Service hopes to protect a 

large part of the wildlife habitat in the region from 

such degradation. 

Proposed Action 

The Service is moving to create the one-million-acre 

SCCA to conserve vital wildlife habitats and migration corridors through voluntary conservation easements. The SCCA acquisitions will focus on the protection of riparian corridors, wetlands, sagebrush, and 

montane forests in the valley through the purchase 

of up to 250,000 acres of conservation easements. The 

lands protected via easement would remain in private 

ownership. These lands could continue to be grazed, 

hayed, farmed, or otherwise managed in accordance 

with current practices. However, subdivision and 

development would be restricted, subject to stipulations agreed-upon by the landowner and the Service. 
52 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Furthermore, some easements may include stipulations 

that the exercise of water rights associated with these 

lands could be changed only if the proposed changes 

would be beneficial to wildlife. 

Unlike some other conservation areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System, in which objectives 

and the setting of priorities are largely based on modeling for one species or a guild of species, the SCCA 

is intended to meet all the objectives of a complex 

geographic, ecological, and political environment. It 

therefore has a diverse range of goals: 

■	 conserve, restore, enhance, and protect wetland 

and riparian habitat, an important breeding and 

foraging resource in the high mountain desert for 

migratory shorebirds, waterfowl, and neotropical 

passerine birds 

■	 support the recovery and protection of threatened 

and endangered species that occur in the SCCA, 

and reduce the likelihood of future listings under 

the Endangered Species Act by prioritizing key 

habitat for listed species and species that are candidates for listing 

■	 protect the integrity of these habitats by preventing 

fragmentation and conversion of native vegetation 

■	 conserve working landscapes based on ranching 

and farming activities that support a viable agricultural industry 

■	 promote ecological resiliency and adaptive capacity by connecting together the existing network of 

public and private conservation lands 

Decisions to Be Made 

Based on the analysis provided in this final EA, the Regional Director of the Service will make two decisions: 

1. Figure out if the Service should establish the SCCA, 

in accordance with its land protection planning policy. 

2. If yes, fi gure out if the selected alternative will 

have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This decision is required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If the 

quality of the human environment would not be affected, a “finding of no significant impact” will be 

signed and will be made available to the public. If 

the preferred alternative would have a signifi cant 

impact, an environmental impact statement will be 

prepared to further address those impacts. 

Issues Identifi ed and 

Selected for Analysis 

Please see a description of issues identifi ed and selected for analysis in chapter 1 of the land protection 

plan in this volume. 

Related Actions and 

Activities 

Please see a description of related actions and activities 

in chapter 1 of the land protection plan in this volume: 
Appendix A — Environmental Assessment 53 

Chapter 2—Alternatives
 

This chapter describes the two alternatives identifi ed 

for this project: 

■ no-action alternative 

■	 proposed action, giving the Service the authority 

to create the SCCA 

These alternatives were developed according to NEPA 

§102(2)(E) requirements to “study, develop, and describe proper alternatives to recommend courses of 

action in any proposal that involves unresolved confl icts 

concerning alternatives uses of available resources.” 

The alternatives consider the effects of a conservation 

easement program with limited fee-title acquisition 

within the project area boundary identified in this EA. 

In addition, alternatives that were dropped from 

detailed study are briefl y discussed. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, the areas outside 

of existing protected areas would largely remain in 

private ownership and subject to changes in land use 

or habitat type. Some added protection is likely because of ongoing conservation easement initiatives 

in the San Luis Valley by public entities such as the 

NRCS and nongovernmental organizations such as 

the Colorado Cattleman’s Agricultural Land Trust 

and Colorado Open Lands. 

Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Under the preferred alternative, the Service will establish the SCCA in southern Colorado and northern 

New Mexico. The project boundary encompasses approximately one million acres. Within this boundary, 

the Service would strategically acquire from willing 

sellers perpetual conservation easements on up to 

250,000 acres through purchase or donation. The Service would also consider accepting fee-title donations, 

but does not plan to buy lands in fee title. 

Conservation easements are both a cost-effective 

and politically effective means of land protection. They 

stem from the “bundle of rights” concept of land ownership (Merenlender et al. 2004), wherein, like severed surface and mineral rights for a given parcel, a 

part of the land title is severed and transferred to a 

land trust or public agency for conservation purposes. 

They are quite popular for a variety of reasons. Because they allow the property owner to continue using the land, subject to agreed-upon stipulations, they 

protect working landscapes, which is a priority of the 

America’s Great Outdoors initiative. Perpetual conservation easements provide a one-time source of income to the seller or a tax incentive to the donor, and 

can even be an estate planning tool (Engel 2007). In 

many cases, they can meet the conservation objectives 

of the Service without our incurring the costs associated with managing fee-title land; furthermore, the 

land remains on the county tax rolls. In the SCCA, the 

Service seeks to protect up to 250,000 acres through 

conservation easements. 

Potential easements will be ranked based on wildlife needs in the project area, which include areas of 

wetland, riparian, montane forest, and upland habitats. 

See the LPP in this volume for detailed descriptions 

of these priorities. 

Alternatives Considered 

but Dropped from Further 

Analysis 

VOLUNTARY LANDOWNER ZONING OR COUNTY 

ZONING 

Under this alternative, landowners would voluntarily 

petition their county commissioners to create a zoning district to direct the types of development that 

can occur in an area. An example of citizen-initiated 

zoning is when landowners would petition the county 

government to zone an area as agricultural, precluding certain types of nonagricultural development, such 

as residential subdivision or construction of a solar 

energy facility. However, zoning decisions are easily 

changed and thus do not ensure perpetual habitat protection. Also, agricultural zoning would be inadequate 

because water has become an increasingly expensive 

and limiting resource and it thus would not in itself 

stop continued conversion from fl ood-irrigated vegetation to less biologically diverse cultivated crops. 

This conversion has often been accompanied by the 

replacement of flood irrigation practices with centerpivot irrigation. Although center-pivot irrigation offers onsite water efficiency, it results in land cover that 

is far less suitable to wildlife than native vegetation 

or even flood-irrigated agriculture. Because of these 

reasons, this alternative was not investigated further. 
54 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

MANAGEMENT BY OTHERS 

Some governmental and nongovernmental organizations are active in promoting conservation within the 

SCCA and the broader San Luis Valley region. Current land managers include the Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife, the Colorado State Land Board, the BLM, 

the NPS, the USFS, and the Service. Additional land 

is conserved in fee title by The Nature Conservancy, 

and conservation easements are held by Ducks Unlimited, Rio Grande Headwaters Trust, the NRCS, 

and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, among others. 

There are active conservation initiatives underway by 

these organizations, but none has the scope necessary 

to achieve the conservation objectives of the SCCA, 

nor do other organizations have the same wildlife 

habitat objectives. 

FEE-TITLE ACQUISITION 

Much of the publicly owned land mentioned in the 

previous section has been managed for conservation 

purposes for decades; indeed, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve was originally established 

in 1932 as a National Monument. Fee-title ownership 

allows the strongest protection for the habitat and 

allows the greatest fl exibility for adaptive management in response to new data or changing conditions. 

However, acquisition of new public land on the scale of 

the SCCA is politically untenable and, given the low 

appropriation of Land and Water Conservation Fund 

monies, it is also financially unrealistic. For these reasons as well as the expense of managing more public 

lands, it is the Service’s policy to acquire the minimum 

interest necessary to reach conservation objectives. 
Appendix A — Environmental Assessment 55 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment
 

Please see a discussion of the resources and affected 


environment in chapter 2 of the LPP in this volume.
 

Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences 

For alternatives A and B described earlier, the following narrative documents the analysis of environmental effects expected to occur from carrying out each 

of the alternatives. 

Effects on the Physical 

Environment 

The estimated effects of each alternative on mineral, 

soil, and water resources, and on the Service’s ability 

to address climate change, are described below. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Development and associated habitat loss could continue on lands outside of existing protected areas; in 

riparian areas, development may cause erosion and 

sedimentation that ultimately could adversely affect 

aquatic species like the Rio Grande cutthroat trout.. 

Further land protection would be limited to the efforts 

of other agencies and organizations. The Service’s role 

would be limited to programs such as Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife; no Land and Water Conservation 

Fund monies would be expended in the project area 

by the Service for further land protection outside of 

the immediate vicinity of existing refuge units. Important water-dependent wildlife habitat would remain 

vulnerable to reallocation of surface water offsite or 

changes to how existing water rights are exercised. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

The implementation of the goals of the SCCA will 

primarily support current land use practices, and is 

therefore unlikely to substantially affect soil resources 

in the valley. There may be some reduction in erosion 

and sedimentation because of the prevention of subdivision and development. The SCCA wouldn’t supersede 

existing third party mineral rights, and the program 

is therefore unlikely to affect mineral resources. If the 

mineral estate has not been severed, the easement 

may include restrictions on surface occupancy, but 

the Service would not, and cannot, prevent a mineral 

owner from accessing their minerals. The Service is 

unlikely to pursue acquisition of interests in lands with 

outstanding surface mineral leases or rights because 

the associated destruction of surface vegetation and 

need for reclamation would diminish the wildlife value 

of such land. In some circumstances, habitat that depends on continuation of current water use practices 

would be protected from degradation caused by the 

sale of surface water rights or substantial changes 

to water use. 

Effects on the Biological 

Environment 

This section describes the likely effects of the project 

on species and their habitats. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

would remain active within the project area, where it 

works cooperatively with landowners to voluntarily 

improve habitat on private land. Habitats would continue to be protected because of the ongoing efforts 

of agency partners and nongovernmental organizations, primarily through easements paid for by private donations, the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program 

(WRP), and North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act (NAWCA) grants. These efforts are laudable and 

have conserved valuable habitat, particularly wetlands. 

However, they tend to underrepresent nonwetland riparian forest and uplands such as sagebrush steppe, 

both of which are particularly important for federally 

listed species and candidates for listing in the project 

area. Further, the demand for both NAWCA and WRP 

money is much higher than for historically available 

money. Also, unlike a Land and Water Conservation 

Fund easement program, NAWCA requires matching 

funds, which may or may not be available. Therefore, 

there would likely continue to be erosion of habitat 

quality and a decrease in ecological resiliency because 

of land cover changes and associated fragmentation, 

introduction of exotic species, and construction of 
56 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

structures that are incompatible with habitat use by 

some wildlife. 

Outright habitat loss because of conversion of land 

to other uses is perhaps the most obvious threat to 

wildlife in most areas. In the SCCA, this can take the 

form of conversion from natural to agricultural land 

cover, changes to irrigation regimes, and development 

of land for commercial or residential use. This habitat 

destruction, along with construction of associated infrastructure such as water diversion structures, can 

result in the fragmentation of habitat. The effects of 

fragmentation on wildlife have been intensively studied in ecology and wildlife biology (for a conceptual 

review, see Collinge 2009). 

Both the loss and fragmentation of riparian habitat are real concerns in the SCCA. Riparian areas 

are necessary for the maintenance of medium and 

large mammal diversity in agricultural landscapes 

(for example, Hilty and Merenlender 2004), and for 

both breeding and stopover habitat for neotropical 

migratory songbirds in human-altered landscapes 

(Pennington, Hansel, and Blair 2008). Riparian areas 

provide nest habitat for the threatened southwestern willow flycatcher and the candidate yellow-billed 

cuckoo, and the slow but continued loss of this habitat 

under alternative A would have an impact not just on 

regional species diversity, but also on the potential 

persistence of imperiled species. 

Besides providing habitat in and of themselves, riparian areas also serve as corridors for animal movement. Facilitating animal movement across complex 

mosaic landscapes is essential in a time of global environmental change. One of the greatest ecological 

threats of climate change is that species and varieties 

that are adapted to specific environmental conditions 

may die out because they are isolated from habitats 

that may have those conditions in the future (Loss et 

al. 2011). Under alternative A, there is continued risk 

of development in riparian corridors that were contiguous before, as well as in unprotected areas along 

the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in Costilla County, 

Colorado, and northern Taos County, New Mexico, 

which could endanger the future existence of populations and species under future climate conditions. The 

latter area is also habitat for the Canada lynx, which 

is federally listed as threatened. Development of that 

region, which could occur under alternative A, may 

isolate lynx in the southern Sangre de Cristos from 

those in the rest of the Rocky Mountains. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Establishment of the SCCA will enable the Service 

to permanently protect up to 250,000 acres of vital 

wildlife habitat in the San Luis Valley and Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains. While there are conservation initiatives by other government agencies and private 

land trusts underway in the project area, the SCCA 

specifi cally targets habitat that is necessary for migration or breeding of Federal trust species, namely 

migratory birds and a handful of federally listed and 

candidate nonbird species. The conservation area 

should complement and enhance the ecological benefi ts 

of existing public and private conservation lands and 

habitat improvement programs by capturing habitats 

not included in these programs and by helping to link 

together the existing protected area. 

The use of easements to protect and buffer riparian 

habitats under alternative B will benefit both obligate 

riparian species like the southwest willow fl ycatcher, 

bats like the Yuma myotis, and species that simply use 

the riparian areas as corridors to move from point to 

point, like bobcat and black bear. Of particular interest 

are the willow and cottonwood riparian forests along 

the tributaries of the Rio Grande, which are used by 

dozens of species of migratory songbirds. In the rivers and tributaries themselves, the use of easements 

could support conditions suitable for imperiled fi sh 

such as the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Rio Grande 

chub, and Rio Grande sucker by preventing development of houses and roads, which can cause siltation 

and changes in water chemistry and temperature. 

Easements would also prevent conversion of shrub 

steppe near riparian areas to cropland, which can lead 

to increases in sediment, nitrogen loads, and temperatures in associated streams. 

The presence of mesic [wet] habitats in the midst 

of a high-mountain desert provides an irreplaceable 

resource to regional, and in some cases continental, 

populations of breeding and migrating shorebirds, 

wading birds, and waterfowl. Water costs in the San 

Luis Valley are increasing because of restrictions on 

the use of ground water, and water is likely to become 

an increasingly complex issue because of projected 

changes in runoff timing and uncertainty about future precipitation trends (Ray et al. 2008). This may 

encourage landowners who have quality wetlands to 

change how they exercise their water rights, to the 

detriment of species that use those wetlands. On some 

properties with such water-dependent habitat, the 

easements may include language restricting changes 

to existing beneficial uses of water, meaning that willing sellers would agree to support practices that are 

of value to wildlife. For example, water could not be 

sold off of the property where water rights were being exercised when the easement was bought unless 

the new use was deemed more benefi cial to wildlife. 

Many of these wetlands would not exist now without 

current land use practices. 

Sagebrush shrubland and steppe are not widespread 

in the project area, but are found in a ring above the 

desert scrubland and below the pinyon-juniper woodland in the far northern, southeast, and southwest 

parts of the valley. Much of this land is managed by 

the BLM. The largest areas of this vegetation in the 
Appendix A — Environmental Assessment 57 

region are in Costilla County, Colorado, and these 

areas are almost entirely privately owned and not 

under conservation easements. Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife has identified that area as potential but unoccupied habitat for the Endangered Species Act candidate Gunnison sage-grouse. Sage-grouse, as well as 

other sagebrush obligates, are particularly sensitive 

to disturbance, especially the construction of vertical structures in their habitat, which could happen if 

homes and associated power lines were constructed. 

Much of that area has been subdivided into small parcels, but little real development has occurred to date 

outside of small towns and cities. Given those factors, 

and the lack of attention being given to that habitat 

type by conservation partners now, land protection 

under alternative B is likely to play an important role 

in preventing modifi cation of this important ecosystem. It is unknown if there will be future attempts to 

reintroduce Gunnison sage-grouse to that area, but 

certainly it would be unlikely to happen if the existing habitat were altered. 

As discussed under alternative A, there are large 

unprotected areas along the spine of the Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains in Costilla County, Colorado, extending into Taos County, New Mexico. Alternative 

B will allow the Service to use its acquisition authority to complement efforts by private land trusts to 

protect this important wildlife corridor and Canada 

lynx habitat. 

Effects on Cultural 

Resources 

The estimated effects of each alternative on cultural 

resources are described below. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Some cultural resources could be adversely affected 

by activities such as development and road construction on lands outside of existing public and private 

conservation lands. While the rate of development is 

not rapid now, the San Luis Valley is rich with millennia of human history, and much of the valley’s history 

is poorly documented. There are legitimate concerns 

that important sites may be destroyed or irreparably 

disturbed in the absence of protection. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

There is the potential for greater protection of cultural 

resources than under alternative A because the easement terms that prevent development of land in ways 

that could adversely affect wildlife could also prevent 

destruction of Native American, Hispano, and other 

historic American sites. 

Effects on the 

Socioeconomic Environment 

This section describes the estimated effects of the 

alternatives on land use, ecosystem services, land 

ownership, and the regional economy. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Landownership patterns will continue to change in 

accordance with market forces, as will resulting modifi cation of ecosystem services and changes in cost of 

public service delivery by local government. Landowner 

compensation through conservation easements would 

remain available through other Federal programs and 

the efforts of nongovernmental organizations. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Social and Economic Impacts of Conservation 

Easements 

Conservation easements provide public benefi ts for 

local residents, communities, and governments. Easements and fee-title acquisitions also reshape future 

development patterns, affect property values, and 

inject new money into local communities. There are 

many dynamic variables at play when considering 

the social and economic effects of conservation easements, especially given that potential purchases may 

span decades. Because of future uncertainty surrounding such factors as the likelihood and timing of easements; the availability of Service money to buy lands; 

and population growth, land values, and agricultural 

commodity prices, the social and economic impacts of 

the easements cannot be quantifi ed in this analysis. 

However, these impacts can be described qualitatively. 

This analysis discusses the following effects of conservation easements in the SCCA: 

■ conservation values in the region 

■ benefits to local communities 

■ landowner compensation 

■ effects to local government net revenue 

Table A, located at the end of this section, provides a 

summary of the social and economic impacts of conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions in the 

SCCA. 

Conservation Value. Conservation easements can protect values associated with biodiversity and wildlife 

abundance, keep aesthetic beauty, and protect social 

and culturally signifi cant features of landscapes and 

livelihoods (Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment 2005, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992, Daily 1997). 

Ecosystem services, such as water purifi cation, oxygen production, pollination, and waste breakdown, 
58 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

are also supported for local residents through land 

preservation (Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment 2005). The primary public benefit of Service 

conservation easements is enhanced and preserved 

wildlife habitat. As development stressors increase 

over time, many key off-refuge habitat areas may 

become less available because of conversion to nonwildlife habitat uses. Habitat preservation has been 

shown to stabilize and increase wildlife populations 

(Reynolds and others 2001). Conservation easements 

on private lands strengthen the resiliency of species 

habitat and provide opportunities for wildlife movement and adaptation for years to come. 

Benefits to Local Communities. Although local residents 

may not be able to explicitly use or access land protected by conservation easements, protected lands act 

as a buffer that benefits residents through increased 

biodiversity, recreational quality, and hunting opportunities on publicly accessible wildlife refuges 

and on some private lands (Rissman et al. 2007). It 

is well documented that open space carries positive 

values to local residents and communities, as well 

as to passersby (McConnell and Walls 2005). This is 

evidenced by the success of open space preservation 

ballot initiatives at the local, county, and State levels. 

Banzhaf et al. (2006) point out that between 1997 and 

2004, more than 75 percent of the more than 1,100 

referenda on open space conservation that appeared 

on ballots across the United States passed, most by 

a wide margin. 

It is also well documented that open space and 

protected natural areas can increase surrounding 

property values (see McConnell and Walls 2005 for 

a comprehensive review). The reciprocating value of 

open space on property values will vary depending on 

landscape characteristics and location attributes (for 

example, distance to the conserved area) (Kroger 2008). 

The permanence of the open space is also an infl uencing factor. Typically, open space that is permanently 

protected (such as refuge lands and lands protected 

with perpetual conservation easements) will generate 

a higher enhancement value to local properties than 

land that has the potential for future development 

(Geoghegan et al. 2003). Location and demographic 

factors in the region can also infl uence the relative 

level of property enhancement value. For instance, 

open space may generate larger amenity premiums for 

property in more urbanized areas and where median 

incomes are higher (Netusil et al. 2000), which isn’t to 

say there isn’t the chance for property values to increase substantially in rural areas as well (Vrooman 

1978, Phillips 2000, Crompton 2001, Thorsnes 2002). 

Conservation easements would also inject new 

money into the local economy. The sale of conservation 

easements provides landowners with more revenue. 

Some percentage of this money may be spent in the 

local economy, including purchasing new real estate, 

consumer goods, or services in the local area. Conservation easements may also help keep the character of 

a region by protecting a traditional and historical way 

of life and the associated working landscape. Land with 

historical commercial use, such as ranching, forestry, 

and farming, is often compatible with or benefi cial to 

wildlife refuge objectives (Jordan et al. 2007, Rissman 

et al. 2007). Conservation easements provide fi nancial 

benefits for landowners that may enable them to preserve the natural and historical value of their farm, 

ranch, and open space lands, and to pass this legacy 

on to their children and grandchildren. In addition 

to supporting a cultural heritage, the preservation 

of farming and ranching operations can result in economic benefi ts to the local economy. Farmers’ costs 

for equipment, supplies, and materials may be spent 

in the local economy, thus stimulating local businesses 

and supporting local employment. Farm workers will 

also spend their salaries in the local economy, thus 

supporting further local employment. Conservation 

easements may also result in increased recreationrelated spending by visitors. 

Landowner Compensation. The Service will buy conservation easements from willing sellers at fair market value. The fair market value of a conservation 

easement is found through an appraisal process. An 

appraiser estimates how much the land would sell for 

unencumbered by the conservation easement (the 

“before” value) and how much the land would sell 

for with the conservation easement in place (the “after” value). The value of the conservation easement 

is equal to the before value minus the after value, or 

the difference in the fair market value of the property with and without the easement. Landowners 

may also choose to donate conservation easements to 

the Service. The donation of a conservation easement 

may qualify as a tax-deductible charitable donation, 

which may result in Federal income tax benefi ts. The 

sale of a conservation easement for less than its fair 

market value (called a “bargain sale”) may also qualify 

for tax deductions. Landowners may be able to claim 

a charitable income tax donation equal to the difference between the fair market value and the bargain 

sale price of their easement. Income from the sale of 

a conservation easement may be taxable. Please note 

that the Service does not give tax advice. Landowners 

considering entering into a conservation agreement 

with the Service should consult a tax advisor or attorney for advice on how a conservation easement would 

affect their taxes and estate. 

Conservation easements reduce the value of the 

encumbered property. A conservation easement will 

reduce the fair market value of an estate because the 

easement permanently removes some of the estate’s 

development potential. The reduction in value depends 
Appendix A — Environmental Assessment 59 

on the potential development value of the land and the 

level of restriction agreed-upon in the easement. In 

general, an easement on land located in an area with 

high development pressure will have a greater effect 

on the value of the land than an easement on land located in an area with low development pressure, and 

an easement that is more restrictive will have a greater 

effect on the value of the land than an easement that 

is less restrictive. The Service will buy easements at 

their appraised fair market value; therefore, easements on lands with high development pressure will 

receive higher payments. 

Effects on Local Government Net Revenue. The effects 

of conservation easements on the net revenue of local government are complex and speculative; many 

variables are at play, and realizing the effects often 

requires time. Local governments collect revenue 

through intergovernmental transfers, property taxes, 

sales taxes, personal income taxes, and other charges, 

such as permitting. These revenues are then spent to 

provide community services such as fi re and police 

services, schools, infrastructure, and public spaces. 

Conservation easements affect the location of future development, and therefore affect both future 

revenues and costs for local governments. The following sections describe the possible effects to local 

government revenues and costs. Overall, the SCCA 

conservation easement program is expected to have 

negligible effects on local government net revenues 

(revenues minus costs). 

Effects on Local Government Revenues. Property 

taxes constitute the largest source of local governments’ own revenue (Urban Institute and Brookings 

Institution 2008), and are not expected to be substantially affected by conservation easements in the 

SCCA. Property taxes are assessed based on the value 

of property. For most types of properties, county assessors use fair market value to find property tax liabilities; however, agricultural land is often assessed 

differently. In many States, the assessed value of agricultural land is found based on the productive value 

of the land rather than on the fair market value of the 

property. The fair market value of land is the amount 

that a property is estimated to sell for. This value includes both the productive value of the land and any 

speculative value associated with the possibility of 

developing the land. Conservation easements reduce 

the fair market value of property by removing the 

speculative value associated with possible development; however, conservation easements generally do 

not affect the productive value of agricultural land. 

The SCCA will include land in two States: Colorado 

and New Mexico. In both States, property taxes for 

agricultural land are assessed based on the productive 

value of the land or farm income1 (Colorado Division 

of Property Taxation 2006; New Mexico Taxation 

and Revenue Department 2011). In the SCCA, most 

properties that will enter into conservation easement 

agreements with the Service will be classified as agricultural land; thus, there will be little effect on the 

current property tax base for the nine-county area. 

Some of the lands in the SCCA that will enter into 

easements are now fallow and do not classify as agricultural lands. For these properties, assessors may 

assess the fair market value of the land based only on 

the uses allowed by the easement. This could result 

in a small reduction in property tax revenue in some 

counties within the region. The reduction in property 

taxes will be dependent on the percent of easement 

acres that are bought on fallow land (versus agricultural land), and on the reduction in the market value 

of the fallow lands. 

The donation of any fee-title lands will reduce the 

amount of property tax revenue collected by local governments because the Service is exempt from taxation on its property holdings. Under Federal fee-title 

ownership, counties would qualify for reimbursement 

of some property tax revenue foregone under the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, which allows 

the Service to make annual payments to local governments in areas where fee-title purchases have removed land from the tax rolls. Under provisions of the 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, local counties receive 

an annual payment for lands that have been bought 

by full fee-title acquisition by the Service. Payments 

are based on the greater of 75 cents per acre or 0.75 

percent of the fair market value. The exact amount 

of the annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be 

substantially less than the amount required to fulfi ll 

the authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 2010, 

actual Refuge Revenue Sharing payments were 22 

percent of authorized levels. 

Local government revenue associated with personal income is expected to remain relatively constant 

within the nine-county area. Conservation easements 

and fee-title acquisitions in the SCCA would affect 

the location and distribution of development, but are 

not expected to change the rate or density of human 

population growth. Redistribution of population growth 

could affect the distribution of personal-income-related 

revenues across the counties, but is expected to have 

little effect on total revenues within the nine-county 

area. There would be a one-time increase in landowner 

income as the Service buys the easements. 

Effects on Local Government Costs. Land protection 

through conservation easements could result in a reduction in future expenditures for local governments 

1

Special rules and statutes apply in each State to fi gure out 

if land in agricultural production and land in conservation 

easements is eligible to be assessed as agricultural land 
60 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

and municipalities. New residential developments 

require local governments to provide services such 

as fire protection, police services, and schools, and to 

construct new infrastructure such as roads, parks, 

and water and electric-delivery systems. The costs 

to provide government services for new residential 

developments often exceed new revenues derived 

from the developments. This is especially true for 

rural residences, which tend to have higher costs for 

county governments and school districts than urban 

residences. In 2001, the American Farmland Trust 

found that, on average, the cost to provide community 

services to new residential developments was $1.15 

for every $1.00 of revenue generated by those developments (American Farmland Trust, 2001; Coupal et 

al. 2002). A study conducted in Wyoming found that 

community service costs averaged $2.01 for every $1.00 

of revenue for rural residential lands; in contrast, the 

average cost to provide services for lands under agricultural production averaged $0.54 for every $1.00 

of revenue (Taylor and Coupal 2000). 

Impacts to Federal permitting and property rights of nonparticipants. Neither the authorization nor the establishment of the SCCA would affect the administration 

of lands by other Federal agencies; the SCCA boundary 

is simply an acquisition boundary within which the Service could acquire easements or property. Landowners 

who choose to take part in the program would sell or 

donate certain property rights to the Service. There 

would be no impact on adjacent property owners. Traditional land use rights awarded to certain residents 

of the former Sangre de Cristo land grant would not 

be affected by sale or donation of easements on those 

properties, as those property rights have been found 

by the Colorado Supreme Court to not belong to the 

landowner; therefore, they are not available for sale 

to the Service. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

This section describes adverse effects which may be 

unavoidable when carrying out alternatives A and B. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Loss of wetland, riparian, and upland vegetation and 

their associated habitat values would continue because 

of development of areas outside of those protected by 

partner agencies and land trusts. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

No direct or indirect unavoidable adverse impacts to 

the environment would result from choosing alternative B. An easement program would not result in 

adverse impacts on the physical or biological environment. Choosing an approved boundary for the SCCA 

and concurrent authorization to go forward with an 

easement program would not, by itself, affect land 

ownership or value, or other aspects of the socioeconomic environment. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 

Any commitments of resources that may be irreversible or irretrievable because of carrying out alternatives A or B are described below. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

There would be no commitment of resources by the 

Service if alternative A were selected. The Service 

could still exercise its authority to acquire inholdings 

or for minor expansions of existing refuges, but would 

not be obligated to do so. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

The establishment of the SCCA would not, of itself, 

constitute an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. However, if interests in land were 

acquired through the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund or donations, the administration of the 

easement provisions or donated property would require an irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources. Checking easements would represent a 

minor increase in overall Service costs borne by the 

San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Short-Term versus LongTerm Productivity 

Following is a discussion of short- and long-term effects. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Continued efforts to conserve habitats would be ongoing through the efforts of Service activities like 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife and the efforts of other 

agency and nonprofit partners. Important wetland and 

upland habitats would be expected to continue to be 

lost at current rates of conversion, which would have 

long-term negative implications on the maintenance 

of the ecological communities they support. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

The Service would be authorized to buy perpetual 

easements only from willing sellers, providing an 
Appendix A — Environmental Assessment 61 

immediate short-term economic benefit to landowners. 

This may provide capital for expansion of agricultural 

operations, or simply allow struggling operators to 

stay in business. This is particularly relevant given the 

changes to Colorado water law, which now requires 

ground water users to buy increasingly expensive surface water to decrease their impact on senior surface 

water users. This infusion of capital at an opportune 

time would likely have important long-term benefi ts 

to the economy of the San Luis Valley. The conservation of habitats under this program would also have 

important short- and long-term ecological benefi ts. The 

program will preserve habitat now used by wildlife, 

including federally protected species. This will result 

in the preservation of the area’s biodiversity, which 

is important for long-term ecosystem stability and 

function in arid environments (Maestre et al. 2012). 

By preventing fragmentation, particularly in wildlife 

corridors like riparian areas and along the Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains, the program will promote long-term 

ecological resiliency to habitat perturbations such as 

large wildfires and climate change. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As defined by NEPA regulations, a cumulative impact 

on the environment “results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency or person undertakes such other actions” 

( 40 CFR 1508.7). The following describes the past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions related 

to the proposed SCCA. A discussion follows about the 

cumulative impacts of these actions in combination 

with the actions of alternatives A and B. 

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS 

Some private and public organizations have successfully conducted land protection programs in the San 

Luis Valley through negotiation of conservation easements with willing landowners. One specifi c example 

is a coalition of local governments, landowners, and 

nonprofi t organizations that is working to conserve 

land as part of their mitigation strategy in the draft 

San Luis Valley Habitat Conservation Plan that was 

released in June of 2012. The Service assumes this 

will likely continue in the future. 

The State of Colorado is carrying out new laws 

about ground water augmentation, wherein landowners who use ground water for irrigation will have to 

buy surface water rights to offset any adverse impacts 

on downstream users. 

There is ongoing interest in the San Luis Valley for 

renewable energy development. There are small-scale 

commercial solar facilities now deployed in the San 

Luis Valley, and the Department of Energy and the 

BLM are studying the impacts of more facilities being 

developed on public land (BLM and DOE 2010). The 

BLM is now reviewing the potential impacts of expanded geothermal leasing on public lands in the San 

Luis Valley (BLM 2012). The potential for increased 

energy production, and the desire for redundancy in 

the electrical transmission system in the San Luis 

Valley has led to planning for the construction of a 

high-capacity transmission corridor through the valley, crossing the Sangre de Cristo Mountains at La 

Veta Pass. 

ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION) 

Under this alternative, there would be no cumulative 

impacts on the environment because the Service would 

not undertake any more land protection measures. 

ALTERNATIVE B (PROPOSED ACTION) 

The continuing land protection efforts of others, combined with the proposed action, may have nonlinear, 

positive effects on wildlife populations. Because this 

alternative would focus on federally regulated species 

(such as priority migratory bird species and species 

listed or being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act), implementation would result 

in accelerated protection of habitats for those species. 

Service seeks to coordinate its land protection efforts 

by promoting active communication with our conservation partners on land protection opportunities as 

they arise so that the organization whose program is 

most proper can seek the acquisition of a particular 

land interest. The public and private conservation 

entities in the San Luis Valley have a longstanding 

friendly relationship and view each other’s conservation objectives as largely complementary. However, 

there are specifi c instances where potential confl ict 

could arise without this communication, such as riparian habitat of the southwestern willow fl ycatcher. The 

Service’s does not intend to compromise the ability of 

local government to meet their mitigation targets in 

the San Luis Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. To 

this end, the Service would not undertake any acquisition of southwestern willow flycatcher habitats along 

the Rio Grande or its tributaries without discussing 

the opportunity with our conservation partners. The 

Service would defer to partners in all instances where 

they need to seek an interest in the land fi rst. 

The impacts of new Colorado water law on water 

availability and cost may be cumulative with the impacts of the Service’s easements, which, depending 

upon the habitat present on a specific property, may 

include language restricting the sale of surface water 

rights from lands protected under this program. Because the easements would keep current water use 
62 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

practices on lands where an interest is acquired, these 

impacts are unlikely to be signifi cant. 

The presence of a Service interest in land could 

preclude construction of commercial energy production or transmission infrastructure on that property 

if such activity is deemed to be incompatible with the 

purpose of the SCCA. This would result in unknown 

effects because of potentially limiting where such facilities could be sited, but the impacts of such limitations 

on economics and the attainment State and Federal 

renewable energy requirements would be speculative 

at best, and are outside of the scope of this analysis. 

Any impacts of the proposed action that are cumulative with the actions of others will largely be 

decided by 1) the number of landowners willing to 

enter into easement agreements with the Service 

and 2) the amount of money available for acquisition 

of these easements. 

Table A. Social and economic impacts of conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions. 

Social and economic impacts 

Issue Conservation easements	 Fee-title acquisitions 

Conservation ■ Migration corridors and habitat for deer, elk, ■ Same as for easements plus the conservation 

value moose, and migratory birds will be preserved. value of fee-title lands may be greater than easement lands because the Service would have the 

ability to increase conservation value through 

projects on the land. 

Affects to local 

communities 

■	 The public will enjoy increased biodiversity, 

recreational quality, and hunting opportunities 

on nearby publicly accessible refuges and some 

private lands. 

■	 Neighboring property values may increase. 

■	 Positive economic impacts may result from new 

landowner money injected into the local economy. 

■	 Traditional and historical ranching and farming 

landscapes will be preserved. 

■	 Same as for easements except traditional and 

historical ranching and farming landscapes may 

not be preserved. 

■	 Positive economic impacts may also result from 

increased Service habitat improvement expenditures injected into the local economy. 

■	 Possible increase in refuge visitation and associated impacts of visitor spending in the local economy. However, neighbors and other public may 

be affected by increased accesses to refuge lands. 

Landowner 

compensation 

■	 Landowners will be compensated for the fair 

market value of the easement. 

■	 Easements will reduce the fair market value of 

the encumbered property. 

■	 Landowners keep most use rights, but forfeit 

their right to develop or subdivide the land. Other 

possible restrictions include development of vertical structures, diversion or sale of water rights. 

■	 Landowners will be compensated for the fair 

market value of the land. 

■	 Landowners forfeit all rights of ownership and 

turn the property over to the Service. 

Affects on local 

government net 

revenue 

■	 No changes to property tax revenues are expected 

for agricultural lands. 

■	 Property tax revenues from fallow lands will 

decrease. 

■	 Other government revenues, such as personal 

income tax, may be redistributed throughout 

the region. 

■	 Land protection through conservation easements 

could result in reduced future service costs for 

local governments and municipalities. 

■	 The Service does not pay property taxes on land 

they own; thus, county tax revenue would decline. 

■	 Lost property tax revenues are partially replaced 

with Refuge Revenue Sharing payments. 
Appendix A — Environmental Assessment 63 

Chapter 5—Coordination and Environmental Review
 

This chapter describes how the Service coordinated 

with others and conducted environmental reviews of 

various aspects of the project proposal and analysis. 

Additional coordination and review would be needed 

to carry out the proposed action, if selected. 

Agency Coordination 

The Service has discussed the proposed establishment 

of the SCCA with other Federal (USFS, National Park 

Service, BLM, NRCS), State of Colorado (Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Water Conservation 

Board), local county governments, and regional entities (Rio Grande Water Conservation District) through 

a series of meetings and correspondence. Tribes with 

an aboriginal interest in the San Luis Valley and surrounding mountains (Pueblo of Picuris, Cochiti Pueblo, 

Jemez Pueblo, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Nation, 

San Juan Pueblo, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Jemez, 

Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santa 

Ana, Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo 

of Zuni, Southern Ute Tribe, Uintah and Ouray Ute 

Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) were invited to take part or formally consult in the planning 

process. The Service’s regional archaeologist consulted 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer, and was 

intimately involved with the development of this EA. 

Some nongovernmental organizations that are active 

in and around the San Luis Valley were also consulted, 

including Colorado Cattleman’s Agricultural Land 

Trust, Colorado Open Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Rio Grande Headwaters Trust, Orient Land 

Trust, and Colorado Water Trust. 

The Service coordinated internally in the development of this EA as well. Region 6 refuge planning staff 

and San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

staff conducted the analysis and prepared this document, as well as the LPP. An intraservice Endangered 

Species Act section 7 consultation was conducted, and 

resulted in a finding of “May affect but not likely to affect” Endangered Species Act protected or candidate 

species (appendix H). Region 6 Migratory Birds staff 

guided the development of our focal species list, and 

both that office and staff from the Region 6 Fisheries 

offi ce reviewed the document (See appendix A, List 

of Preparers and Reviewers). 

Contaminants and Hazardous 

Waste 

The Service is required to invest in healthy lands. At 

a minimum, a Level I pre-acquisitionsite assessment 

by the USFWS Ecological Services – Colorado Field 

Offi ce or New Mexico Field Offi ce, as proper, would 

be required before acquisition. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

The Service conducted this analysis under the authority of and in compliance with NEPA, which requires 

an evaluation of reasonable alternatives that will meet 

stated objectives, and an assessment of the possible 

effects on the natural and human environment. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This will be the basis for determining whether the implementation of the proposed action would constitute a 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality 

of natural and human environments. It involved other 

government agencies and the public in naming issues 

and alternatives for the proposed project. 

DISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY 

The Service made available the final EA (with the associated LPP in the same volume) to the project mailing list, which includes Federal and State legislative 

delegations; tribes; Federal, State, and local agencies; 

nongovernmental organizations; and interested individuals. Copies can be requested from the USFWS 

Region 6 office. The documents are also available electronically on the refuge planning Web site. 

■	 Project Web site: http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/planning/lpp/index.html 

■ Project email: slvrefugesplanning@fws.gov 

■	 Planning Team Leader:
 

Dr. Mike Dixon
 

Attn: SCCA EA
 

Division of Refuge Planning
 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

303 / 236-8132 

Appendix B 

List of Preparers and Reviewers 

Author’s name Position Work unit 

Mike Blenden project leader USFWS, San Luis Valley NWR Complex, Alamosa, CO 

Mike Dixon land protection planner USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO 

Mark Ely Geographic Information Systems USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO 

specialist 

Meg Estep chief, water resources USFWS, Region 6, Water Resources Division, Lakewood, CO 

Lynne Koontz economist USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Policy and Science 

Analysis Assistance, Fort Collins, CO 

Erik Larsen student intern USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Policy and Science 

Analysis Assistance, Fort Collins, CO 

Leslie Richardson economist USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Policy and Science 

Analysis Assistance, Fort Collins, CO 

Catherine M. Cullinane economist USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Policy and Science 

Thomas Analysis Assistance, Fort Collins, CO 

Meg Van Ness regional archaeologist USFWS, Region 6, Archaeology Division, Alamosa, CO 

Reviewer’s name Position Work unit 

David Lucas chief, refuge Planning USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO 

Brooke McDonald writer–editor North State Resources, Inc., Redding, CA 

Kathryn McDonald managing writer–editor North State Resources, Inc., Redding, CA 

Sue Oliveira chief, realty USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO 

Laurie Shannon conservation planner USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO 

Mitch Werner writer–editor USFWS, Region 6, Planning Division, Lakewood, CO 

Appendix C 

Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 

Sources: Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source, San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Species List, USGS 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, NRCS Plants Database 

* Nonnative (Because of the number of plant species in the project area, introduced plants are not shown) 

Scientific name Common name Status 

Birds 

Recurvirostra americana American avocet 

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern 

Fulica americana American coot 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow 

Cinclus mexicanus American dipper 

Carduelis tristis American goldfi nch 

Pluvialis dominica American golden plover 

Falco sparverius American kestrel 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon 

Anthus rubescens American pipit 

Turdus migratorius American robin 

Spizella arborea American tree sparrow 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican 

Anas americana American wigeon 

Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird 

Gavia arctica Arctic loon 

Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated fl ycatcher 

Calidris bairdii Baird’s sandpiper 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle SC 

Columba fasciata Band-tailed pigeon 

Riparia riparia Bank swallow 

Tyto alba Barn owl 

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow 

Bucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye 

Ceryle alcyon Belted kingfi sher 

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren 

Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe 

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy fi nch 

Cypseloides niger Black swift 

Chlidonias niger Black tern 

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler 

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied plover 

Pica pica Black-billed magpie 

Poecile atricapillus Black-capped chickadee 

Archilochus alexandri Black-chinned hummingbird 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron 

Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-headed grosbeak 

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt 

Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler 

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated blue warbler 

Dendroica nigrescens Black-throated gray warbler 

Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated sparrow 

Guiraca caerulea Blue grosbeak 

Dendragapus obscurus Blue grouse 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay 

Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher 

Anas discors Blue-winged teal 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink 

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian waxwing 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s gull 

Aegolius funereus Boreal owl 

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow 

Selasphorus platycercus Broad-tailed hummingbird 

Certhia americana Brown creeper 

Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher 

Leucosticte australis Brown-capped rosy fi nch 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird 

Bucephala albeola Buffl ehead 

Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl ST 

Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit 

Branta hutchinsii Cackling goose 

Larus californicus California gull 

Stellula calliope Calliope hummingbird 

Branta canadensis Canada goose 

Aythya valisineria Canvasback 

Pipilo fuscus Canyon towhee 

Catherpes mexicanus Canyon wren 

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian tern 

Carpodacus cassinii Cassin’s fi nch 

Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird 

Aimophila cassinii Cassin’s sparrow 

Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing 

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided warbler 

Corvus cryptoleucus Chihuahuan raven 

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow 

Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal 

Aechmophorus clarkii Clark’s grebe 

Nucifraga columbiana Clark’s nutcracker 

68 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Spizella pallida Clay-colored sparrow 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow 

Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye 

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle 

Gavia immer Common loon 

Mergus merganser Common merganser 

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk 

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common poorwill 

Corvus corax Common raven 

Carduelis fl ammea Common redpoll 

Gallinago gallinago Common snipe 

Sterna hirundo Common tern 

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk 

Empidonax occidentalis Cordilleran fl ycatcher 

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco 

Spiza americana Dickcissel 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker 

Empidonax oberholseri Dusky fl ycatcher 

Dendragapus obscurus Dusky grouse 

Podiceps nigricollis Eared grebe 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird 

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared-dove* 

Sturnus vulgaris European starling* 

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening grosbeak 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk SC 

Otus fl ammeolus Flammulated owl 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern 

Passerella iliaca Fox sparrow 

Larus pipixcan Franklin’s gull 

Anas strepera Gadwall 

Callipepla gambelii Gambel’s quail 

Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle 

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned kinglet 

Dendroica graciae Grace’s warbler 

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird 

Empidonax wrightii Gray fl ycatcher 

Perisoreus canadensis Gray jay 

Leucosticte tephrocotis Gray-crowned rosy fi nch 

Ardea herodias Great blue heron 

Ardea alba Great egret 

Bubo virginianus Great horned owl 

Geococcyx californianus Greater roadrunner 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 69 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Grus canadensis tabida Greater sandhill crane SC 

Aythya marila Greater scaup 

Anser albifrons Greater white-fronted goose 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs 

Quiscalus mexicanus Great-tailed grackle 

Butorides virescens Green heron 

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed towhee 

Anas crecca Green-winged teal 

Centrocercus minimus Gunnison sage-grouse SC 

Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker 

Empidonax hammondii Hammond’s fl ycatcher 

Zonotrichia querula Harris’ sparrow 

Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush 

Larus argentatus Herring gull 

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser 

Podiceps auritus Horned grebe 

Eremophila alpestris Horned lark 

Carpodacus mexicanus House fi nch 

Passer domesticus House sparrow* 

Troglodytes aedon House wren 

Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting 

Baeolophus griseus Juniper titmouse 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer 

Calcarius lapponicus Lapland longspur 

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark bunting 

Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow 

Passerina amoena Lazuli bunting 

Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern 

Empidonax minimus Least fl ycatcher 

Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper 

Sternula antillarum Least tern FE, SE 

Carduelis psaltria Lesser goldfi nch 

Aythya affi nis Lesser scaup 

Tringa fl avipes Lesser yellowlegs 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker 

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow 

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike 

Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew SC 

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher 

Asio otus Long-eared owl 

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler 

Eugenes fulgens Magnifi cent hummingbird 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 

Limosa fedoa Marbled godwit 

Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren 

70 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Falco columbarius Merlin 

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl FT, ST 

Sialia currucoides Mountain bluebird 

Poecile gambeli Mountain chickadee 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover SC 

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove 

Vermivora rufi capilla Nashville warbler 

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal 

Colaptes auratus Northern fl icker 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk 

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier 

Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird 

Parula americana Northern parula 

Anas acuta Northern pintail 

Glaucidium gnoma Northern pygmy-owl 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow 

Aegolius acadicus Northern saw-whet owl 

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler 

Lanius excubitor Northern shrike 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush 

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided fl ycatcher 

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey 

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird 

Gavia pacifi ca Pacifi c loon 

Calidris melanotos Pectoral sandpiper 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon SC 

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe 

Pinicola enucleator Pine grosbeak 

Carduelis pinus Pine siskin 

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon jay 

Vireo plumbeus Plumbeous vireo 

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon 

Porphyrio martinica Purple gallinule 

Progne subis Purple martin 

Sitta pygmaea Pygmy nuthatch 

Loxia curvirostra Red crossbill 

Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser 

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted nuthatch 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo 

Aythya americana Redhead 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed woodpecker 

Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped sapsucker 

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 71 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull 

Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck 

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant* 

Columba livia Rock pigeon* 

Salpinctes obsoletus Rock wren 

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted grosbeak 

Chen rossii Ross’ goose 

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged hawk 

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet 

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck 

Selasphorus rufus Rufous hummingbird 

Aimophila rufi ceps Rufous-crowned sparrow 

Xema sabini Sabine’s gull 

Centrocercus urophasianus Sage-grouse 

Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow 

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher 

Calidris alba Sanderling 

Grus canadensis Sandhill crane 

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow 

Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe 

Tyrannus forfi catus Scissor-tailed fl ycatcher 

Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren 

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated plover 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk 

Limnodromus griseus Short-billed dowitcher 

Asio fl ammeus Short-eared owl 

Chen caerulescens Snow goose 

Egretta thula Snowy egret 

Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy plover SC 

Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper 

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow 

Porzana carolina Sora 

Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow fl ycatcher FE, SE 

Strix occidentalis Spotted owl 

Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper 

Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee 

Cyanocitta stelleri Steller’s jay 

Calidris himantopus Stilt sandpiper 

Melanitta perspicillata Surf scoter 

Piranga rubra Summer tanager 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush 

Melospiza georgiana Swamp sparrow 

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler 

Picoides tridactylus Three-toed woodpecker 

72 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Myadestes townsendi Townsend’s solitaire 

Dendroica townsendi Townsend’s warbler 

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow 

Cygnus columbianus Tundra swan 

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture 

Ixoreus naevius Varied thrush 

Catharus fuscescens Veery 

Pyrocephalus rubinus Vermilion fl ycatcher 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow 

Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green swallow 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail 

Vermivora virginiae Virginia’s warbler 

Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo 

Sialia mexicana Western bluebird 

Athene cunicularia Western burrowing owl 

Aechmophorus occidentalis Western grebe 

Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird 

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark 

Calidris mauri Western sandpiper 

Otus kennicottii Western screech-owl 

Aphelocoma californica Western scrub jay 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover 

Piranga ludoviciana Western tanager 

Contopus sordidulus Western wood-pewee 

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel 

Eudocimus albus White ibis 

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted nuthatch 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis 

Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped sandpiper 

Lagopus leucurus White-tailed ptarmigan 

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated sparrow 

Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated swift 

Loxia leucoptera White-winged crossbill 

Melanitta fusca White-winged scoter 

Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey 

Grus americana Whooping crane FE, SE 

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet 

Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker 

Empidonax traillii Willow fl ycatcher 

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s phalarope 

Gallinago delicata Wilson’s snipe 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler 

Aix sponsa Wood duck 

Helmitheros vermivorum Worm-eating warbler 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood thrush 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 73 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler 

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo SC 

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Yellow-headed blackbird 

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas boreas Boreal toad SE 

Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog* 

Hyla arenicolor Canyon treefrog 

Bufo cognatus Great Plains toad 

Spea multiplicata New Mexico spadefoot 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog SC 

Spea bombifrons Plains spadefoot 

Ambystoma tigrinum Tiger salamander 

Pseudacris triseriata Western chorus frog 

Bufo woodhousii Woodhouse’s toad 

Mammals 

Sciurus aberti Abert’s squirrel 

Taxidea taxus American badger 

Castor canadensis American beaver 

Cervus elaphus American elk 

Martes americana American marten 

Ochotona princeps American pika 

Eptesicus fuscus Big brown bat 

Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep 

Ursus americanus Black bear 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret FE, SE 

Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit 

Lynx rufus Bobcat 

Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher SC 

Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat 

Neotoma cinerea Bushy-tailed woodrat 

Tamias quadrivittatus Colorado chipmunk 

Conepatus mesoleucus Common hog-nosed skunk 

Ondatra zibethicus Common muskrat 

Erethizon dorsatum Common porcupine 

Canis latrans Coyote 

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer mouse 

Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail 

Mustela erminea Ermine 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis 

Spermophilus lateralis Golden-mantled ground squirrel 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox 

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog 

Phenacomys intermedius Heather vole 

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat 

74 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Mus musculus House mouse* 

Tamias minimus Least chipmunk 

Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis 

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis 

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed vole 

Mustela frenata Long-tailed weasel 

Lynx canadensis Lynx FT, SE 

Sorex cinereus Masked shrew 

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow vole 

Neotoma mexicana Mexican woodrat 

Mustela vison Mink 

Sorex monticolus Montane shrew 

Microtus montanus Montane vole 

Alces alces Moose 

Sylvilagus nuttallii Mountain cottontail 

Oreamnos americanus Mountain goat 

Felis concolor Mountain lion 

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer 

Onychomys leucogaster Northern grasshopper mouse 

Thomomys talpoides Northern pocket gopher SC 

Lutra canadensis Northern river otter 

Peromyscus nasutus Northern rock mouse 

Dipodomys ordii Ord’s kangaroo rat 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Pine squirrel 

Perognathus fl avescens Plains pocket mouse 

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn 

Procyon lotor Raccoon 

Vulpes vulpes Red fox 

Bassariscus astutus Ringtail 

Perognathus fl avus Silky pocket mouse 

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat 

Lepus americanus Snowshoe hare 

Clethrionomys gapperi Southern red-backed vole 

Mephitis mephitis Striped skunk 

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Thirteen-lined ground squirrel 

Plecotus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat SC 

Sorex palustris Water shrew 

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western harvest mouse 

Zapus princeps Western jumping mouse 

Myotis ciliolabrum Western small-footed myotis 

Spilogale gracilis Western spotted skunk 

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer 

Lepus townsendii White-tailed jackrabbit 

Gulo gulo Wolverine SE 

Spermophilus elegans Wyoming ground squirrel 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 75 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Marmota fl aviventris Yellow-bellied marmot 

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis 

Reptiles 

Sceloporus undulatus Fence lizard 

Pituophis catenifer Gopher snake 

Eumeces multivirgatus Many-lined skink 

Crotalus viridis concolor Midget faded rattlesnake SC 

Lampropeltis triangulum Milk snake 

Phrynosoma hernandesi Short-horned lizard 

Liochlorophis vernalis Smooth green snake 

Eumeces gaigeae Variable skink 

Crotalus viridis Western rattlesnake 

Thamnophis elegans Western terrestrial garter snake 

Fish 

Anguilla rostrata American eel* 

Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* 

Ameiurus melas Black bullhead 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie* 

Gymnocorymbus ternetzi Black tetra* 

Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfi sh* 

Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* 

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill* 

Culaea inconstans Brook stickleback* 

Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* 

Salmo trutta Brown trout* 

Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfi sh* 

Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat* 

Cyprinus carpio Common carp* 

Corydoras sp. Corydoras catfi sh* 

Oncorhynchus clarkii x mykiss Cutbow trout (hybrid)* 

Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 

Oncorhynchus clarkii carmichaeli Fine-spotted Snake River cutthroat* 

Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfi sh* 

Platygobio gracilis Flathead chub* 

Pterophyllum sp. Freshwater angelfi sh* 

Oncorhynchus aguabonita Golden trout* 

Carassius auratus Goldfi sh* 

Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp* 

Xiphophorus hellerii Green swordtail* 

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfi sh 

Poecilia reticulata Guppy* 

Hemigrammus ocellifer Head-and-taillight tetra* 

Oncorhynchus nerka Kokanee* 

Salvelinus namaycush Lake trout* 

Salmo salar sebago Landlocked Atlantic salmon* 

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass* 

76 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Rhinichthys cataractae Long-nose dace 

Catostomus catostomus Longnose sucker* 

Cottus bairdii Mottled sculpin* 

Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia* 

Paracheirodon innesi Neon tetra* 

Esox lucius Northern pike* 

Fundulus zebrinus Plains killifi sh* 

Fundulus sciadicus Plains topminnow* 

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed* 

Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout* 

Symphysodon discus Red discus* 

Gila pandora Rio Grande chub SC 

Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis Rio Grande cutthroat trout SC; Candidate 

Catostomus plebeius Rio Grande sucker SE 

Poecilia latipinna Sailfi n molly* 

Poecilia mexicana Shortfi n molly* 

Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass* 

Xiphophorus maculatus Southern platyfi sh* 

Hypostomus sp. Suckermouth catfi sh* 

Otocinclus sp. Suckermouth catfi sh* 

Tinca tinca Tench* 

Dorosoma petenense Threadfi n shad* 

Xiphophorus variatus Variable platyfi sh* 

Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus Vermiculated sailfi n* 

Sander vitreus Walleye* 

Lepomis gulosus Warmouth* 

Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi West slope cutthroat* 

Gambusia affi nis Western mosquitofi sh* 

Catostomus commersonii White sucker* 

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead* 

Perca fl avescens Yellow perch* 

Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri Yellowstone cutthroat* 

Plants 

Abies concolor White fi r 

Abies lasiocarpa Subalpine fi r 

Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica Corkbark fi r 

Abies lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa Subalpine fi r 

Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain maple 

Achillea millefolium Common yarrow 

Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis Western yarrow 

Achnatherum ×bloomeri 

Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass 

Achnatherum lettermanii Letterman’s needlegrass 

Achnatherum nelsonii Columbia needlegrass 

Achnatherum nelsonii ssp. nelsonii Columbia needlegrass 

Achnatherum robustum Sleepygrass 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 77 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Achnatherum scribneri Scribner needlegrass 

Aconitum columbianum Columbian monkshood 

Aconitum columbianum ssp. columbianum Columbian monkshood 

Acroptilon repens Hardheads 

Actaea rubra Red baneberry 

Actaea rubra ssp. arguta Red baneberry 

Adoxa moschatellina Muskroot 

Agastache pallidifl ora Bill Williams Mountain giant hyssop 

Agastache pallidifl ora ssp. pallidifl ora Bill Williams Mountain giant hyssop 

Agastache pallidifl ora ssp. pallidifl ora var. greenei Bill Williams Mountain giant hyssop 

Agoseris aurantiaca Orange agoseris 

Agoseris glauca Pale agoseris 

Agrostis exarata Spike bentgrass 

Agrostis gigantea Redtop 

Agrostis humilis Alpine bentgrass 

Agrostis scabra Rough bentgrass 

Agrostis variabilis Mountain bentgrass 

Aletes anisatus Rocky Mountain Indian parsley 

Aliciella pinnatifi da Sticky gilia 

Alisma gramineum Narrowleaf water plantain 

Alisma triviale Northern water plantain 

Allium cernuum Nodding onion 

Allium geyeri Geyer’s onion 

Allium geyeri var. tenerum Bulbil onion 

Almutaster paucifl orus Alkali marsh aster 

Alnus incana Gray alder 

Alnus incana ssp. tenuifolia Thinleaf alder 

Alopecurus aequalis Shortawn foxtail 

Alopecurus aequalis var. aequalis Shortawn foxtail 

Alopecurus alpinus Boreal alopecurus 

Alyssum simplex Alyssum 

Amaranthus albus Prostrate pigweed 

Amaranthus blitoides Mat amaranth 

Amaranthus retrofl exus Redroot amaranth 

Ambrosia acanthicarpa Flatspine bur ragweed 

Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry 

Amelanchier alnifolia var. alnifolia Saskatoon serviceberry 

Amelanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry 

Amelanchier utahensis var. utahensis Utah serviceberry 

Anaphalis margaritacea Western pearly everlasting 

Androsace chamaejasme Sweetfl ower rockjasmine 

Androsace chamaejasme ssp. carinata Sweetfl ower rockjasmine 

Androsace occidentalis Western rockjasmine 

Androsace septentrionalis Pygmyfl ower rockjasmine 

Anemone canadensis Canadian anemone 

Anemone multifi da Pacifi c anemone 

78 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Angelica ampla Giant angelica 

Angelica grayi Gray’s angelica 

Antennaria anaphaloides Pearly pussytoes 

Antennaria corymbosa Flat-top pussytoes 

Antennaria marginata Whitemargin pussytoes 

Antennaria media Rocky Mountain pussytoes 

Antennaria microphylla Littleleaf pussytoes 

Antennaria parvifolia Small-leaf pussytoes 

Antennaria rosea Rosy pussytoes 

Antennaria rosulata Kaibab pussytoes 

Antennaria umbrinella Umber pussytoes 

Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane 

Apocynum cannabinum Indianhemp 

Aquilegia coerulea Colorado blue columbine 

Aquilegia elegantula Western red columbine 

Arabis ×divaricarpa Spreadingpod rockcress 

Arabis drummondii Drummond’s rockcress 

Arabis fendleri Fendler’s rockcress 

Arabis fendleri var. fendleri Fendler’s rockcress 

Arabis gunnisoniana Gunnison’s rockcress 

Arabis hirsuta Hairy rockcress 

Arabis hirsuta var. pycnocarpa Creamfl ower rockcress 

Arabis holboellii Holboell’s rockcress 

Arabis holboellii var. pinetorum Holboell’s rockcress 

Arabis lignifera Desert rockcress 

Arabis oxylobula Glenwood Springs rockcress 

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick 

Arenaria fendleri Fendler’s sandwort 

Arenaria fendleri var. fendleri Fendler’s sandwort 

Arenaria hookeri Hooker’s sandwort 

Arenaria hookeri ssp. hookeri Hooker’s sandwort 

Arenaria lanuginosa Spreading sandwort 

Arenaria lanuginosa ssp. saxosa Spreading sandwort 

Argentina anserina Silverweed cinquefoil 

Argyrochosma fendleri Fendler’s false cloak fern 

Aristida purpurea Purple threeawn 

Aristida purpurea var. longiseta Fendler threeawn 

Aristida purpurea var. purpurea Purple threeawn 

Arnica chamissonis Chamisso arnica 

Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa Chamisso arnica 

Arnica chamissonis ssp. foliosa var. andina Chamisso arnica 

Arnica cordifolia Heartleaf arnica 

Arnica mollis Hairy arnica 

Artemisia biennis Biennial wormwood 

Artemisia biennis var. biennis Biennial wormwood 

Artemisia bigelovii Bigelow sage 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 79 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Artemisia campestris Field sagewort 

Artemisia campestris ssp. borealis Field sagewort 

Artemisia campestris ssp. borealis var. borealis Field sagewort 

Artemisia campestris ssp. borealis var. scouleriana Field sagewort 

Artemisia campestris ssp. caudata Field sagewort 

Artemisia cana Silver sagebrush 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana Silver sagebrush 

Artemisia carruthii Carruth’s sagewort 

Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon 

Artemisia franserioides Ragweed sagebrush 

Artemisia frigida Prairie sagewort 

Artemisia longifolia Longleaf wormwood 

Artemisia ludoviciana White sagebrush 

Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. albula White sagebrush 

Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. incompta White sagebrush 

Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. ludoviciana White sagebrush 

Artemisia michauxiana Michaux’s wormwood 

Artemisia parryi Parry’s wormwood 

Artemisia scopulorum Alpine sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Basin big sagebrush 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush 

Asclepias hallii Hall’s milkweed 

Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed 

Asparagus offi cinalis Garden asparagus 

Asplenium septentrionale Forked spleenwort 

Aster alpinus Alpine aster 

Aster alpinus var. vierhapperi Vierhapper’s aster 

Astragalus agrestis Purple milkvetch 

Astragalus allochrous Halfmoon milkvetch 

Astragalus allochrous var. playanus Halfmoon milkvetch 

Astragalus alpinus Alpine milkvetch 

Astragalus alpinus var. alpinus Alpine milkvetch 

Astragalus bisulcatus Twogrooved milkvetch 

Astragalus bodinii Bodin’s milkvetch 

Astragalus brandegeei Brandegee’s milkvetch 

Astragalus ceramicus Painted milkvetch 

Astragalus ceramicus var. ceramicus Painted milkvetch 

Astragalus cerussatus Powdery milkvetch 

Astragalus crassicarpus Groundplum milkvetch 

Astragalus crassicarpus var. crassicarpus Groundplum milkvetch 

Astragalus drummondii Drummond’s milkvetch 

Astragalus fl exuosus Flexile milkvetch 

Astragalus fl exuosus var. fl exuosus Flexile milkvetch 

Astragalus hallii Hall’s milkvetch 

Astragalus hallii var. hallii Hall’s milkvetch 

80 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Astragalus kentrophyta Spiny milkvetch 

Astragalus kentrophyta var. tegetarius Mat milkvetch 

Astragalus laxmannii Laxmann’s milkvetch 

Astragalus laxmannii var. robustior Prairie milkvetch 

Astragalus miser Timber milkvetch 

Astragalus miser var. oblongifolius Timber milkvetch 

Astragalus pattersonii Patterson’s milkvetch 

Astragalus ripleyi Ripley’s milkvetch 

Astragalus scopulorum Rocky Mountain milkvetch 

Astragalus tenellus Loosefl ower milkvetch 

Atriplex ×aptera Moundscale 

Atriplex argentea Silverscale saltbush 

Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush 

Atriplex canescens var. canescens Fourwing saltbush 

Atriplex patula Spear saltbush 

Atriplex rosea Tumbling saltweed 

Atriplex truncata Wedgescale saltbush 

Atriplex wolfi i Wolf’s saltweed 

Bahia dissecta Ragleaf bahia 

Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot 

Bassia hyssopifolia Fivehorn smotherweed 

Bassia scoparia Burningbush 

Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass 

Berberis fendleri Colorado barberry 

Besseya alpina Alpine besseya 

Besseya plantaginea White River coraldrops 

Betula occidentalis Water birch 

Bidens cernua Nodding beggartick 

Bidens frondosa Devil’s beggartick 

Bidens tenuisecta Slimlobe beggarticks 

Bidens vulgata Big devils beggartick 

Blepharoneuron tricholepis Pine dropseed 

Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort 

Botrychium pinnatum Northern moonwort 

Botrychium simplex Little grapefern 

Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama 

Bouteloua simplex Matted grama 

Brassica juncea India mustard 

Brassica napus Rape 

Brickellia eupatorioides False boneset 

Brickellia eupatorioides var. chlorolepis False boneset 

Brickellia grandifl ora Tasselfl ower brickellbush 

Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome 

Bromus ciliatus var. ciliatus Fringed brome 

Bromus inermis Smooth brome 

Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Smooth brome 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 81 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Bromus inermis ssp. inermis var. inermis Smooth brome 

Bromus lanatipes Woolly brome 

Bromus porteri Porter brome 

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass 

Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint 

Calamagrostis purpurascens Purple reedgrass 

Calamagrostis purpurascens var. purpurascens Purple reedgrass 

Calamagrostis stricta Slimstem reedgrass 

Callitriche palustris Vernal water-starwort 

Calochortus gunnisonii Gunnison’s mariposa lily 

Calochortus gunnisonii var. gunnisonii Gunnison’s mariposa lily 

Caltha leptosepala White marsh marigold 

Caltha leptosepala ssp. leptosepala White marsh marigold 

Caltha leptosepala ssp. leptosepala var. leptosepala White marsh marigold 

Camelina microcarpa Littlepod false fl ax 

Campanula parryi Parry’s bellfl ower 

Campanula parryi var. parryi Parry’s bellfl ower 

Campanula rotundifolia Bluebell bellfl ower 

Campanula unifl ora Arctic bellfl ower 

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse 

Cardamine cordifolia Heartleaf bittercress 

Cardamine cordifolia var. incana Heartleaf bittercress 

Cardaria chalepensis Lenspod whitetop 

Cardaria draba Whitetop 

Cardaria pubescens Hairy whitetop 

Carex albonigra Blackandwhite sedge 

Carex aquatilis Water sedge 

Carex aquatilis var. aquatilis Water sedge 

Carex atherodes Wheat sedge 

Carex aurea Golden sedge 

Carex bella Southwestern showy sedge 

Carex brunnescens Brownish sedge 

Carex brunnescens ssp. sphaerostachya Brownish sedge 

Carex canescens Silvery sedge 

Carex canescens ssp. canescens Silvery sedge 

Carex diandra Lesser panicled sedge 

Carex disperma Softleaf sedge 

Carex douglasii Douglas’ sedge 

Carex duriuscula Needleleaf sedge 

Carex ebenea Ebony sedge 

Carex elynoides Blackroot sedge 

Carex geophila White Mountain sedge 

Carex geyeri Geyer’s sedge 

Carex hallii Deer sedge 

Carex haydeniana Cloud sedge 

Carex heteroneura Different-nerve sedge 

82 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Carex heteroneura var. brevisquama Different-nerve sedge 

Carex heteroneura var. chalciolepis Holm sedge 

Carex inops Long-stolon sedge 

Carex inops ssp. heliophila Sun sedge 

Carex microptera Smallwing sedge 

Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge 

Carex nelsonii Nelson’s sedge 

Carex nigricans Black alpine sedge 

Carex norvegica Norway sedge 

Carex norvegica ssp. stevenii Steven’s sedge 

Carex nova Black sedge 

Carex obtusata Obtuse sedge 

Carex occidentalis Western sedge 

Carex parryana Parry’s sedge 

Carex parryana var. parryana Parry’s sedge 

Carex pellita Woolly sedge 

Carex perglobosa Globe sedge 

Carex phaeocephala Dunhead sedge 

Carex praegracilis Clustered fi eld sedge 

Carex praticola Meadow sedge 

Carex pyrenaica Pyrenean sedge 

Carex pyrenaica ssp. pyrenaica Pyrenean sedge 

Carex scopulorum Mountain sedge 

Carex siccata Dryspike sedge 

Carex simulata Analogue sedge 

Carex utriculata Northwest Territory sedge 

Carex vernacula Native sedge 

Carex vesicaria Blister sedge 

Carex vesicaria var. vesicaria Blister sedge 

Carum carvi Caraway 

Castilleja fl ava Yellow Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja fl ava var. fl ava Yellow Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja haydenii Hayden’s Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja integra Wholeleaf Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja integra var. integra Wholeleaf Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja linariifolia Wyoming Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja miniata Giant red Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja miniata ssp. miniata Giant red Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja occidentalis Western Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja rhexiifolia Splitleaf Indian paintbrush 

Castilleja sulphurea Sulphur Indian paintbrush 

Ceanothus fendleri Fendler’s ceanothus 

Ceanothus velutinus Snowbrush ceanothus 

Ceanothus velutinus var. velutinus Snowbrush ceanothus 

Cerastium arvense Field chickweed 

Cerastium arvense ssp. strictum Feld chickweed 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 83 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Cerastium beeringianum Bering chickweed 

Cerastium beeringianum ssp. earlei Bering chickweed 

Cercocarpus montanus Alderleaf mountain mahogany 

Chaenactis douglasii Douglas’ dustymaiden 

Chaenactis douglasii var. alpina Alpine dustymaiden 

Chaetopappa ericoides Rose heath 

Chamaerhodos erecta Little rose 

Chamaerhodos erecta ssp. nuttallii Nuttall’s little rose 

Chamaesyce serpyllifolia Thymeleaf sandmat 

Chamaesyce serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia Thymeleaf sandmat 

Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed 

Chamerion angustifolium ssp. circumvagum Fireweed 

Cheilanthes feei Slender lipfern 

Cheilanthes fendleri Fendler’s lipfern 

Chenopodium album Lambsquarters 

Chenopodium atrovirens Pinyon goosefoot 

Chenopodium berlandieri Pitseed goosefoot 

Chenopodium botrys Jerusalem oak goosefoot 

Chenopodium desiccatum Aridland goosefoot 

Chenopodium foliosum Leafy goosefoot 

Chenopodium fremontii Fremont’s goosefoot 

Chenopodium fremontii var. fremontii Fremont’s goosefoot 

Chenopodium glaucum Oakleaf goosefoot 

Chenopodium graveolens Fetid goosefoot 

Chenopodium leptophyllum Narrowleaf goosefoot 

Chenopodium pratericola Desert goosefoot 

Chenopodium rubrum Red goosefoot 

Chenopodium watsonii Watson’s goosefoot 

Chionophila jamesii Rocky Mountain snowlover 

Chrysothamnus greenei Greene’s rabbitbrush 

Chrysothamnus vaseyi Vasey’s rabbitbrush 

Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus Yellow rabbitbrush 

Chrysothamnus viscidifl orus ssp. lanceolatus Yellow rabbitbrush 

Cicuta maculata Spotted water hemlock 

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 

Cirsium canescens Prairie thistle 

Cirsium centaureae Fringed thistle 

Cirsium ochrocentrum Yellowspine thistle 

Cirsium ochrocentrum ssp. ochrocentrum Yellowspine thistle 

Cirsium pallidum Pale thistle 

Cirsium parryi Parry’s thistle 

Cirsium parryi ssp. parryi Parry’s thistle 

Cirsium scariosum Meadow thistle 

Cirsium scopulorum Mountain thistle 

Claytonia megarhiza Alpine springbeauty 

Claytonia megarhiza var. megarhiza Alpine springbeauty 

84 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Clematis columbiana Rock clematis 

Clematis columbiana var. columbiana Rock clematis 

Clematis hirsutissima Hairy clematis 

Clematis hirsutissima var. scottii Scott’s clematis 

Clematis ligusticifolia Western white clematis 

Clematis ligusticifolia var. ligusticifolia Western white clematis 

Cleome multicaulis Slender spiderfl ower 

Cleome serrulata Rocky Mountain beeplant 

Collomia linearis Tiny trumpet 

Comandra umbellata Bastard toadfl ax 

Comandra umbellata ssp. pallida Pale bastard toadfl ax 

Comarum palustre Purple marshlocks 

Conioselinum scopulorum Rocky Mountain hemlockparsley 

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed 

Conyza canadensis Canadian horseweed 

Corallorhiza maculata Summer coralroot 

Corallorhiza striata Hooded coralroot 

Corallorhiza trifi da Yellow coralroot 

Coreopsis tinctoria Golden tickseed 

Coreopsis tinctoria var. tinctoria Golden tickseed 

Corispermum americanum American bugseed 

Corispermum americanum var. rydbergii American bugseed 

Corispermum villosum Hairy bugseed 

Cornus canadensis Bunchberry dogwood 

Cornus sericea Redosier dogwood 

Cornus sericea ssp. sericea Redosier dogwood 

Corydalis aurea Scrambled eggs 

Corydalis caseana Sierra fumewort 

Corydalis caseana ssp. brandegeei Brandegee’s fumewort 

Corydalis curvisiliqua Curvepod fumewort 

Corydalis curvisiliqua ssp. occidentalis Curvepod fumewort 

Crataegus rivularis River hawthorn 

Crepis occidentalis Largefl ower hawksbeard 

Crepis occidentalis ssp. occidentalis Largefl ower hawksbeard 

Crepis runcinata Fiddleleaf hawksbeard 

Crepis runcinata ssp. runcinata Fiddleleaf hawksbeard 

Cryptantha bakeri Baker’s cryptantha 

Cryptantha cinerea James’ cryptantha 

Cryptantha cinerea var. jamesii James’ cryptantha 

Cryptantha cinerea var. pustulosa James’ cryptantha 

Cryptantha fendleri Sanddune cryptantha 

Cryptantha minima Little cryptantha 

Cryptantha weberi Weber’s cryptantha 

Cryptogramma acrostichoides American rockbrake 

Cycloloma atriplicifolium Winged pigweed 

Cymopterus acaulis Plains springparsley 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 85 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Cymopterus montanus Mountain springparsley 

Cynoglossum offi cinale Gypsyfl ower 

Cyperus squarrosus Bearded fl atsedge 

Cystopteris fragilis Brittle bladderfern 

Cystopteris reevesiana Reeves’ bladderfern 

Dalea leporina Foxtail prairie clover 

Danthonia californica California oatgrass 

Danthonia intermedia Timber oatgrass 

Danthonia parryi Parry’s oatgrass 

Dasiphora fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil 

Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. fl oribunda Shrubby cinquefoil 

Delphinium alpestre Colorado larkspur 

Delphinium barbeyi Subalpine larkspur 

Delphinium nuttallianum Twolobe larkspur 

Delphinium ramosum Mountain larkspur 

Delphinium robustum Wahatoya Creek larkspur 

Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hairgrass 

Descurainia incana Mountain tansymustard 

Descurainia incana ssp. incisa Mountain tansymustard 

Descurainia incana ssp. viscosa Mountain tansymustard 

Descurainia pinnata Western tansymustard 

Descurainia pinnata ssp. fi lipes Western tansymustard 

Descurainia ramosissima Villa Grove tansymustard 

Distichlis spicata Saltgrass 

Dodecatheon pulchellum Darkthroat shootingstar 

Dodecatheon pulchellum ssp. pulchellum Darkthroat shootingstar 

Draba aurea Golden draba 

Draba crassa Thickleaf draba 

Draba crassifolia Snowbed draba 

Draba fl adnizensis Austrian draba 

Draba grayana Gray’s draba 

Draba helleriana Heller’s draba 

Draba helleriana var. helleriana Heller’s draba 

Draba rectifructa Mountain draba 

Draba smithii Smith’s draba 

Draba spectabilis Showy draba 

Draba streptobrachia Alpine tundra draba 

Draba streptocarpa Pretty draba 

Dracocephalum parvifl orum American dragonhead 

Dryas octopetala Eightpetal mountain-avens 

Dryas octopetala ssp. hookeriana Hooker’s mountain-avens 

Dryopteris fi lix-mas Male fern 

Dyssodia papposa Fetid marigold 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus Kingcup cactus 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. triglochidiatus Kingcup cactus 

Echinocereus viridifl orus Nylon hedgehog cactus 

86 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Echinocereus viridifl orus var. viridifl orus Nylon hedgehog cactus 

Echinochloa crus-galli Barnyardgrass 

Echinocystis lobata Wild cucumber 

Elaeagnus commutata Silverberry 

Eleocharis acicularis Needle spikerush 

Eleocharis palustris Common spikerush 

Eleocharis palustris var. palustris Common spikerush 

Eleocharis quinquefl ora Fewfl ower spikerush 

×Elyhordeum macounii Macoun’s barley 

Elymus canadensis Canada wildrye 

Elymus elymoides Squirreltail 

Elymus elymoides ssp. brevifolius Squirreltail 

Elymus lanceolatus Thickspike wheatgrass 

Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Thickspike wheatgrass 

Elymus repens Quackgrass 

Elymus scribneri Spreading wheatgrass 

Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass 

Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass 

Epilobium brachycarpum Tall annual willowherb 

Epilobium ciliatum Fringed willowherb 

Epilobium ciliatum ssp. glandulosum Fringed willowherb 

Epilobium halleanum Glandular willowherb 

Epilobium hornemannii Hornemann’s willowherb 

Epilobium hornemannii ssp. hornemannii Hornemann’s willowherb 

Epilobium saximontanum Rocky Mountain willowherb 

Equisetum arvense Field horsetail 

Equisetum hyemale Scouringrush horsetail 

Equisetum hyemale var. affi ne Scouringrush horsetail 

Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail 

Equisetum pratense Meadow horsetail 

Equisetum variegatum Variegated scouringrush 

Equisetum variegatum var. variegatum Variegated scouringrush 

Eragrostis pilosa Indian lovegrass 

Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. consimilis Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. consimilis var. oreophila Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. bigelovii Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. glabrata Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush 

Ericameria parryi Parry’s rabbitbrush 

Ericameria parryi var. affi nis Parry’s rabbitbrush 

Ericameria parryi var. parryi Parry’s rabbitbrush 

Erigeron acris Bitter fl eabane 

Erigeron acris ssp. debilis Bitter fl eabane 

Erigeron acris ssp. politus Bitter fl eabane 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 87 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Erigeron canus Hoary fl eabane 

Erigeron colomexicanus Running fl eabane 

Erigeron compositus Cutleaf daisy 

Erigeron coulteri Large mountain fl eabane 

Erigeron divergens Spreading fl eabane 

Erigeron elatior Tall fl eabane 

Erigeron engelmannii Engelmann’s fl eabane 

Erigeron engelmannii var. engelmannii Engelmann’s fl eabane 

Erigeron eximius Sprucefi r fl eabane 

Erigeron fl agellaris Trailing fl eabane 

Erigeron formosissimus Beautiful fl eabane 

Erigeron glabellus Streamside fl eabane 

Erigeron leiomerus Rockslide yellow fl eabane 

Erigeron lonchophyllus Shortray fl eabane 

Erigeron melanocephalus Blackhead fl eabane 

Erigeron peregrinus Subalpine fl eabane 

Erigeron peregrinus ssp. callianthemus Subalpine fl eabane 

Erigeron peregrinus ssp. callianthemus var. callianthemus Subalpine fl eabane 

Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fl eabane 

Erigeron philadelphicus var. philadelphicus Philadelphia fl eabane 

Erigeron pinnatisectus Featherleaf fl eabane 

Erigeron pumilus Shaggy fl eabane 

Erigeron pumilus ssp. pumilus Shaggy fl eabane 

Erigeron simplex Onestem fl eabane 

Erigeron speciosus Aspen fl eabane 

Erigeron speciosus var. speciosus Aspen fl eabane 

Erigeron subtrinervis Threenerve fl eabane 

Erigeron subtrinervis var. subtrinervis Threenerve fl eabane 

Erigeron ursinus Bear River fl eabane 

Erigeron vetensis Early bluetop fl eabane 

Erigeron vreelandii Vreeland’s erigeron 

Eriodictyon angustifolium Narrowleaf yerba santa 

Eriogonum alatum Winged buckwheat 

Eriogonum alatum var. alatum Winged buckwheat 

Eriogonum cernuum Nodding buckwheat 

Eriogonum cernuum var. cernuum Nodding buckwheat 

Eriogonum coloradense Colorado buckwheat 

Eriogonum effusum Spreading buckwheat 

Eriogonum effusum var. effusum Spreading buckwheat 

Eriogonum jamesii James’ buckwheat 

Eriogonum jamesii var. fl avescens James’ buckwheat 

Eriogonum jamesii var. jamesii James’ buckwheat 

Eriogonum jamesii var. xanthum James’ buckwheat 

Eriogonum lachnogynum Woollycup buckwheat 

Eriogonum microthecum Slender buckwheat 

Eriogonum racemosum Redroot buckwheat 

88 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Eriogonum umbellatum Sulphur-fl ower buckwheat 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. aureum Sulphur-fl ower buckwheat 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. majus Sulphur-fl ower buckwheat 

Eriogonum umbellatum var. umbellatum Sulphur-fl ower buckwheat 

Eriophorum angustifolium Tall cottongrass 

Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. angustifolium Tall cottongrass 

Eritrichium nanum Arctic alpine forget-me-not 

Erysimum capitatum Sanddune wallfl ower 

Erysimum capitatum var. capitatum Sanddune wallfl ower 

Erysimum cheiranthoides Wormseed wallfl ower 

Erysimum inconspicuum Shy wallfl ower 

Erysimum inconspicuum var. inconspicuum Shy wallfl ower 

Escobaria vivipara Spinystar 

Escobaria vivipara var. vivipara Spinystar 

Euphorbia brachycera Horned spurge 

Euthamia graminifolia Flat-top goldentop 

Euthamia graminifolia var. graminifolia Flat-top goldentop 

Euthamia occidentalis Western goldentop 

Fallugia paradoxa Apache plume 

Festuca arizonica Arizona fescue 

Festuca brachyphylla Alpine fescue 

Festuca brachyphylla ssp. coloradensis Colorado fescue 

Festuca earlei Earle’s fescue 

Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue 

Festuca idahoensis ssp. idahoensis Idaho fescue 

Festuca minutifl ora Smallfl ower fescue 

Festuca rubra Red fescue 

Festuca saximontana Rocky Mountain fescue 

Festuca sororia Ravine fescue 

Festuca thurberi Thurber’s fescue 

Fragaria vesca Woodland strawberry 

Fragaria vesca ssp. bracteata Woodland strawberry 

Fragaria virginiana Virginia strawberry 

Fragaria virginiana ssp. glauca Virginia strawberry 

Frasera speciosa Elkweed 

Gaillardia aristata Blanketfl ower 

Galium boreale Northern bedstraw 

Galium trifi dum Threepetal bedstraw 

Galium trifi dum ssp. subbifl orum Threepetal bedstraw 

Gaura coccinea Scarlet beeblossom 

Gayophytum diffusum Spreading groundsmoke 

Gayophytum diffusum ssp. parvifl orum Spreading groundsmoke 

Gayophytum ramosissimum Pinyon groundsmoke 

Gentiana affi nis Pleated gentian 

Gentiana algida Whitish gentian 

Gentiana fremontii Moss gentian 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 89 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Gentiana parryi Parry’s gentian 

Gentiana prostrata Pygmy gentian 

Gentianella amarella Autumn dwarf gentian 

Gentianella amarella ssp. acuta Autumn dwarf gentian 

Gentianella amarella ssp. heterosepala Autumn dwarf gentian 

Gentianella tenella Dane’s dwarf gentian 

Gentianella tenella ssp. tenella Dane’s dwarf gentian 

Gentianopsis barbellata Perennial fringed gentian 

Gentianopsis thermalis Rocky Mountain fringed gentian 

Geranium caespitosum Pineywoods geranium 

Geranium caespitosum var. caespitosum Pineywoods geranium 

Geranium richardsonii Richardson’s geranium 

Geum aleppicum Yellow avens 

Geum macrophyllum Largeleaf avens 

Geum macrophyllum var. perincisum Largeleaf avens 

Geum rivale Purple avens 

Geum rossii Ross’ avens 

Geum rossii var. turbinatum Ross’ avens 

Geum trifl orum Old man’s whiskers 

Geum trifl orum var. trifl orum Old man’s whiskers 

Glaux maritima Sea milkwort 

Glyceria grandis American mannagrass 

Glyceria grandis var. grandis American mannagrass 

Glyceria striata Fowl mannagrass 

Glycyrrhiza lepidota American licorice 

Gnaphalium uliginosum Marsh cudweed 

Goodyera oblongifolia Western rattlesnake plantain 

Goodyera repens Lesser rattlesnake plantain 

Gratiola neglecta Clammy hedgehyssop 

Grindelia decumbens Reclined gumweed 

Grindelia decumbens var. decumbens Reclined gumweed 

Grindelia nuda Curlytop gumweed 

Grindelia nuda var. aphanactis Curlytop gumweed 

Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup gumweed 

Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed 

Gymnocarpium dryopteris Western oakfern 

Hackelia fl oribunda Manyfl ower stickseed 

Halogeton glomeratus Saltlover 

Hedysarum occidentale Western sweetvetch 

Helianthella parryi Parry’s dwarf-sunfl ower 

Helianthella quinquenervis Fivenerve helianthella 

Helianthus annuus Common sunfl ower 

Helianthus nuttallii Nuttall’s sunfl ower 

Helianthus petiolaris Prairie sunfl ower 

Heliomeris multifl ora Showy goldeneye 

Heliotropium curassavicum Salt heliotrope 

90 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Heliotropium curassavicum var. obovatum Seaside heliotrope 

Heracleum maximum Common cowparsnip 

Hesperostipa comata Needle and thread 

Hesperostipa comata ssp. comata Needle and thread 

Hesperostipa neomexicana New Mexico feathergrass 

Heterotheca fulcrata Rockyscree false goldenaster 

Heterotheca pumila Alpine false goldenaster 

Heterotheca villosa Hairy false goldenaster 

Heterotheca villosa var. minor Hairy false goldenaster 

Heterotheca villosa var. nana Hairy false goldenaster 

Heterotheca villosa var. villosa Hairy false goldenaster 

Heuchera parvifolia Littleleaf alumroot 

Heuchera parvifolia var. parvifolia Littleleaf alumroot 

Hieracium gracile Slender hawkweed 

Hieracium gracile var. gracile Slender hawkweed 

Hierochloe hirta Northern sweetgrass 

Hierochloe hirta ssp. arctica Northern sweetgrass 

Hoffmannseggia glauca Indian rushpea 

Holodiscus dumosus Rockspirea 

Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley 

Hordeum brachyantherum ssp. brachyantherum Meadow barley 

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley 

Hordeum jubatum ssp. jubatum Foxtail barley 

Humulus lupulus Common hop 

Humulus lupulus var. neomexicanus Common hop 

Hydrophyllum fendleri Fendler’s waterleaf 

Hydrophyllum fendleri var. fendleri Fendler’s waterleaf 

Hymenopappus fi lifolius Fineleaf hymenopappus 

Hymenopappus fi lifolius var. cinereus Fineleaf hymenopappus 

Hymenopappus fi lifolius var. parvulus Fineleaf hymenopappus 

Hymenopappus newberryi Newberry’s hymenopappus 

Hymenoxys helenioides Intermountain rubberweed 

Hymenoxys hoopesii Owl’s-claws 

Hymenoxys richardsonii Pingue rubberweed 

Hymenoxys richardsonii var. richardsonii Pingue rubberweed 

Hyoscyamus niger Black henbane 

Hypericum scouleri Scouler’s St. Johnswort 

Hypericum scouleri ssp. nortoniae Norton’s St. Johnswort 

Ipomopsis aggregata Scarlet gilia 

Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. candida Scarlet gilia 

Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. collina Scarlet gilia 

Ipomopsis longifl ora Flaxfl owered ipomopsis 

Ipomopsis longifl ora ssp. longifl ora Flaxfl owered ipomopsis 

Ipomopsis multifl ora Manyfl owered ipomopsis 

Iris missouriensis Rocky Mountain iris 

Iva axillaris Povertyweed 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 91 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Ivesia gordonii Gordon’s ivesia 

Jamesia americana Fivepetal cliffbush 

Jamesia americana var. americana Fivepetal cliffbush 

Juncus arcticus Arctic rush 

Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis Mountain rush 

Juncus bufonius Toad rush 

Juncus bufonius var. bufonius Toad rush 

Juncus castaneus Chestnut rush 

Juncus castaneus ssp. castaneus Chestnut rush 

Juncus castaneus ssp. castaneus var. castaneus Chestnut rush 

Juncus drummondii Drummond’s rush 

Juncus interior Inland rush 

Juncus longistylis Longstyle rush 

Juncus longistylis var. longistylis Longstyle rush 

Juncus mertensianus Mertens’ rush 

Juncus saximontanus Rocky Mountain rush 

Juncus torreyi Torrey’s rush 

Juniperus communis Common juniper 

Juniperus communis var. depressa Common juniper 

Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain juniper 

Kalmia microphylla Alpine laurel 

Kobresia myosuroides Bellardi bog sedge 

Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass 

Krascheninnikovia lanata Winterfat 

Lactuca tatarica Blue lettuce 

Lactuca tatarica var. pulchella Blue lettuce 

Lappula occidentalis Flatspine stickseed 

Lappula occidentalis var. occidentalis Flatspine stickseed 

Lathyrus eucosmus Bush vetchling 

Lathyrus lanszwertii Nevada pea 

Lathyrus lanszwertii var. leucanthus Nevada pea 

Lathyrus latifolius Perennial pea 

Lemna minuta Least duckweed 

Lemna turionifera Turion duckweed 

Lepidium alyssoides Mesa pepperwort 

Lepidium alyssoides var. alyssoides Mesa pepperwort 

Lepidium densifl orum Common pepperweed 

Lepidium latifolium Broadleaved pepperweed 

Lepidium ramosissimum Manybranched pepperweed 

Leptochloa fusca Malabar sprangletop 

Leptochloa fusca ssp. fascicularis Bearded sprangletop 

Leptosiphon nuttallii Nuttall’s linanthus 

Leptosiphon nuttallii ssp. nuttallii Nuttall’s linanthus 

Lesquerella montana Mountain bladderpod 

Levisticum offi cinale Garden lovage 

Lewisia pygmaea Alpine lewisia 

92 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Leymus ambiguus Colorado wildrye 

Leymus cinereus Basin wildrye 

Leymus triticoides Beardless wildrye 

Liatris punctata Dotted blazing star 

Ligusticum porteri Porter’s licorice-root 

Ligusticum porteri var. porteri Porter’s licorice-root 

Limosella aquatica Water mudwort 

Linanthus pungens Granite prickly phlox 

Linnaea borealis Twinfl ower 

Linnaea borealis ssp. americana Twinfl ower 

Linum australe Southern fl ax 

Linum australe var. australe Southern fl ax 

Linum lewisii Lewis fl ax 

Linum lewisii var. lewisii Prairie fl ax 

Listera cordata Heartleaf twayblade 

Listera cordata var. nephrophylla Heartleaf twayblade 

Lithophragma tenellum Slender woodland-star 

Lithospermum incisum Narrowleaf stoneseed 

Lithospermum multifl orum Manyfl owered stoneseed 

Lloydia serotina Common alplily 

Lloydia serotina var. serotina Common alplily 

Lonicera involucrata Twinberry honeysuckle 

Lonicera involucrata var. involucrata Twinberry honeysuckle 

Lupinus argenteus Silvery lupine 

Lupinus bakeri Baker’s lupine 

Lupinus bakeri ssp. bakeri Baker’s lupine 

Lupinus caespitosus Stemless dwarf lupine 

Lupinus caespitosus var. caespitosus Stemless dwarf lupine 

Lupinus caudatus Tailcup lupine 

Lupinus kingii King’s lupine 

Lupinus pusillus Rusty lupine 

Lupinus pusillus ssp. pusillus Rusty lupine 

Lupinus sericeus Silky lupine 

Lupinus sericeus ssp. sericeus Silky lupine 

Luzula parvifl ora Smallfl owered woodrush 

Luzula spicata Spiked woodrush 

Lycopus asper Rough bugleweed 

Lygodesmia juncea Rush skeletonplant 

Machaeranthera bigelovii Bigelow’s tansyaster 

Machaeranthera bigelovii var. bigelovii Bigelow’s tansyaster 

Machaeranthera canescens Hoary tansyaster 

Machaeranthera canescens ssp. glabra Hoary tansyaster 

Machaeranthera canescens ssp. glabra var. glabra Hoary tansyaster 

Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansyaster 

Machaeranthera coloradoensis var. coloradoensis Colorado tansyaster 

Machaeranthera parvifl ora Smallfl ower tansyaster 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 93 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Machaeranthera pinnatifi da Lacy tansyaster 

Machaeranthera pinnatifi da ssp. pinnatifi da Lacy tansyaster 

Machaeranthera pinnatifi da ssp. pinnatifi da var. Lacy tansyaster 

pinnatifi da 

Machaeranthera tanacetifolia Tanseyleaf tansyaster 

Mahonia repens Creeping barberry 

Maianthemum racemosum Feathery false lily of the valley 

Maianthemum racemosum ssp. amplexicaule Feathery false lily of the valley 

Maianthemum stellatum Starry false lily of the valley 

Malva neglecta Common mallow 

Marsilea vestita Hairy waterclover 

Medicago sativa Alfalfa 

Medicago sativa ssp. sativa Alfalfa 

Melilotus offi cinalis Sweetclover 

Mentha arvensis Wild mint 

Mentzelia albicaulis Whitestem blazingstar 

Mentzelia multifl ora Adonis blazingstar 

Mentzelia multifl ora var. multifl ora Adonis blazingstar 

Mentzelia nuda Bractless blazingstar 

Mentzelia rusbyi Rusby’s blazingstar 

Mentzelia speciosa Jeweled blazingstar 

Menyanthes trifoliata Buckbean 

Mertensia alpina Alpine bluebells 

Mertensia brevistyla Shortstyle bluebells 

Mertensia ciliata Tall fringed bluebells 

Mertensia ciliata var. ciliata Tall fringed bluebells 

Mertensia franciscana Franciscan bluebells 

Mertensia lanceolata Prairie bluebells 

Mertensia lanceolata var. lanceolata Prairie bluebells 

Mertensia oblongifolia Oblongleaf bluebells 

Mimulus fl oribundus Manyfl owered monkeyfl ower 

Mimulus glabratus Roundleaf monkeyfl ower 

Mimulus guttatus Seep monkeyfl ower 

Minuartia obtusiloba Twinfl ower sandwort 

Minuartia rubella Beautiful sandwort 

Mirabilis linearis Narrowleaf four o’clock 

Mirabilis multifl ora Colorado four o’clock 

Mirabilis oxybaphoides Smooth spreading four o’clock 

Mitella pentandra Fivestamen miterwort 

Mitella stauropetala Smallfl ower miterwort 

Mitella stauropetala var. stenopetala Drywoods miterwort 

Moehringia laterifl ora Bluntleaf sandwort 

Moehringia macrophylla Largeleaf sandwort 

Monarda fi stulosa Wild bergamot 

Monarda fi stulosa ssp. fi stulosa Wild bergamot 

Monarda fi stulosa ssp. fi stulosa var. menthifolia Mintleaf bergamot 

94 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Monarda pectinata Pony beebalm 

Moneses unifl ora Single delight 

Monolepis nuttalliana Nuttall’s povertyweed 

Monotropa hypopithys Pinesap 

Montia chamissoi Water minerslettuce 

Muhlenbergia andina Foxtail muhly 

Muhlenbergia asperifolia Scratchgrass 

Muhlenbergia brevis Short muhly 

Muhlenbergia fi liculmis Slimstem muhly 

Muhlenbergia fi liformis Pullup muhly 

Muhlenbergia minutissima Annual muhly 

Muhlenbergia montana Mountain muhly 

Muhlenbergia pungens Sandhill muhly 

Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly 

Muhlenbergia torreyi Ring muhly 

Munroa squarrosa False buffalograss 

Myriophyllum sibiricum Shortspike watermilfoil 

Nassella viridula Green needlegrass 

Nasturtium offi cinale Watercress 

Neoparrya lithophila Bill’s neoparrya 

Noccaea montana Alpine pennycress 

Noccaea montana var. montana Alpine pennycress 

Nuphar lutea Yellow pond-lily 

Nuphar lutea ssp. polysepala Rocky Mountain pond-lily 

Oenothera albicaulis Whitest evening primrose 

Oenothera caespitosa Tufted evening primrose 

Oenothera caespitosa ssp. caespitosa Tufted evening primrose 

Oenothera coronopifolia Crownleaf evening primrose 

Oenothera elata Hooker’s evening primrose 

Oenothera elata ssp. hirsutissima Hooker’s evening primrose 

Oenothera fl ava Yellow evening primrose 

Oenothera fl ava ssp. fl ava Yellow evening primrose 

Oenothera pallida Pale evening primrose 

Oenothera pallida ssp. runcinata Pale evening primrose 

Oenothera villosa Hairy evening primrose 

Oenothera villosa ssp. strigosa Hairy evening primrose 

Opuntia polyacantha Plains pricklypear 

Opuntia polyacantha var. polyacantha Hairspine pricklypear 

Oreochrysum parryi Parry’s goldenrod 

Oreoxis alpina Alpine oreoxis 

Oreoxis alpina ssp. alpina Alpine oreoxis 

Oreoxis alpina ssp. puberulenta Alpine oreoxis 

Oreoxis bakeri Baker’s alpineparsley 

Orobanche fasciculata Clustered broomrape 

Orthilia secunda Sidebells wintergreen 

Orthocarpus luteus Yellow owl’s-clover 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 95 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Oryzopsis asperifolia Roughleaf ricegrass 

Osmorhiza depauperata Bluntseed sweetroot 

Oxypolis fendleri Fendler’s cowbane 

Oxyria digyna Alpine mountainsorrel 

Oxytropis campestris Field locoweed 

Oxytropis defl exa Nodding locoweed 

Oxytropis defl exa var. sericea Blue nodding locoweed 

Oxytropis lambertii Purple locoweed 

Oxytropis lambertii var. lambertii Purple locoweed 

Oxytropis parryi Parry’s oxytrope 

Oxytropis sericea White locoweed 

Oxytropis sericea var. sericea White locoweed 

Oxytropis splendens Showy locoweed 

Packera cana Woolly groundsel 

Packera crocata Saffron ragwort 

Packera dimorphophylla Splitleaf groundsel 

Packera dimorphophylla var. intermedia Splitleaf groundsel 

Packera fendleri Fendler’s ragwort 

Packera neomexicana New Mexico groundsel 

Packera neomexicana var. mutabilis New Mexico groundsel 

Packera pseudaurea Falsegold groundsel 

Packera pseudaurea var. pseudaurea Falsegold groundsel 

Packera streptanthifolia Rocky Mountain groundsel 

Packera tridenticulata Threetooth ragwort 

Packera werneriifolia Hoary groundsel 

Parietaria pensylvanica Pennsylvania pellitory 

Parnassia palustris Marsh grass of Parnassus 

Parnassia palustris var. montanensis Mountain grass of Parnassus 

Paronychia pulvinata Rocky Mountain nailwort 

Paronychia sessilifl ora Creeping nailwort 

Parthenium tetraneuris Arkansas River feverfew 

Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass 

Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip 

Paxistima myrsinites Oregon boxleaf 

Pectis angustifolia Lemonscent 

Pectis angustifolia var. angustifolia Narrowleaf pectis 

Pedicularis canadensis Canadian lousewort 

Pedicularis canadensis ssp. fl uviatilis Canadian lousewort 

Pedicularis crenulata Meadow lousewort 

Pedicularis groenlandica Elephanthead lousewort 

Pedicularis parryi Parry’s lousewort 

Pedicularis parryi ssp. parryi Parry’s lousewort 

Pedicularis procera Giant lousewort 

Pedicularis racemosa Sickletop lousewort 

Pedicularis racemosa ssp. alba Sickletop lousewort 

Pediocactus simpsonii Mountain ball cactus 

96 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Penstemon barbatus Beardlip penstemon 

Penstemon caespitosus Mat penstemon 

Penstemon griffi nii Griffi n’s beardtongue 

Penstemon hallii Hall’s beardtongue 

Penstemon procerus Littlefl ower penstemon 

Penstemon procerus var. procerus Pincushion beardtongue 

Penstemon rydbergii Rydberg’s penstemon 

Penstemon secundifl orus Sidebells penstemon 

Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain penstemon 

Penstemon unilateralis Oneside penstemon 

Penstemon whippleanus Whipple’s penstemon 

Pericome caudata Mountain tail-leaf 

Petasites frigidus Arctic sweet coltsfoot 

Petasites frigidus var. sagittatus Arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot 

Phacelia alba White phacelia 

Phacelia bakeri Baker’s phacelia 

Phacelia glandulosa Glandular phacelia 

Phacelia glandulosa var. glandulosa Glandular phacelia 

Phacelia heterophylla Varileaf phacelia 

Phacelia heterophylla ssp. heterophylla Varileaf phacelia 

Phacelia sericea Silky phacelia 

Phacelia sericea ssp. sericea Silky phacelia 

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass 

Phleum alpinum Alpine timothy 

Phleum pratense Timothy 

Phlox austromontana Mountain phlox 

Phlox condensata Dwarf phlox 

Phlox hoodii Spiny phlox 

Phlox pulvinata Cushion phlox 

Physaria fl oribunda Oointtip twinpod 

Physocarpus monogynus Mountain ninebark 

Picea engelmannii Engelmann spruce 

Picea engelmannii var. engelmannii Engelmann spruce 

Picea pungens Blue spruce 

Picradeniopsis oppositifolia Oppositeleaf bahia 

Pinus aristata Bristlecone pine 

Pinus edulis Twoneedle pinyon 

Pinus fl exilis Limber pine 

Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine 

Pinus ponderosa var. brachyptera Ponderosa pine 

Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum Ponderosa pine 

Pinus strobiformis Southwestern white pine 

Piptatherum micranthum Littleseed ricegrass 

Piptatherum pungens Mountain ricegrass 

Plagiobothrys scouleri Scouler’s popcornfl ower 

Plagiobothrys scouleri var. hispidulus Sleeping popcornfl ower 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 97 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Plantago eriopoda Redwool plantain 

Plantago major Common plantain 

Platanthera dilatata Scentbottle 

Platanthera dilatata var. albifl ora Scentbottle 

Platanthera obtusata Bluntleaved orchid 

Platanthera obtusata ssp. obtusata Bluntleaved orchid 

Platanthera sparsifl ora Sparse-flowered bog orchid 

Platanthera sparsifl ora var. ensifolia Sparse-flowered bog orchid 

Poa alpina Alpine bluegrass 

Poa annua Annual bluegrass 

Poa arctica Arctic bluegrass 

Poa arctica ssp. aperta Arctic bluegrass 

Poa compressa Canada bluegrass 

Poa fendleriana Muttongrass 

Poa glauca Glaucous bluegrass 

Poa glauca ssp. rupicola Timberline bluegrass 

Poa leptocoma Marsh bluegrass 

Poa lettermanii Letterman’s bluegrass 

Poa nemoralis Wood bluegrass 

Poa nemoralis ssp. interior Inland bluegrass 

Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass 

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 

Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 

Poa refl exa Nodding bluegrass 

Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass 

Podistera eastwoodiae Eastwood’s podistera 

Polemonium brandegeei Brandegee’s Jacob’s-ladder 

Polemonium confertum Rocky Mountain Jacob’s-ladder 

Polemonium foliosissimum Towering Jacob’s-ladder 

Polemonium occidentale Western polemonium 

Polemonium occidentale ssp. occidentale Western polemonium 

Polemonium pulcherrimum Jacob’s-ladder 

Polemonium pulcherrimum ssp. delicatum Jacob’s-ladder 

Polemonium viscosum Sticky polemonium 

Polygonum amphibium Water knotweed 

Polygonum amphibium var. emersum Longroot smartweed 

Polygonum arenastrum Oval-leaf knotweed 

Polygonum argyrocoleon Silversheath knotweed 

Polygonum bistortoides American bistort 

Polygonum douglasii Douglas’ knotweed 

Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed 

Polygonum persicaria Spotted ladysthumb 

Polygonum viviparum Alpine bistort 

Populus ×acuminata Lanceleaf cottonwood 

Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf cottonwood 

Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen 

98 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Portulaca oleracea Little hogweed 

Potamogeton alpinus Alpine pondweed 

Potamogeton foliosus Leafy pondweed 

Potamogeton foliosus ssp. foliosus Leafy pondweed 

Potamogeton nodosus Longleaf pondweed 

Potamogeton pusillus Small pondweed 

Potamogeton pusillus ssp. pusillus Small pondweed 

Potentilla ambigens Silkyleaf cinquefoil 

Potentilla concinna Elegant cinquefoil 

Potentilla concinna var. concinna Elegant cinquefoil 

Potentilla diversifolia Varileaf cinquefoil 

Potentilla diversifolia var. diversifolia Varileaf cinquefoil 

Potentilla gracilis Slender cinquefoil 

Potentilla hippiana Woolly cinquefoil 

Potentilla hippiana var. hippiana Woolly cinquefoil 

Potentilla norvegica Norwegian cinquefoil 

Potentilla norvegica ssp. monspeliensis Norwegian cinquefoil 

Potentilla paradoxa Paradox cinquefoil 

Potentilla pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil 

Potentilla pensylvanica var. pensylvanica Pennsylvania cinquefoil 

Potentilla plattensis Platte River cinquefoil 

Potentilla pulcherrima Beautiful cinquefoil 

Potentilla rivalis Brook cinquefoil 

Potentilla subjuga Colorado cinquefoil 

Potentilla unifl ora Onefl ower cinquefoil 

Primula angustifolia Alpine primrose 

Primula parryi Parry’s primrose 

Prunella vulgaris Common selfheal 

Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata Lance selfheal 

Prunus pensylvanica Pin cherry 

Prunus pensylvanica var. pensylvanica Pin cherry 

Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 

Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa Black chokecherry 

Psathyrostachys juncea Russian wildrye 

Pseudocymopterus montanus Alpine false springparsley 

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fi r 

Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca Rocky Mountain Douglas-fi r 

Psoralidium lanceolatum Lemon scurfpea 

Pteridium aquilinum Western brackenfern 

Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens Hairy brackenfern 

Pterospora andromedea Woodland pinedrops 

Pteryxia hendersonii Henderson’s wavewing 

Puccinellia nuttalliana Nuttall’s alkaligrass 

Pulsatilla patens Eastern pasquefl ower 

Pulsatilla patens ssp. multifi da Cutleaf anemone 

Pyrola asarifolia Liverleaf wintergreen 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 99 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Pyrola asarifolia ssp. asarifolia Liverleaf wintergreen 

Pyrola chlorantha Greenfl owered wintergreen 

Pyrola minor Snowline wintergreen 

Pyrrocoma clementis Tranquil goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma clementis var. clementis Tranquil goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma lanceolata Lanceleaf goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma lanceolata var. lanceolata Lanceleaf goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma unifl ora Plantain goldenweed 

Pyrrocoma unifl ora var. unifl ora Plantain goldenweed 

Quercus gambelii Gambel oak 

Quercus gambelii var. gambelii Gambel oak 

Ranunculus abortivus Littleleaf buttercup 

Ranunculus alismifolius Plantainleaf buttercup 

Ranunculus alismifolius var. montanus Waterplantain buttercup 

Ranunculus cardiophyllus Heartleaf buttercup 

Ranunculus cymbalaria Alkali buttercup 

Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin’s buttercup 

Ranunculus hyperboreus High northern buttercup 

Ranunculus inamoenus Graceful buttercup 

Ranunculus macauleyi Rocky Mountain buttercup 

Ranunculus macounii Macoun’s buttercup 

Ranunculus sceleratus Cursed buttercup 

Ranunculus sceleratus var. multifi dus Cursed buttercup 

Ranunculus sceleratus var. sceleratus Cursed buttercup 

Ranunculus trichophyllus Threadleaf crowfoot 

Ranunculus trichophyllus var. trichophyllus Threadleaf crowfoot 

Ranunculus uncinatus Woodland buttercup 

Redfi eldia fl exuosa Blowout grass 

Rhinanthus minor Little yellow rattle 

Rhinanthus minor ssp. minor Little yellow rattle 

Rhodiola integrifolia Ledge stonecrop 

Rhodiola rhodantha Redpod stonecrop 

Rhus trilobata Skunkbush sumac 

Rhus trilobata var. trilobata Skunkbush sumac 

Ribes aureum Golden currant 

Ribes cereum Wax currant 

Ribes cereum var. pedicellare Whisky currant 

Ribes inerme Whitestem gooseberry 

Ribes inerme var. inerme Whitestem gooseberry 

Ribes laxifl orum Trailing black currant 

Ribes leptanthum Trumpet gooseberry 

Ribes montigenum Gooseberry currant 

Ribes wolfi i Wolf’s currant 

Rorippa alpina Alpine yellowcress 

Rorippa curvipes Bluntleaf yellowcress 

Rorippa curvipes var. curvipes Bluntleaf yellowcress 

100 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Rorippa curvipes var. truncata Bluntleaf yellowcress 

Rorippa palustris Bog yellowcress 

Rorippa palustris ssp. hispida Hispid yellowcress 

Rorippa sinuata Spreading yellowcress 

Rorippa sphaerocarpa Roundfruit yellowcress 

Rosa acicularis Prickly rose 

Rosa acicularis ssp. sayi Prickly rose 

Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose 

Rosa woodsii var. ultramontana Woods’ rose 

Rubus deliciosus Delicious raspberry 

Rubus idaeus American red raspberry 

Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus Grayleaf red raspberry 

Rubus parvifl orus Thimbleberry 

Rubus parvifl orus var. parvifl orus Thimbleberry 

Rudbeckia hirta Blackeyed Susan 

Rudbeckia hirta var. pulcherrima Blackeyed Susan 

Rudbeckia laciniata Cutleaf conefl ower 

Rudbeckia laciniata var. ampla Cutleaf conefl ower 

Rumex aquaticus Western dock 

Rumex aquaticus var. fenestratus Western dock 

Rumex densifl orus Densefl owered dock 

Rumex maritimus Golden dock 

Rumex salicifolius Willow dock 

Rumex salicifolius var. mexicanus Mexican dock 

Rumex venosus Veiny dock 

Sagina saginoides Arctic pearlwort 

Sagittaria cuneata Arumleaf arrowhead 

Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow 

Salix bebbiana Bebb willow 

Salix brachycarpa Shortfruit willow 

Salix brachycarpa var. brachycarpa Shortfruit willow 

Salix drummondiana Drummond’s willow 

Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow 

Salix geyeriana Geyer willow 

Salix ligulifolia Strapleaf willow 

Salix lucida Shining willow 

Salix lucida ssp. caudata Greenleaf willow 

Salix monticola Park willow 

Salix nivalis Snow willow 

Salix orestera Sierra willow 

Salix petrophila Alpine willow 

Salix planifolia Diamondleaf willow 

Salix planifolia ssp. planifolia Diamondleaf willow 

Salix scouleriana Scouler’s willow 

Salix wolfi i Wolf’s willow 

Salsola tragus Prickly Russian thistle 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 101 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Salvia refl exa Lanceleaf sage 

Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry 

Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa Red elderberry 

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood 

Saxifraga bronchialis Yellowdot saxifrage 

Saxifraga bronchialis ssp. austromontana Matted saxifrage 

Saxifraga caespitosa Tufted alpine saxifrage 

Saxifraga caespitosa ssp. delicatula Tufted alpine saxifrage 

Saxifraga cernua Nodding saxifrage 

Saxifraga chrysantha Goldbloom saxifrage 

Saxifraga fl agellaris Whiplash saxifrage 

Saxifraga fl agellaris ssp. crandallii Crandall’s saxifrage 

Saxifraga odontoloma Brook saxifrage 

Saxifraga rhomboidea Diamondleaf saxifrage 

Saxifraga rivularis Weak saxifrage 

Schedonnardus paniculatus Tumblegrass 

Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 

Schizachyrium scoparium var. scoparium Little bluestem 

Schkuhria multifl ora Manyflower false threadleaf 

Schoenocrambe linearifolia Slimleaf plainsmustard 

Schoenoplectus acutus Hardstem bulrush 

Schoenoplectus acutus var. acutus Hardstem bulrush 

Schoenoplectus maritimus Cosmopolitan bulrush 

Schoenoplectus pungens Common threesquare 

Schoenoplectus pungens var. longispicatus Common threesquare 

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Softstem bulrush 

Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush 

Scirpus nevadensis Nevada bulrush 

Scrophularia lanceolata Lanceleaf fi gwort 

Scutellaria galericulata Marsh skullcap 

Sedum lanceolatum Spearleaf stonecrop 

Sedum lanceolatum ssp. lanceolatum Spearleaf stonecrop 

Selaginella densa Lesser spikemoss 

Selaginella weatherbiana Weatherby’s spikemoss 

Senecio amplectens Showy alpine ragwort 

Senecio amplectens var. amplectens Showy alpine ragwort 

Senecio amplectens var. holmii Holm’s ragwort 

Senecio atratus Tall blacktip ragwort 

Senecio bigelovii Nodding ragwort 

Senecio bigelovii var. hallii Hall’s ragwort 

Senecio crassulus Thickleaf ragwort 

Senecio eremophilus Desert ragwort 

Senecio eremophilus var. kingii King’s ragwort 

Senecio fremontii Dwarf mountain ragwort 

Senecio fremontii var. blitoides Dwarf mountain ragwort 

Senecio pudicus Bashful ragwort 

102 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Senecio soldanella Colorado ragwort 

Senecio spartioides Broom-like ragwort 

Senecio spartioides var. multicapitatus Broom-like ragwort 

Senecio taraxacoides Dandelion ragwort 

Senecio triangularis Arrowleaf ragwort 

Senecio wootonii Wooton’s ragwort 

Sesuvium verrucosum Verrucose seapurslane 

Setaria viridis Green bristlegrass 

Setaria viridis var. viridis Green bristlegrass 

Shepherdia canadensis Russet buffaloberry 

Sibbaldia procumbens Creeping sibbaldia 

Sidalcea candida White checkerbloom 

Sidalcea neomexicana Salt spring checkerbloom 

Sidalcea neomexicana ssp. neomexicana Salt spring checkerbloom 

Silene acaulis Moss campion 

Silene acaulis var. subacaulescens Moss campion 

Silene drummondii Drummond’s campion 

Silene drummondii var. drummondii Drummond’s campion 

Silene menziesii Menzies’ campion 

Silene menziesii ssp. menziesii Menzies’ campion 

Silene menziesii ssp. menziesii var. menziesii Menzies’ campion 

Silene scouleri Simple campion 

Silene scouleri ssp. hallii Simple campion 

Sisymbrium altissimum Tall tumblemustard 

Sisyrinchium demissum Stiff blue-eyed grass 

Sisyrinchium montanum Strict blue-eyed grass 

Sisyrinchium montanum var. montanum Strict blue-eyed grass 

Sisyrinchium pallidum Pale blue-eyed grass 

Sium suave Hemlock waterparsnip 

Smelowskia calycina Alpine smelowskia 

Smelowskia calycina var. americana American false candytuft 

Solanum trifl orum Cutleaf nightshade 

Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod 

Solidago missouriensis Missouri goldenrod 

Solidago multiradiata Rocky Mountain goldenrod 

Solidago multiradiata var. scopulorum Manyray goldenrod 

Solidago simplex Mt. Albert goldenrod 

Solidago simplex ssp. simplex Mt. Albert goldenrod 

Solidago simplex ssp. simplex var. simplex Mt. Albert goldenrod 

Solidago velutina Threenerve goldenrod 

Sonchus arvensis Field sowthistle 

Sonchus arvensis ssp. uliginosus Moist sowthistle 

Sophora nuttalliana Silky sophora 

Spartina gracilis Alkali cordgrass 

Sphaeralcea coccinea Scarlet globemallow 

Sphaeralcea coccinea ssp. coccinea Scarlet globemallow 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 103 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Sphaerophysa salsula Alkali swainsonpea 

Sphenopholis obtusata Prairie wedgescale 

Spiranthes romanzoffi ana Hooded lady’s tresses 

Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton 

Sporobolus contractus Spike dropseed 

Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed 

Stachys pilosa Hairy hedgenettle 

Stachys pilosa var. pilosa Hairy hedgenettle 

Stellaria calycantha Northern starwort 

Stellaria crassifolia Fleshy starwort 

Stellaria crassifolia var. crassifolia Fleshy starwort 

Stellaria longifolia Longleaf starwort 

Stellaria longifolia var. longifolia Longleaf starwort 

Stellaria longipes Longstalk starwort 

Stellaria longipes ssp. longipes Chickweed, starwort 

Stellaria umbellata Umbrella starwort 

Stephanomeria paucifl ora Brownplume wirelettuce 

Streptopus amplexifolius Claspleaf twistedstalk 

Streptopus amplexifolius var. chalazatus Tubercle twistedstalk 

Suaeda calceoliformis Pursh seepweed 

Suaeda moquinii Mojave seablite 

Swertia perennis Felwort 

Symphoricarpos occidentalis Western snowberry 

Symphoricarpos rotundifolius Roundleaf snowberry 

Symphoricarpos rotundifolius var. rotundifolius Roundleaf snowberry 

Symphyotrichum ascendens Western aster 

Symphyotrichum boreale Northern bog aster 

Symphyotrichum eatonii Eaton’s aster 

Symphyotrichum ericoides White heath aster 

Symphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides White heath aster 

Symphyotrichum falcatum White prairie aster 

Symphyotrichum falcatum var. falcatum White prairie aster 

Symphyotrichum foliaceum Alpine leafybract aster 

Symphyotrichum frondosum Short-rayed alkali aster 

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum White panicle aster 

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum ssp. hesperium White panicle aster 

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum ssp. hesperium var. White panicle aster 

hesperium 

Symphyotrichum spathulatum Western mountain aster 

Symphyotrichum spathulatum var. spathulatum Western mountain aster 

Taraxacum lyratum Harp dandelion 

Taraxacum offi cinale Common dandelion 

Taraxacum offi cinale ssp. ceratophorum Common dandelion 

Tetradymia canescens Spineless horsebrush 

Tetraneuris acaulis Stemless four-nerve daisy 

Tetraneuris acaulis var. acaulis Stemless four-nerve daisy 

104 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Tetraneuris acaulis var. caespitosa Caespitose four-nerve daisy 

Tetraneuris brandegeei Brandegee’s four-nerve daisy 

Tetraneuris grandifl ora Graylocks four-nerve daisy 

Teucrium canadense Canada germander 

Teucrium canadense var. occidentale Western germander 

Thalictrum alpinum Alpine meadow-rue 

Thalictrum fendleri Fendler’s meadow-rue 

Thalictrum fendleri var. fendleri Fendler’s meadow-rue 

Thalictrum sparsifl orum Fewfl ower meadow-rue 

Thalictrum sparsifl orum var. saximontanum Fewfl ower meadow-rue 

Thelesperma fi lifolium Stiff greenthread 

Thelesperma fi lifolium var. intermedium Stiff greenthread 

Thelesperma subnudum Navajo tea 

Thelesperma subnudum var. subnudum Navajo tea 

Thermopsis divaricarpa Spreadfruit goldenbanner 

Thermopsis montana Mountain goldenbanner 

Thermopsis montana var. montana Mountain goldenbanner 

Thermopsis rhombifolia Prairie thermopsis 

Thlaspi arvense Field pennycress 

Tonestus pygmaeus Pygmy goldenweed 

Townsendia eximia Tall Townsend daisy 

Townsendia exscapa Stemless Townsend daisy 

Townsendia grandifl ora Largeflower Townsend daisy 

Townsendia hookeri Hooker’s Townsend daisy 

Townsendia leptotes Common Townsend daisy 

Tragopogon porrifolius Salsify 

Trautvetteria caroliniensis Carolina bugbane 

Trautvetteria caroliniensis var. occidentalis Western bugbane 

Trifolium attenuatum Rocky Mountain clover 

Trifolium brandegeei Brandegee’s clover 

Trifolium dasyphyllum Alpine clover 

Trifolium dasyphyllum ssp. dasyphyllum Alpine clover 

Trifolium hybridum Alsike clover 

Trifolium longipes Longstalk clover 

Trifolium longipes ssp. pygmaeum Pygmy clover 

Trifolium nanum Dwarf clover 

Trifolium parryi Parry’s clover 

Trifolium parryi ssp. salictorum Parry’s clover 

Trifolium repens White clover 

Trifolium wormskioldii Cows clover 

Triglochin maritima Seaside arrowgrass 

Triglochin palustris Marsh arrowgrass 

Tripterocalyx micranthus Smallfl ower sandverbena 

Trisetum spicatum Spike trisetum 

Trollius laxus American globefl ower 

Trollius laxus ssp. albifl orus American globefl ower 

Appendix C — Species List of the Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area 105 
Scientific name Common name Status 

Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail 

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle 

Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis California nettle 

Utricularia ochroleuca Yellowishwhite bladderwort 

Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf bilberry 

Vaccinium myrtillus Whortleberry 

Vaccinium scoparium Grouse whortleberry 

Valeriana acutiloba Sharpleaf valerian 

Valeriana acutiloba var. acutiloba Sharpleaf valerian 

Valeriana arizonica Arizona valerian 

Valeriana edulis Tobacco root 

Valeriana edulis var. edulis Tobacco root 

Veratrum tenuipetalum Colorado false hellebore 

Verbena bracteata Bigbract verbena 

Verbena macdougalii MacDougal verbena 

Verbesina encelioides Golden crownbeard 

Verbesina encelioides ssp. encelioides Golden crownbeard 

Verbesina encelioides ssp. exauriculata Golden crownbeard 

Veronica americana American speedwell 

Veronica peregrina Neckweed 

Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis Hairy purslane speedwell 

Veronica serpyllifolia Thymeleaf speedwell 

Veronica serpyllifolia ssp. humifusa Brightblue speedwell 

Veronica wormskjoldii American alpine speedwell 

Veronica wormskjoldii var. wormskjoldii American alpine speedwell 

Vicia americana American vetch 

Vicia americana ssp. americana American vetch 

Vicia sativa Garden vetch 

Vicia sativa ssp. nigra Garden vetch 

Viola adunca Hookedspur violet 

Viola adunca var. adunca Hookedspur violet 

Viola bifl ora Arctic yellow violet 

Viola bifl ora ssp. bifl ora Arctic yellow violet 

Viola canadensis Canadian white violet 

Viola canadensis var. scopulorum Canadian white violet 

Viola labradorica Alpine violet 

Viola macloskeyi Small white violet 

Viola macloskeyi ssp. pallens Smooth white violet 

Viola nephrophylla Northern bog violet 

Viola renifolia White violet 

Woodsia oregana Oregon cliff fern 

Woodsia oregana ssp. cathcartiana Oregon cliff fern 

Woodsia scopulina Rocky Mountain woodsia 

Yucca glauca Soapweed yucca 

Zigadenus elegans Mountain deathcamas 

Zigadenus elegans ssp. elegans Mountain deathcamas 

106 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix D
 

Public Comments 

Please note that, because this final document is based 

upon the draft EA and LPP for the SLVCA, the comments enclosed herein were on the broader SLVCA 

and were responded to accordingly. Some of these comments and responses are less relevant to the smaller 

SCCA discussed in this final land protection plan. 
Letter #1— Biosphere Coalition (page 1 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

Thank you for your support of the conservation vision described in the Draft SLVCA EA and LPP. Responses to comments on specifi c points follows. 

108 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 2 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

A1–A3, A5, A6

We agree that the wetland and riparian areas in the Crestone and Baca Grande area have important wildlife value.While they were not specifi cally identifi ed in the prioritization map on page 64 of the draft LPP, we would certainly consider working with willing sellers to provide easementson those partials to ensure their permanent protection. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 109 
110 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 3 of 14) Service Response to Letter #1 ed in the prioritiza­ cally identifi

6 A1–A3, A5, A

We agree that the wetland and riparian areas in the Crestone and Baca Grande area have important wildlife value.

, we would certainly 

While they were not specifition map on page 64 of the draft LPPconsider working with willing sellers to provide easementson those partials to ensure their permanent protection.

A4 

Certainly not all agricultural activities are compatible withthe persistence of wildlife habitat that would be considered

VCA. Service biologists have for protection under the SL

identifi ed overgrazing of riparian areas as having serious negative impacts on the capacity of that vegetation to re­

, an easement will generate in much of Colorado. However

prevent other types of potentially harmful habitat alteraVCA would be tion, and landowners participating in the SLencouraged to discuss opportunities for habitat managementor restoration such as funding through the Partners for Fish

ildlife Program. and W
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 4 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

One of the most challenging but important issues being investigated during the ongoing development of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex regards future changes in water use on the refuges. We encourage you to stay involved in the planning for the CCP as it goes forward. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 111 
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 5 of 14) 

112 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico Service Response to Letter #1

VCA. 

alley

Section A

Discussion of phased implementation: The Service is committed to collaborating with the local governments in theirefforts to obtain land for mitigation under the HCP and intheir work to resolve the long-term challenges about water

. It is important to recognize that we in the San Luis V

view the LPP as a long-term vision, and an initial focus onthe southeastern part of the project area will not negate thatlong-term vision.

Section B

Agreed. We look forward to working with property owners in the Baca Grande area as we start rolling out conservationdelivery in other parts of the SL
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 6 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

It is likely that the Closed Basin Project has broader impactson the San Luis Closed Basin system than just the aquiferlevels in its immediate vicinity. However, this is not an issue over which the Service has authority, nor can it be addressed through a conservation easement program. The SLVCA is only one piece of what will need to be a cooperative, multifaceted approach to resolve long-term water issues in the valley. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 113 
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 7 of 14)
 

Service Response to Letter #1

We appreciate your recognition of the conservation challenges in the San Luis Valley, and the factors that require a careful, pragmatic approach to delivering conservation there 

114 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix D– Public Comments 115 

Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 8 of 14) 
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 9 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

Through the SLVCA, the Service hopes to achieve protection for certain types of wildlife habitat, much of it dependent on water. However, larger issues of regional water use, policy, and monitoring programs are outside of the scope of this plan and outside of the authority granted to the Service. 

116 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 10 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

The San Luis Valley refuges are water users, subject to Colorado water law. While there are likely alternatives in how water rights are adjudicated and how water is appropriated, this is outside of the scope of this LPP and outside ofthe authority of the Service. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 117 
Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 11 of 14) 

Service Response to Letter #1

We encourage you to stay actively involved with the CCP process for the three San Luis Valley refuges, which may explore the choices for infrastructure development and publicuse of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge. 

118 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix D– Public Comments 119 

Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 12 of 14) 
120 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 13 of 14) 
Appendix D– Public Comments 121 

Letter #1—Biosphere Coalition (page 14 of 14) 
122 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico Letter #2—Dave Miller Comment form sent from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Name: Dave S. Miller Organization: NoneComment: Comments in strong support for the Draft Plan to underscore the importance of the following planning principles, assumptions and strategies: 1. Avoiding "loss and fragmentation" of the SLV wetlands, upland habitats and riparian corridors through a "strategic network of public and private conservation lands". 2. The importance of the SLV as "the most important waterbird production area in Colorado" and the need to protect these migratory birds. 3. The vital strategy of allowing a change of water rights "only if beneficial to wildlife" and once a conservation easement is in place then "no off parcel sales of surface water". 4. The long term strategy of "protecting and restoring the historic hydrologic regime of the SLV'. 5. The statements in the Draft Plan calling for a conservation plan to protect species such as the SW willow flycatcher, the gray wolf and the "non-listed but climate-change imperiled American pike" are of special note and speak to the ecological sensitivity of the plan. 6. The rationale of using conservation easements rather than relying on new federal funds for conservation land acquisition is appropriately defended by stating many of the alternatives are "financially unrealistic and politically untenable. 7. The Draft Plan's sensitivity to the protection of over 100 cultural resource sites and that another 435 sites may be officially eligible for namination is another reflection of the Plans concerns beyond the mere protection of "water and birds". 8. The propose methods for valuation of proposed easements (fair market value based on appraisals) is appropriate and I presume that official existing

appraisal guidelines such as BLM"s will be utilized.9. The Draft Plan's language regarding the use of conservation easements "meanan irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources" reflects thefederal governments to marketing the easements and then enforcing them overthe next 25-50 years.10. A Comprehensive Master Resource Management/Conservation Plan and Mapreflecting all the plans of all federal agencies for the entire SLV would beuseful to all stakeholder groups. In the meantime, the Plans coordination withmany federal and state agencies is noted and supported.In closing, congratulations on a very comprehensive, realistic and wellconceived Draft Plan for the proposed SLV Conservation Area. The Plan reflectsstrong staff work and agency leadership committed to the conservation of ourprecious San Luis Valley. Your hard work is both noted and appreciated.Best Regards,Dave S. MillerP.O. Box 896Crestone, Coloradopearlbisbeenellie@yahoo.com 

Service Response to Letter #2

Thank you for your comments and support of our agency’s efforts to deliver conservation in the San Luis Valley. 
Letter #3—Glyder

Comment form sent from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceName: Dave S. MillerOrganization: 

 NoneComment: Comments in strong support for the Draft

Plan to underscore the importance of the following planning principles, assumptions and strategies:1. Avoiding "loss and fragmentation" of the SLV wetlands, upland habitats andriparian corridors through a "strategic network of public and privateconservation lands".2. The importance of the SLV as "the most important waterbird production areain Colorado" and the need to protect these migratory birds.3. The vital strategy of allowing a change of water rights "only if beneficialto wildlife" and once a conservation easement is in place then "no off parcelsales of surface water".4. The long term strategy of "protecting and restoring the historic hydrologicregime of the SLV'.5. The statements in the Draft Plan calling for a conservation plan to protectspecies such as the SW willow flycatcher, the gray wolf and the "non-listedbut climate-change imperiled American pike" are of special note and speak tothe ecological sensitivity of the plan.6. The rationale of using conservation easements rather than relying on newfederal funds for conservation land acquisition is appropriately defended bystating many of the alternatives are "financially unrealistic and politicallyuntenable.7. The Draft Plan's sensitivity to the protection of over 100 culturalresource sites and that another 435 sites may be officially eligible fornamination is another reflection of the Plans concerns beyond the mereprotection of "water and birds".8. The propose methods for valuation of proposed easements (fair market valuebased on appraisals) is appropriate and I presume that official existingappraisal guidelines such as BLM"s will be utilized.9. The Draft Plan's language regarding the use of conservation easements "meanan irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources" reflects thefederal governments to marketing the easements and then enforcing them overthe next 25-50 years.10. A Comprehensive Master Resource Management/Conservation Plan and Mapreflecting all the plans of all federal agencies for the entire SLV would beuseful to all stakeholder groups. In the meantime, the Plans coordination withmany federal and state agencies is noted and supported.In closing, congratulations on a very comprehensive, realistic and wellconceived Draft Plan for the proposed SLV Conservation Area. The Plan reflectsstrong staff work and agency leadership committed to the conservation of ourprecious San Luis Valley. Your hard work is both noted and appreciated.Best Regards,Dave S. MillerP.O. Box 896Crestone, Coloradopearlbisbeenellie@yahoo.com 

Service Response to Letter #3

Thank you for your comments and support of our agency’s efforts. We recognize the importance of the Baca Grande riparian corridors to wildlife, and look forward to easementdiscussions with willing landowners in and around the greenbelts in the Baca Grande subdivision. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 123 
Letter #4—Margey Herrington


mkherrin@adams.edu06/02/2012 08:09 AM 

To: sLVrefugesplanning@fws.gov

cc:

Subject: San Luis Valley Conservation Area

Dear Sirs:I was very pleased to read about the landscape-scale project for wildlifeconservation in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. I appreciatethe work that has gone into the SLVCA project and support itwholeheartedly. I will look forward to seeing the results of this carefulplanning in the years ahead.Sincerely,Margery Herrington38 Morris St.Monte Vista, CO 81144719 852-0793 

Service Response to Letter #4

Thank you for your comments and support of our agency’s efforts to deliver conservation in the San Luis Valley. 

124 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Letter #5—Rockard Finlay 

Service Response to Letter #4

Thank you for your comments. As in much of the west, theSan Luis Valley has large areas of public lands. While there are already conservation initiatives, including state efforts,underway in the San Luis Valley, including Saguache County, the SLVCA proposes to bring another source of money to the table. Conversations with local nongovernmental organizations and other land protection entities have repeatedlyemphasized that there is more demand for conservationeasements among landowners than there is money availablefor that purpose. Regarding future changes in regulationsassociated with the project under another administration, theSLVCA does not include the establishment of any new regulations. The SLVCA will be a largely conservation easement focused new unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, in which the Service will seek to buy specifi c, clearly defi ne property rights from willing landowners. The Service hasneither the intent nor the authority to impose regulations onnonparticipating landowners under this program. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 125 
Letter #6—Colorado Open Lands (page 1 of 2) 

Service Response to Letter #6

1.

2.3.

Thank you for your comments and support of our agency’s efforts to deliver conservation in the San Luis Valley.

1. 	 Thank you for your comments.

2.	 As mentioned in #1, the many entities involved in land

alley have slightly different protection in the San Luis V

missions derived from their charter or enabling legislation. While we recognize the value of open space, publicaccess, and historical resources, and some of our easementsmay be able to protect those values in addition to wildlife

 cally charged by the National the Service is specifi values, 

ildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as W

amended, to “plan and direct the continued growth of theSystem in a manner that is best designed to accomplish themission of the System, to contribute to the conservationof the ecosystems of the United States, to complement efforts of States and other Federal agencies to conserve fi sh and wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support forthe System and participation from conservation partnersand the public.” Certainly we could contribute to fulfi lling our obligation under the last part of that statement byworking with organizations such as your own to fi nd areas where we can conserve multiple values simultaneously.

3.	 The Service is required by law to offer a landowner fair

market value. This does not preclude us from paying less than the market value (bargain purchase) ifthe landowner would prefer to receive less than full

This market value for reasons such as tax benefi ts. 

may be an appealing choice for some landowners. 

126 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Letter #6—Colorado Open Lands (page 2 of 2) 

4. 

Service Response to Letter #6

4. 	 The SLVCA LPP did not name a minimum parcel size that 

would be considered for the purchase of conservation easements. We recognize that there is a real conservation need in Costilla County, which is dominated by small parcels both because of the acequia system and because of subdivisionin the latter part of the 20th century. We look forward to working with your organization, and will likely ask for yourhelp with outreach to the acequia landowners in the future. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 127 
Letter #7—Trust for Public Land
 

Service Response to Letter #7

Thank you for your comments and support of our agency’s efforts to deliver conservation in the San Luis Valley. It is particularly valuable to have the support of an organizationwith whom the Service has a strong working relationship,and that already has experience with, and recognizes thevalue of, conservation easements as a tool in the San LuisValley. We look forward to working with you in the future as we move forward with our efforts to conserve the importanthabitats of that region. 

128 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
rinchera Ranch Letter #8—T

June 8, 2012Dr. Michael DixonU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 Division of Refuge PlanningLakewood, Colorado 80228Dear Dr. Michael Dixon: Thank you and your staff for your efforts to date on the important work captured in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the San Luis Valley Conservation Area. We also appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal.Based on our review of the Draft EA, and as Trinchera Ranch consists of the Trinchera and Blanca Ranches, which are both located within the proposed Conservation Area, Trinchera Ranch respectfully submits the below comments in support of the Proposed Action (Alternative B). We are encouraged that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has formally recognizedthis region and its environmental significance. We agree with the USFWS Draft EnvironmentalAssessment that the land outlined in the Conservation Area deserves an official federal designation regarding its significance to the wildlife and habitat unique to southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. We fully support your efforts as outlined in the Draft EA and again, urge USFWS to adopt the Proposed Action and finalize this important and significant conservation effort.Sincerely,Trinchera Ranch 

Service Response to Letter #8

Thank you for your comments and support of our agency’s efforts to deliver conservation in the San Luis Valley. The backing of land holders and ranchers in the valley will beinvaluable to the success of this conservation initiative. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 129 
Letter #9—Tri-State Energy (page 1 of 3) 

Service Response to Letter #9

with the commenter that the network of lands of

conservation importance that the Service aims to protect

, and thus it would be difcult to site transmission facilities entirely outside of these

lands. Certainly the environmental consequences of thistype of development are often lower if they follow existingdisturbed corridors such as roads, as the commenter obs obligations to serve ri-State’

restrictions

e are sensitive to T

Development 

e agree W

is spread throughout the valleyfi serves. Wtheir member and owners, and would like to reassure thecommenter that the presence of a Service easement doesnot, in and of itself, preclude the construction of a powerline corridor unless language to that effect is specifi callyinserted into an easement because of a known environmental risk that cannot be mitigated, or at the request ofthe landowner selling the easement. If such language isnot included in the easement (that would be the typicalsituation), the refuge manager would follow the Servicepolicy on compatibility determination to make sure that the

ict with the stated proposed power line would not be in confl 

purpose of the conservation area. If the power line weredeemed compatible, the refuge would issue a special usepermit to the company wishing to develop the power line.Following construction of the power line, the value of theresulting right-of-way would be found, the permittee wouldbe billed the cost of the right-of-way plus nominal fees foradministrative costs, and a right-of-way would be issued. 

130 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
ri-State Energy (page 2 of 3) Letter #9—T

Service Response to Letter #9

 Renewable energy

The impact of a proposed easement program on state andfederal renewable energy standards would be speculativeat best, particularly because the compatibility of renewableenergy infrastructure is highly dependent on the locationof such infrastructure. It may even be compatible for alandowner to develop new energy infrastructure on onepart of a property under easement, but not others. Suchspeculation is well outside the scope of this analysis. 

Appendix D– Public Comments 131 
ri-State Energy (page 3 of 3) Letter #9—T

Service Response to Letter #9

ycatcher data that 

Our analysis did not uncover any impacts to on the so­

 ­

was produced in part by on the ground surveys associalley Habitat Conservation Plan, the habitat priority maps werecreated solely from remote sensing data or existing datalayers. They are meant to serve as a general primer toinform the public and Service realty staff on the types ofhabitats that are biologically important. No easementswould be granted without on-the-ground surveys todecide if the land truly holds conservation value.cioeconomic environment that are likely to be signifi

A regulations, the purpose 

 nd if there are 

Habitat priority maps

Except for the southwestern willow fl ated with the development of the San Luis V

Socioeconomics

cant. Furthermore, per NEPof an environmental assessment is to fisignifi cant impacts on the human environment (the relationship between people and the biological and physicalenvironment) that would require the preparation ofan environmental impact statement, and “economic orsocial effects are not intended by themselves to requirepreparation of an environmental impact statement.”

ri-State was overlooked during our 

(Sec.1508.14).

A process – scoping The NEP

We apologize that Tscoping process. It is challenging to account all possibleentities. We will include you in further correspondence related to the project. 

132 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix D– Public Comments 133 

Letter #10—Costilla County 
134 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico Letter #11—Reio Grande County (page 1 of 2) 
Appendix D– Public Comments 135 

Letter #11—Reio Grande County (page 2 of 2 
136 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico Letter #12—Saguache County 
Appendix D– Public Comments 137 

ater Conservation District (page 1 of 5) Letter #13—Rio Grande W
138 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico ater Conservation District (page 2 of 5) Letter #13—Rio Grande W
Appendix D– Public Comments 139 

ater Conservation District (page 3 of 5) Letter #13—Rio Grande W
140 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico ater Conservation District (page 4 of 5) Letter #13—Rio Grande W
Appendix D– Public Comments 141 

ater Conservation District (page 5 of 5) Letter #13—Rio Grande W

Appendix E 

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact 
144 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix E — Finding of No Significant Impact 145 
146 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix F 

Environmental Action Statement 

Appendix G 

Environmental Compliance Certifi cate 
150 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix G — Environmental Compliance Certificate 151 

Appendix H 

Director’s Approval 

Appendix I
 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation 
156 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix I — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 157 
158 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix I — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 159 
160 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Appendix I — Section 7 Biological Evaluation 161 
162 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 
Literature Cited
 

American Farmland Trust. 2000. Strategic ranchland 

in the Rocky Mountain west–mapping the threats 

to prime ranchland in seven western States: Washington DC: American Farmland Trust. [Internet]. 

http://www.farmland.org/resources/rockymtn/default.asp> [date accessed unknown]. 

———. 2001. Cost of community service studies. Washington DC: American Farmland Trust. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Athearn, F. J. 1989. A forgotten kingdom: the Spanish frontier in Colorado and New Mexico, 1540­

1821. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management. 

Cultural Resource Series Number 29. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Athearn, F. J. 1985. Land of contrast: A history of 

southeast Colorado. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land 

Management. Cultural Resources Series Number 

17. [number of pages unknown]. 

Averyt, K.; Cody, K.; Gordon, E.; Klein, R.; Lukas, J.; 

Smith, J.; Travis, W.; Udall, B.; and Vogel, J. 2011. 

Colorado climate preparedness project: fi nal report. 

Prepared by the Western Water Assessment for 

the State of Colorado. Boulder, CO: University of 

Colorado. [number of pages unknown]. 

Azure, D. A. 1998. Aspects of American bittern ecology in northwest Minnesota. M.S. Thesis. Grand 

Forks, ND: University of North Dakota. 139 p. 

Bailey, A. M.; Niedrach, R. J. 1967. Pictorial checklist 

of Colorado birds: with brief notes on the status 

of each species in neighboring states of Nebraska, 

Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Denver, 

CO: Denver Museum of Natural History. 168 p. 

Ball, I.R.; Possingham, H.P.; and M. Watts. 2009. 

Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Chapter 14: pages 185-195 in 

Spatial conservation prioritisation: quantitative 

methods and computational tools. Moilanen, A.; 

Wilson, K. A.; and Possingham, H.P., eds. Oxford, 

UK: Oxford University Press. 10 p. 

Banzhaf, S.; Oates, W.; Sanchirico, J.; Simpson, D.; 

and Walsh, R. 2006. Voting for conservation–what 

is the American electorate revealing? Resources, 

v. 160, p. 8–12. 

Bayne, E. M.; Dale, B. C. 2011. Effects of energy development on songbirds. In: Naugle, D.E. Energy 

development and wildlife conservation in western 

North America. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Beason, J.; Levad, R.; and Leukering, T. 2005. Monitoring Colorado’s birds: the 2004 fi eld season report. Unpublished report, RMBO, Brighton, CO. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Bent, A. C. 1963. Life histories of North American 

marsh birds. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 

392 p. 

[BLM] Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Draft 

geothermal leasing RMP amendment EA. [city 

unknown], CO: DOI – BLM San Luis Valley Field 

Office. [number of pages unknown]. 

BLM and U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Solar 

energy development draft programmatic environmental impact statement. [city, state: publisher 

unknown]. [number of pages unknown]. 

Brendle, D. 2002. Geophysical logging to determine 

construction, contributing zones, and appropriate 

use of water levels measured in confi ned-aquifer 

network wells, San Luis Valley, Colorado, 1998­

2000. Water Resources Investigations Report 02­

4058. [city, state unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Brininger, W.L., Jr. 1996. The ecology of the American 

bittern in northwest Minnesota. M.S. thesis. Saint 

Cloud, MN: Saint Cloud State University. 70 p. 

Brown, M.; Dinsmore, J.J. 1986. Implications of marsh 

size and isolation for marsh bird management. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 392-397. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Labor force data by 

county–2008 annual averages. Washington, DC,: 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Labor. [Internet]. <ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special. 

requests/la/laucnty08.txt> accessed November 

14, 2011. 

———. 2011a. Local area unemployment statistics. 

Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Labor. [Internet]. <http://www.bls. 

gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm> accessed November 

14, 2011. 

———. 2011b. Labor force data by county (not seasonally adjusted)—July 2010–August 2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. [Internet]. <http://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

laucntycur14.txt> accessed November 14, 2011. 

Byers, E.; Ponte, K. 2005. The conservation easement handbook. Washington, DC: Land Trust Alliance and San Fransisco, CA: The Trust for Public 

Land. 555 p. 
164 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Carson, P. 1998. Across the northern frontier: Spanish explorations in Colorado. Boulder, CO: Johnson 

Books. [number of pages unknown]. 

Carter, C. J. 1978. Pike in Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: 

The Old Army Press. [number of pages unknown]. 

Cassels, E. S. 1997. The archaeology of Colorado. 

Boulder, CO: Johnson Books. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

The Center for Grant Studies. 2003. [Internet]. <http:// 

www.southwestbooks.org/sangredecristo.htm> accessed on March 17, 2012. 

Center for Rural Entrepreneurship. 2008. Final report: 

San Luis Valley targeted industry study. [Internet]. 

<http://scseed.org/wb/media/8-25-08%20SLV%20 

Final%20Report.pdf> accessed March 1, 2012 

Collinge, S. K. 2009. Ecology of fragmented landscapes. 

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Colorado Department of Local Affairs. 2002. Preliminary population projections for Colorado, (table 

III C). Colorado Demography Section. [Internet]. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/pop/ 

popp_co.pdf> accessed February 29, 2012. 

———. 2011. Colorado planning & management region report: region 8- Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, 

Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties. San 

Luis Valley Development Resources Group, Inc and 

Colorado Demography Office. [Internet]. <http:// 

dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/profi les/reports/region8.pdf> accessed February 29, 2012. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2010. San Luis Valley: 

habitat partnership program habitat management 

plan 2010-2014. [Internet]. <http://wildlife.state. 

co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/Education/ 

pdf/HPP/SLValleyApprovedPlan.pdf> accessed 

February 29, 2012. 

Colorado Division of Property Taxation, 2006, How 

agricultural property is valued in Colorado, Department of Local Affairs 15-DPT-AR PUB B5, 

accessed online March 6, 2012 at www.dola.state. 

co.us/propertytax 

Colorado Legislative Council Staff. 2011. Focus Colorado: economic and revenue forecast. Denver, CO: 

Colorado General Assembly. [Internet]. <http://www. 

colorado.gov/legcouncil/Forecast/11JuneForecast. 

pdf> accessed online February 29, 2012. 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2011. CNHP 

maps for download. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado 

State University. <http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/ 

download/gis.asp> accessed July 23, 2012. 

Colorado State Archives. 2001. Spanish-Mexican land 

grants. [Internet]. <http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/ 

doit/archives/mlg/mlg.html> accessed March 17, 2011. 

Colorado State University Herbarium. 2012. Species 

lists for each county in Colorado. [Internet]. <http:// 

herbarium.biology.colostate.edu/colorado_map. 

html> accessed January 17, 2012. 

Colorado Tourism Offi ce. 2012. Town of San Luis 

[Internet]. <http://www.colorado.com/Articles. 

aspx?aid=42178> accessed March 1, 2012. 

Colville, R. M. 1995. La Vereda: a trail through time. 

Alamosa, CO: San Luis Valley Historical Society. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Cooper, D. J.; Severn, C. 1992. Wetlands of the San 

Luis Valley, Colorado: an ecological study and 

analysis of the hydrologic regime, soil chemistry, 

vegetation, and the potential effects of a water table 

drawdown. Unpublished report prepared for the 

State of Colorado Division of Wildlife, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and Rio Grande Water Conservation District [location unknown]. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Copeland, H. E.; Doherty, K. E.; Naugle, D. E.; Pocewicz, A.; and Kiesecker, J. M. 2009. Mapping oil 

and gas development potential in the US Intermountain West and estimating impacts to species. 

PLoS One 4:e7400 

Colorado Partners in Flight. 2000. Colorado land bird 

conservation plan. [city, state: publisher unknown]. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Coues, Elliot. 1965. The journal of Jacob Fowler: narrating an adventure from Arkansas through the 

Indian Territory, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado 

and New Mexico to the sources of Rio Grande 

Del Norte, 1821-1822. Edited with notes by Elliott Coues, copyright 1898 by Francis P. Harper. 

Minneapolis, MN: Ross & Haines, Inc. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Coupal, R.; Tayor, D.T.; and McLeod, D. 2002. The 

cost of community services for rural residential 

development in Wyoming. Laramie, WY: Wyoming 

Open Spaces. 4 p. 

Colorado Natural Heritage Program and The Nature 

Conservancy. 2008. A biodiversity scorecard for 

Colorado. Unpublished report, draft dated October 20, 2008. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program, Colorado State University and 

Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2012. Boreal Toad. 

[Internet]. <http://wildlife.state.co.us/Research/ 

Aquatic/BorealToad/Pages/BorealToad.aspx> [accessed 7 March 2012] 

Creel, D.; Scott IV, R. F.; Collins, M. B. 1990. A faunal 

record from west central Texas and its bearing on 

late holocene bison population changes in the southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 35(127): 55-69. 

Town of Crestone, Colorado. [date unknown]. [Internet]. <http://townofcrestone.org/crestone_history. 

shtml> accessed March 1, 2012. 

Crompton, J., 2001, The impact of parks on property 

values—a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Leisure Research v. 33, no. 1, p. 1–31. 
Literature Cited 165 

Cunningham, M.A.; Johnson, D. H. 2006. Proximate 

and landscape factors influence grassland bird distributions. Ecological Applications 16: 1062-1075. 

Daub, B.C. 1993. Effects of marsh area and characteristics on avian diversity and nesting success. M.S. 

thesis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 37 p. 

Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United 

States 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. [number of pages unknown]. 

Dahl, Thomas E. 2000. Report to Congress on the 

status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous 

United States 1986 to 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 82 p. 

Daily, G., 1997, Nature’s services. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. [number of pages unknown]. 

Dechant, J. A.; Sondreal, M. L.; Johnson, D. H.; et al. 

2004. Effects of management practices on grassland 

birds: American bittern. USGS Northern Prairie 

Wildlife Research Center. Paper 126. [Internet]. 

<http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc/126> 

[date accessed unknown]. 

[DMRS] Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, 

and Safety. 2012. Division of reclamation, mining, 

and safety map. Department of Natural Resources. 

[Internet]. http://drmsmaps.state.co.us/ accessed 

February 6, 2012. 

Duebbert, H. F.; Lokemoen, J. T. 1977. Upland nesting of American bitterns, marsh hawks, and shorteared owls. Jamestown, ND: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. [number of pages unknown]. 

Dukes, J. S.; Mooney, H. A. 2004. Disruption of ecosystem processes in western North America by 

invasive species. Revista Chilena de Historia 

Natural 77: 411-437. 

Ehrlich, P.; Ehrlich, A. 1992. The value of biodiversity. 

Ambio v. 21, no. 3, p. 219–226. 

Ellis, R. 1996. Blair, R. ed. The Utes. in the western 

San Juan Mountains: their geology, ecology & human history. [city, state unknown]: University 

Press of Colorado. [number of pages unknown]. 

Emery, Philip A. [date unknown]. Hydrogeology of 

the San Luis Valley, Colorado: an overview- and 

a look at the future. Report compiled for the National Park Service. [Internet]. <http://www.nps. 

gov/grsa/naturescience/upload/Trip2023.pdf > accessed online March 1, 2012. 

Engel, J. B. 2007. Development, status, and viability 

of the conservation easement as a private land conservation tool in the eastern United States. Urban 

Lawyer 39: 19-74. 

Faanes, C. A. 1981. Birds of the St. Croix River Valley: Minnesota and Wisconsin. North American 

Fauna 73. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 196 p. 

Freeman, J.;Wunder, L. 1988. Observations at a colony 

of Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) 

in southern Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist 33: 102-104. 

Galbraith, K. 2010. Colorado increases renewables 

requirements. New York Times, March 22, 2010 

edition. [Internet]. <http://green.blogs.nytimes. 

com/2010/03/22/colorado-to-boost-renewables-requirements> accessed February 29, 2012. 

Geoghegan, J.; Lynch, L.; and Bucholtz, S. 2003. Capitalization of open spaces into housing values and 

the residential property tax revenue impacts of 

agricultural easement programs. Agricultural and 

Resource Economics Review v. 32, no. 1, p. 33–45. 

Goslee, S. C.; Beck, K. G.; Peters, D. P. C. 2003. Distribution of Russian knapweed in Colorado: climate 

and environmental factors. Journal of Range Management 56: 206-212. 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. 2005. Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide 

conservation plan. Denver, CO: Colorado Division 

of Wildlife. [number of pages unknown]. 

Haas, C. A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors by 

birds in wooded patches on an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 9: 845-854. 

Hanser, S. 2010. Western U.S. wind resource at 50 

meters above ground level. Boise, ID: U.S. Geological Survey. Raster data. [Internet]. <http:// 

sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/wus_50mwind.zip> [date 

accessed unknown]. 

Hart, S.H.; Hulbert, A. B. 2006. Hart, Hulbert, eds. 

The southwestern journals of Zebulon Pike: 1806­

1807. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico 

Press. [number of pages unknown]. 

Headwaters Economics. 2011. Economic profi le systemhuman dimensions toolkit version 6.01 (EPS–HDT), 

[Internet]. <http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/ 

eps-hdt> accessed February, 27 2012. 

Hebblewhite, M. 2011. Effects of energy development 

on ungulates. In: Naugle, D.E. Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North 

America. Washington, DC: Island Press. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

Hilty J.A.; Merenlender A. M. 2004. Use of riparian 

corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators 

in northern California. Conservation Biology 18: 

126-135. 

Hoefer, T. 1999. Archaic stage. In: Martorano, M. A.; 

Hoefer III, T.; Jodry, M. A.;Spero, V.; and Taylor, 

M. L. Colorado prehistory: a context for the Rio 

Grande basin. [city, state unknown]: Colorado 

Council of Professional Archaeologists. p. 115-128. 

Jaffe, M. 2011, Solar-energy industry taking a shine 

to San Luis. Denver Post, March 6, 2010 edition. 

[Internet]. <http://www.denverpost.com/business/ 

ci_17544881> accessed February 29, 2012. 

Jodry, M. A. 1999a. Paleoindian stage. In: Martorano, 

M. A.; Hoefer III, T.; Jodry, M. A.;Spero, V.; and 

Taylor, M. L. Colorado prehistory: a context for the 
166 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Rio Grande basin. [city, state unknown]: Colorado 

Council of Professional Archaeologists. p. 45-114. 

———. 1999b. Paleoindianstage paleoecological records. In: Martorano, M. A.; Hoefer III, T.; Jodry, 

M. A.;Spero, V.; and Taylor, M. L. Colorado prehistory: a context for the Rio Grande basin. [city, 

state unknown]: Colorado Council of Professional 

Archaeologists. pp. 12-26. 

Jones, B. A. 2000. Archeological overview and assessment for the Alamosa/Monte Vista National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, Alamosa, Costilla, and 

Rio Grande Counties, Colorado. Prepared for the 

Mountain–Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lincoln, NB: National Park Service, 

Midwest Archaeological Center. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

Jordan, N.; Boody, G.; Broussard W.; Glover, J.; Keeney, D.; McCown, B.; et al. 2007. Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science v. 

316, p. 1570–1571. 

Karl, R. T.; Melillo, J. M.; and Peterson, T. C. 2009. 

Global climate change impacts in the United States. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

Kessler, R. 1998. Old Spanish Trail North Brach, and 

its travelers. Santa Fe, NM: Sunstone Press. [number of pages unknown]. 

Kingsley, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. 

[city, state unknown]. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 648 p. 

Knick, S. T.; Rotenberry, J. T. 1995. Characteristics 

of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and breeding 

passerine birds. Conservation Biology 9: 1059-1071. 

Kroger, T. 2008. Open space property value premium 

analysis. Washington, DC: National Council for 

Science and the Environment, Wildlife Habitat 

Policy Research Program, Conservation Economics Program, Defenders of Wildlife. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species 

umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation 

Biology 11: 849-856. 

Laubhan, M. K.; Gammonley, J. H. 2000. Density and 

foraging habitat selection of waterbirds breeding in 

the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 64: 808-819. 

Lopez-Tushar, O. 1997. The people of El Valle: a History of the Spanish colonials in the San Luis Valley. Pueblo, CO: El Escritorio. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

Loss S.R.; Terwilliger L.A.; Peterson A.C. 2011. 

Assisted colonization: integrating conservation 

strategies in the face of climate change. Biological 

Conservation 144: 92-100. 

Maestre, F. T.; Quero, J. L; Gotelli, N. J.; et al. 2012. 

Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 335: 214-218. 

Martorano, M. 1999a. Post paleoindian paleoenvironmental studies. In: Martorano, M. A.; Hoefer 

III, T.; Jodry, M. A.;Spero, V.; and Taylor, M. L. 

Colorado prehistory: a context for the Rio Grande 

basin. [city, state unknown]: Colorado Council of 

Professional Archaeologists. pp. 27-30. 

———. 1999b. Late prehistoric/ceramic stage. In: Martorano, M. A.; Hoefer III, T.; Jodry, M. A.;Spero, V.; 

and Taylor, M. L. Colorado prehistory: a context 

for the Rio Grande basin. [city, state unknown]: 

Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists. 

pp. 129-137. 

———. 1999c. Protohistoric stage. In: Martorano, M. 

A.; Hoefer III, T.; Jodry, M. A.;Spero, V.; and Taylor, M. L. Colorado prehistory: a context for the 

Rio Grande basin. [city, state unknown]: Colorado 

Council of Professional Archaeologists. p. 138-145. 

Mayo, A.L.; Davey, A.; Christieansen, D. 2006. Groundwater flow patterns in the San Luis Valley, Colorado, 

USA revisited: an evaluation of solute and isotope 

data. [city, state: publisher unknown]. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

McCalpin, J. P. 1996. General geology of the northeast San Luis Valley, Colorado in Geological Society of America – Colorado geological survey fi eld 

trip guidebook: geologic excursions to the Rocky 

Mountains and beyond. Annual meeting, October 

1996. Denver, CO: Geological Society of America. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

McConnell, V.; Walls, M. 2005. The value of open 

space—evidence from studies of nonmarket benefi ts: 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 79 p. 

Merenlender, A. M.; Huntsinger, L.; Guthey, G.; Fairfax, S. K. 2004. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom? Conservation Biology 18: 65-75. 

Middleton, D.S. 1949. Close proximity of two nests of 

American bitterns. Wilson Bulletin 61: 113. 

Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment. 2005. 

Ecosystems and human well-being—synthesis 

report. Washington, DC: Island Press. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2007a. Concentration solar resource of the Southwest United 

States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. [Internet]. <http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/ 

csp_sw.pdf> accessed February 29, 2012. 

———. 2007b. Photovoltaic solar resource of the 

United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Energy. [Internet]. <http://www.nrel.gov/gis/ 

images/map_pv_national_lo-res.jpg> accessed 

February 29, 2012. 

NASA. 2006. MODIS land cover type, compiled using 

Headwaters Economics Economic profi le systemhuman dimensions toolkit version 6.01. [city, state: 

publisher unknown]. [number of pages unknown]. 
Literature Cited 167 

[NPS] National Park Service. 2011. San Luis Valley 

and Central Sangre de Cristo Mountains: Reconnaissance Survey Report (draft). Denver, CO: Intermountain Regional Office, National Park Service. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Naugle, D. E.; Doherty, K. E.; Walker, B. L.; Copeland, H. E.; Holloran, M. J.; and Tack, J. D. 2011. 

Sage-grouse and cumulative impacts of energy 

development. In: Naugle, D.E. Energy development and wildlife conservation in western North 

America. Washington, DC: Island Press. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

Netusil, N.R.; Boyd, E.; Griffen, Z.V.; LaMerrill, M.; 

Rainsberger, E. 2000. Can open space be self-fi ­

nancing? Choices v. 15, no. 2, p. 21–23. 

New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department. 

2011. Regulations pertaining to the Property Tax 

Code, Sections 7-35-1 to 7-28-93 NMSA 1978. [Internet]. <http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Tax-Library/Statutes-and-Department-Directives/Recent-Regulation-Changes/ 

Property_Tax_Code.pdf> accessed March, 6, 2012. 

The New York Times. 1898. Up the Rio Grande in 

1821: Jacob Fowler’s quaint and interesting journal of the trip. June 18, 1898. New York: The New 

York Times. [number of pages unknown]. 

Nhancale, B. A.; Smith, R. J. 2011. The infl uence of 

planning unit characteristics on the effi ciency and 

spatial pattern of systematic conservation planning assessments. Biodiversity Conservation 20: 

1821-1835. 

Noss, R. F.; Dobson, A. P.; Baldwin, R.; Beier, P.; Davis, C. R.; Dellasala, D. A.; Francis, J.; Locke, H.; 

Nowak, K.; Lopez, R.; Reining, C.; Trombulak, C.; 

Tabor, G. 2012. Bold conservation. Conservation 

Biology 26: 1-4.

 [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2012. Working lands for wildlife. [Internet]. <http:// 

www.fws.gov/workinglandsforwildlife.html> accessed March 11, 2012. 

National Weather Service. 2012. Alamosa, Colorado 

climate normals (1971-2000). [Internet]. <http:// 

www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/?n=/climate/cli/alamosa. 

php> accessed January 17, 2012. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2008. The Great Sand Dunes 

project: measures of conservation success. Project 

summary. Boulder, CO: The Nature Conservancy. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Oyler-McCance, S.J.; Burnham, K. P.; Braun, C. E. 

2001. Infl uence of changes in sagebrush on Gunnison sage-grouse in southwestern Colorado. The 

Southwestern Naturalist 46: 323-331. 

Paxton, E. H. 2000. Molecular genetic structuring 

and demographic history of the willow fl ycatcher 

(Epidomax traillii). Masters thesis. Flagstaff, AZ: 

Northern Arizona University. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

Pennington D.N.; Hansel J.; Blair R.B. 2008. The conservation value of urban riparian areas for landbirds during spring migration: landcover, scale, 

and vegetation effects. Biological Conservation 

141: 1235-1248. 

Phillips, S. 2000. Windfalls for wilderness—land protection and land value in the Green Mountains. In: 

McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N.; Borrie, W.T.; O’Loughlin, 

J. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—volume 2—wilderness in the contect of larger 

systems. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2:258–267, 

Missoula, MT May 23–27, 1999. Ogden, UT: Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Pitkin, M.; Quattrini, L. 2010. Pocket guide to sagebrush birds. Brighton, CO: Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory and Petaluma, CA: Point Reyes Bird 

Observatory. [number of pages unknown]. 

Preuss, C. 1958. Exploring with Fremont. Gudde, 

E. G.; Gudde, E. K. eds. Norman, OK: University 

of Oklahoma Press. [number of pages unknown]. 

The Pueblo Chieftan. 2009. Taylor Ranch owners appeal court’s handling of access proceedings. September 12, 2009. [Internet]. <http://www.chieftain. 

com/news/local/article_3a47173d-a18f-5af5-9ad7­

545ff94a6a7c.html> accessed on March 17, 2012. 

Rantalainen, M. L.; Fritze, H.; Haimi, J.; Pennanen, 

T.; Setälä, H. 2005. Species richness and food web 

structure of soil decomposer community as affected 

by the size of habitat fragmentation and habitat 

corridors. Global Change Biology 11: 1614-1627. 

Ray, A.; Barsugli, J.; Ayert, K.; Wolter, K.; Hoerling, 

M.; Doesken, N.; Udall, B.; and Webb, R. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: a synthesis to support 

water resources management and adaptation. Intermountain West Climate Summary 4: 2-4. 

Reed, A.D. 1994. The numic occupation of western 

Colorado and eastern Utah during the prehistoric 

and protohistoric periods. In: Madsen, D.B.; Rohde, 

D. eds. Across the West: human population movement and the expansion of the numa, Salt Lake 

City, UT: University of Utah Press. P. 188-199. 

Rees, D.E.; Carr, R.J.; Miller, W.J. 2005. Rio Grande 

chub (Gila pandora): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. [Internet]. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/riograndechub.pdf> accessed 

January 31, 2012. 

Rees, D.E.; Miller, W.J. 2005. Rio Grande sucker 

(Catostomus plebeius): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. [Internet]. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/ 

projects/scp/assessments/riograndesucker.pdf> 

accessed January 31, 2012. 

Renaud, E. B. 1942. Reconnaissance work in the upper Rio Grade Valley: Colorado and New Mexico. 

Department of Anthropology Archaeological Series: 
168 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Third Paper. Denver, CO: University of Denver. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

The Republican Publishing Company. 1884. Immigrants’ guide to the Great San Luis Park: where 

can be had the best farming lands in the world. 

Denver, CO: The Republican Publishing Company. 

[number of pages unknown]. 

Reynolds, R.; Shaffer, T.; Renner, R.; Newton, W.; and 

Batt, B.; 2001, Impact of the conservation reserve 

program on duck recruitment in the U.S. prairie 

pothole region. Journal of Wildlife Management v. 

65, no. 4, p. 765–780. 

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team. 2009. 

Conservation agreement for Rio Grande cutthroat 

trout (Oncorynchus clarkia virginalis) in the States 

of Colorado and New Mexico. Fort Collins, CO: 

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 24 p. 

Rio Grande Water Conservation District. 2012. The 

closed basin project. [Internet]. <http://www.rgwcd. 

org/page21.html> accessed March 7, 2012. 

Richmond, P. J. 1990. Trail to disaster. Denver, CO: 

Colorado Historical Society. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

Riffell, S. K.; Keas, B. E.; and Burton, T. M. 2001. 

Area and habitat relationships of birds in Great 

Lakes coastal wet meadows. Wetlands 21: 492-507. 

Ripple, W. J.; Beschta, R. L. 2012. Trophic cascades 

in Yellowstone: the fi rst 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation 145: 205-213. 

Rissman, A.; Lozier, L.; Comendant, T.; Kareiva, P.,; 

Kiesecker, J.; Shaw, M.; et al. 2007, Conservation 

easements—biodiversity protection and private 

use. Conservation Biology v. 21, no. 3, p. 709–718. 

Robson, S.; Banta, E. 1995. Ground water atlas of the 

United States: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, 

Utah: Rio Grande aquifer system. [city, state unknown]: U.S. Geological Survey. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

Rocchio, J. 2005. Intermountain basins playa ecological 

system: ecological integrity assessment. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University. [number of pages unknown]. 

Rowland, M. M.; Wisdom, M. J.; Suring, L. H.; Meinke, 

C. W. 2006. Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella 

species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates. Biological Conservation 129: 323-335. 

Saguache County. 2008. [Internet]. <http://saguache. 

org> accessed March 1, 2012. 

Sanchez, J. P. 1997. Explorers, Traders, and Slavers: 

Forging the Old Spanish Trail, 1678-1850. Salt Lake 

City, UT: University of Utah Press. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Sanford, A. B. 1933. Recollections of a trip to the San 

Luis Valley in 1877. In: Grinstead, S.; Fogelberg, 

B. eds. Western voices: 125 years of Colorado writing. 2004. Colorado Historical Society. Golden, CO: 

Fulcrum Publishing. [number of pages unknown]. 

Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area. 2012, 

Hispano culture, folklore, religion, and language. 

[Internet]. <http://sdcnha.org/js/hispano-culturesdcnha.html> accessed March 6, 2012. 

Schroeder, M. A.; Aldridge, C. L.; Apa, A. D.; Bohne, 

J. R.; Braun, C. E.; Bunnell, S. D.; Connelly, J. W.; 

Deibert, P. A.; Gardner, S. C.; Hilliard, M. A.; Kobriger, G. D.; McAdam, S. M.; McCarthy, C. W.; 

McCarthy, J. J.; Mitchell, D. L.; Rickerson, E. V.; 

Stiver, S. J. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in 

North America. Condor: 106:363-376. 

Shepherd, B.;Whittington, J. 2006. Response of wolves 

to corridor restoration and human use management. 

Ecology and Society 11: 1. [Internet]. <http://www. 

ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art1/> [date accessed unknown]. 

Siebenthal, C. E. 1910. Geology and water resources 

of the San Luis Valley. United States Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 240. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Offi ce. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

Stoller, M. L.; Steele, T. J. 1982. Diary of the Jesuit 

residence of Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish, Conejos, Colorado: December 1871 – December 1875. 

The Colorado College Studies, Number Nineteen. 

Colorado Springs, CO: The Colorado College. [number of pages unknown]. 

Taylor, D.T.; Coupal, R.H. 2000. The cost of rural 

community services in Laramie, Wyoming. Laramie, WY: Department of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics, University of Wyoming. [number of 

pages unknown]. 

Telleria, J. L.; Santos, T. 1995. Effects of forest fragmentation on a guild of wintering passerines: the 

role of habitat selection. Biological Conservation 

71: 61-67. 

Thorsnes, P. 2002. The value of a suburban forest preserve—estimates from sales of vacant residential 

building lots. Land Economics v. 78, no. 3, p. 426–441. 

Tremblay, Marie A. 2001. Modeling and management 

of potential movement for elk (Cervus elaphus), 

bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos) in the Radium Hot Springs area, 

British Columbia. Davis, CA: Road Ecology Center, 

University of California, Davis. [Internet]. <http:// 

escholarship.org/uc/item/1vt0p0h8> accessed October 20, 2011. 

Ubbelodhe, C.; Benson, M.; Smith, D. A.; 2001. A 

Colorado History. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing 

Company. [number of pages unknown]. 

University of New Mexico. 2002. Projected population: New Mexico counties 2000 to 2030. Bureau 

of Business and Economic Research. [Internet]. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/pop/ 

popp_nm.htm> accessed February 29, 2012. 

Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 2008, 

State and local tax policy—What are the sources 
Literature Cited 169 

of revenue for local governments?: Washington, 

D.C., Tax Policy Center, accessed online July 18, 

2011[Internet]. <http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ 

briefi ng-book/state-local/revenues/local_revenue.cfm 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. American factfi nder. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Internet]. 

<http://factfi nder2.census.gov/main.html> accessed 

February 28, 2012. 

———. 2010b. State and county quickfacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Internet]. <http:// 

quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html> accessed 

February 28, 2012. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Census of 

agriculture, (table 8). Compiled using Headwaters Economics Economic profi le system-human 

dimensions toolkit version 6.01. Washington, DC: 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Regional economic information system, (table CA25N). Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis. [Internet]. <http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis> accessed 

February 28, 2012. 

———. 2010a. Regional economic information system, 

(table CA25N & CA25N). Compiled using Headwaters Economics Economic profi le system-human 

dimensions toolkit version 6.01. Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2010b. County business patterns. Compiled 

using Headwaters Economics Economic profi le 

system-human dimensions toolkit version 6.01. 

Washington, DC: Census Bureau.[number of pages 

unknown]. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. Department of 

Energy fi nalizes $90.6 million loan to guarantee 

to Cogentrix of Alamosa, LLC to support Colorado solar project. [Internet]. <http://energy.gov/ 

articles/department-energy-fi nalizes-906-millionloan-guarantee-cogentrix-alamosa-llc-support> 

accessed February, 29, 2012 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Level 

III ecoregions of the Continental United States. national health and environmental effects laboratory. 

[Internet]. <ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/us/ 

Eco_Level_III_US.pdf> accessed January 13, 2012. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Draft 

Baca National Wildlife Refuge water resource inventory and assessment. Lakewood, CO: Region 6, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2011. Environmental assessment of proposed 

oil and gas exploration, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, Saguache County, Colorado. Lakewood, CO: 

Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

———. 2010a. Preliminary project proposal–San 

Luis Valley Conservation Area. Alamosa, CO: San 

Luis Valley National Wildlife Complex. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

———. 2010b. Rising to the urgent challenge: strategic plan for responding to accelerating climate 

change. [city, state: publisher unknown]. [number 

of pages unknown]. 

———. 2008. 2006 National survey of fi shing, hunting, 

and wildlife—associated recreation: Washington, 

DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau. 164 p. 

———. 2005. Baca National Wildlife Refuge conceptual management plan. Lakewood, CO: Region 6, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [number of pages 

unknown]. 

———. 2002. Southwestern willow fl ycatcher recovery plan. Albuquerque, NM: [publisher unknown]. 

i-ix + 210 p., Appendices A-O. 

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Nonindigenous 

aquatic species HUC-6 query (Rio Grande headwaters). [Internet]. <http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/SpeciesList.aspx?Group=&Status=0&FMB 

=0&pathway=0&Sortby=1&Size=50&HUCNum 

ber=130100> accessed January 31, 2012]. 

———. 2010. Landfire 1.1.0. Existing vegetation type 

layer. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Internet]. <http://landfi re.cr.usgs. 

gov/viewer> [date accessed unknown]. 

Vrooman, D.; 1978. An empirical analysis of determinants of land values in the Adriondack Park. 

American Journal of Economics and Sociology v. 

37, no. 2, p. 165–177. 

Watkins, T.; Belcher, J.; Gries, R.; Longacre, M. 1995. 

The surprising discovery of oil and Mesozoic sediments in the San Luis Basin, Saguache County, 

Colorado. Colorado Scientifi c Society Abstracts. 

[Internet]. <http://www.coloscisoc.org/abstracts/ 

abstracts95.html> accessed October 20, 2011. 

Weber, M. J. 1978. Non-game birds in relation to habitat variation on South Dakota wetlands. Master’s 

thesis. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University. 54 p. 

Weber, M.J.; Vohs Jr., P.A.; Flake, L.D. 1982. Use of 

prairie wetlands by selected bird species in South 

Dakota. The Wilson Bulletin 94: 550-554. 

Weins, J. A. ; J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations 

and community structure of birds in shrub steppe 

environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21-41. 

Williams, M. I.; Paige, G. B.; Thurow, T. L.; Hild, A. L.; 

Gerow, K. J. 2011. Songbird relationships to shrubsteppe ecological site characteristics. Rangeland 

Ecology & Management 64: 109-118. 

Wockner, G.; Boone, R.; Schoenecker, K.; Zeigenfuss, 

L. 2010. The Great Sand Dunes ecosystem elk and 

bison carrying capacity model: description and scenario results. Fort Collins, CO: Natural Resource 
170 Land Protection Plan, Sangre de Cristo Conservation Area, Colorado and New Mexico 

Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University 

and Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Wyckoff, W. 1999. Creating Colorado: the making of 

a western american landscape, 1860-1940. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [number of 

pages unknown]. 
Glossary
 

adaptive strategy—The ability of an ecosystem to 

keep ecological function while adjusting to longterm changes in the environment, or shifting to a 

new normal (such as climate change, established 

invasive species). 

anthropogenic—Caused by human activity. 

candidate species—A species of plant or animal for 

which the USFWS has suffi cient information on 

its biological status and threats to propose it for 

listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for which development 

of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by 

other higher priority listing activities. 

CFR—See Code of Federal Regulations. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)—Codification of the 

general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government. Each volume 

of the CFR is updated once each calendar year. 

comprehensive conservation plan—A 15-year plan providing overall management guidance to a unit or 

complex of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

conservation easement—A legally enforceable encumbrance or transfer of property rights to a 

government agency or land trust for the purposes 

of conservation. Rights transferred could include 

discretion to subdivide or develop land, to change 

current land use practices, to sever water rights, 

or others as proper, and are specifi ed by contract 

between the landowner and the conservation entity. 

ecological resilience—The ability of an ecosystem to 

rebound from short-term changes to a landscape 

(such as wildfi res, floods, pest outbreaks). 

endangered species—A species of plant or animal 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

substantial part of its range. 

Endangered Species Act—A United States law passed 

by Congress in 1973 with the purpose of protecting 

and recovering imperiled species and the ecosystems on which they depend. 

environmental assessment—A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance document that 

analyzes whether to prepare an environmental 

impact statement or a finding of no signifi cant impact, facilitates compliance when no EIS is necessary, or facilitates preparation of an EIS when one 

is necessary. 

focal species—Species that represent a group of species vulnerable to similar threats. 

HUC—Hydrologic Unit Code, a hierarchical system 

created by USGS to find locations and regions by 

hydrology. 

land protection plan—A document required by USFWS policy before the establishment of new units 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, or major 

expansions of existing units. 

landscape conservation cooperative—A public-private 

partnership intended to facilitate cross-political 

boundary conservation in the face of a changing 

environment through application of science. 

Marxan—A software package used as a decision support tool for spatial conservation prioritization. 

Region 6—An administrative unit of the Service known 

as the Mountain–Prairie Region, which covers eight 

States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Service—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

strategic habitat conservation—An iterative adaptive 

management framework designed to make sure 

that decisionmaking and management within the 

Service is science-based. Consists of four stages: 

biological planning, conservation design, delivery of 

conservation action, and monitoring and research. 

threatened species—A species of plant or animal that 

is likely to become endangered in the future. 

trust species—Species for which the Federal Government has statutory responsibility, including 

threatened and endangered species, migratory 

birds, marine mammals, and interjurisdictional fi sh. 

U.S.C.—United States Code.