ConPro Spatial is changing! For now, you may view the already existing ConPro spatial application or other spatial information
in a new browser window by clicking on one of the links below. Note that TNC users must log in to see the complete data.
- ecad.tnc.org/ConProSpatial
- Map of TNC's Conservation Projects will open in a new browser window which contains links to detailed project data in ConPro. TNC users must log in to see complete data.
- maps.tnc.org/coredata
- TNC's core conservation datasets including conservation projects dataset.
- maps.tnc.org
- Site that provides links to all of TNC's publically available data resources.
Oops. ConPro encountered an error while trying to fulfill your request. Please refresh this page
and try again.
If the error persists, please notify us using the feedback form.
Great Sand Dunes (ID: 558)
Project last modified by
rneugarten
on
December 20, 2007.
-
- Download Data
- See Associated Info (2)
This conservation project has been locked by a Miradi upload. For more information about Miradi uploads/downloads, please see:
Miradi FAQs.
Miradi FAQs.
Associated Files
-
Great Sand Dunes Situation Diagram (jpg)
Size: 202.9 kB
Uploaded On: October 02, 2008 -
GSDsituation.vsd
Size: 65.5 kB
Uploaded On: October 02, 2008
Note:
To view an image, click on the
icon beside the image name.
icon beside the image name.
Associated Links
No associated links found.
- Basic
- Viability
- Threats
- Viability Assessment
- Action Plan
- Strategy Effectiveness
- Indicators
- Resources
| Name |
|---|
|
By 2008, cooperative integrated weed management maintains or reduces weed distribution.
|
|
By 2010, maintain water rights (TNC/FWS/NPS/BLM/Colorado) while optimizing conservation values.
|
|
By 2015, a pure bison herd exists within the Great Sand Dunes area
|
|
By 2015, elk and bison are managed within ecological carrying capacity
|
|
By 2015, more than 3000 bison are roaming freely across at least 125,000 acres
|
|
By 2015, recreational use and future projections will support biodiversity values.
|
|
By 2015, restore amphibian community (leopard frogs)
|
|
Through 2015, maintain/improve variability in stabilized sand dune vegetation and persistence of sage sparrows
|
| Focal Conservation Target | Target Type | Habitat Type |
|---|---|---|
|
Active Dune and Swale Complex
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Stabilized sand dunes
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Wet meadows
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Lower Montane Riparian - perennial
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Lower Montane Aquatic
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral
|
Ecological System |
|
|
Bison
|
Single Species: Mammal |
|
| Threat (Common Taxonomy) * | Targets Threatened |
|---|---|
|
Closed Basin Project (Undefined :: Undefined ) |
|
|
Invasive/alien species (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Operation of drainage or diversion systems (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Invasive/alien animal species (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species ) |
|
|
Management of/for certain species (Undefined :: Undefined ) |
|
|
Grazing practices (Agriculture & Aquaculture :: Livestock Farming & Ranching ) |
|
|
Federal land management policies (Undefined :: Undefined ) |
|
|
Fish Management Practices (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources ) |
|
|
Bison management practices (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Problematic Native Species ) |
|
|
Confined Aquifer pumping (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use ) |
|
|
Crop production practices (Agriculture & Aquaculture :: Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops ) |
|
|
Lack of grazing (Undefined :: Undefined ) |
|
|
Recreational use (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities ) |
|
|
Inappropriate fire management (Natural System Modifications :: Fire & Fire Suppression ) |
|
* For information on the common taxonomy of threats, see http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/.
| Strategy (Common Taxonomy) | Threats Addressed |
|---|---|
|
Build coalition of interested parties to influence and facilitate bison expansion (tribes, local leaders, environmental organizations, national NPS and FWS, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), IUCN Species Action Group and media)
( External Capacity Building :: Alliance & Partnership Development ) |
|
|
Continue to support NPS water right filing through process
( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection ) |
|
|
Cooperative recreation management plan is developed and implemented across GSD (NPS/FWS/TNC) to protect biodiversity.
( Law & Policy :: Compliance & Enforcement ) |
|
|
Develop long term integrated water strategy to meet long term ecological goals based on assessment
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Eliminate FWS and NPS policy barriers to bison
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Ensure adequate funding as needed to support cooperative weed efforts
( External Capacity Building :: Conservation Finance ) |
|
|
Ensure that integrity of Big Spring, Little Spring, and Sand Creek by restricting use to supervised visitation
( Law & Policy :: Compliance & Enforcement ) |
|
|
establish an interagency partnership for weed management across GSD area
( External Capacity Building :: Alliance & Partnership Development ) |
|
|
Implement adaptive management plan to achieve variability of vegetation and persistence of sage sparrows.
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Implement integrated management plan for elk and bison across GSD
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Minimize fragmentation in stabilized sand dunes by restricting roads and trails and land use within largest/remotest areas through land use planning and management plan implementation.
( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations ) |
|
|
Raise ~$250,000 for bison fencing
( External Capacity Building :: Conservation Finance ) |
|
|
Refine RGDSS groundwater model to assess impacts to biodiversity at finer scale
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
|
Reintroduce leopard frogs onto the Baca NWR
( Species Management :: Species Re-Introduction ) |
|
|
Test bison and replace animals over time as needed
( Species Management :: Species Management ) |
|
|
Use RGDSS to evaluate and minimize negative impacts to biodiversity from water decisions and uses
( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration ) |
|
| Conservation Targets | Landscape Context | Condition | Size | Viability Rank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | Weight | Grade | Weight | Grade | Weight | |||
| 1 | Active Dune and Swale Complex | Very Good | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Very Good | 1.0 | Very Good |
| 2 | Stabilized sand dunes | Very Good | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Very Good | 1.0 | Very Good |
| 3 | Wet meadows | Good | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Very Good | 1.0 | Good |
| 4 | Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats | Poor | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Very Good | 1.0 | Fair |
| 5 | Lower Montane Riparian - perennial | Very Good | 1.0 | Very Good | 1.0 | Very Good | 1.0 | Very Good |
| 6 | Lower Montane Aquatic | Good | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Poor | 1.0 | Fair |
| 7 | Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral | Good | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Good | 1.0 | Good |
| 8 | Bison | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair | 1.0 | Fair |
| Project Biodiversity Health Rank | Good | |||||||
You might have to scroll to see all of the table's data.
|
Project-specific Threats (Common Taxonomy *) |
Active Dune and Swale Complex | Bison | Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats | Lower Montane Aquatic | Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral | Lower Montane Riparian - perennial | Stabilized sand dunes | Wet meadows | Overall Threat Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Closed Basin Project (Undefined) |
- | - | Very High | - | Medium | Medium | Low | Medium | High |
| Invasive/alien species (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
Medium | - | High | - | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | High |
| Operation of drainage or diversion systems (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | High | Medium | Medium | High | - | Medium | High |
| Invasive/alien animal species (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species) |
- | - | - | High | - | - | - | - | Medium |
| Management of/for certain species (Undefined) |
- | Medium | Low | - | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Grazing practices (Livestock Farming & Ranching) |
- | - | Medium | - | Low | Low | - | - | Low |
| Federal land management policies (Undefined) |
- | Medium | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Fish Management Practices (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources) |
- | - | - | Medium | - | - | - | - | Low |
| Bison management practices (Problematic Native Species) |
Low | Low | - | - | - | Low | - | - | Low |
| Confined Aquifer pumping (Dams & Water Management/Use) |
- | - | Low | - | Low | - | - | Low | Low |
| Crop production practices (Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops) |
- | - | - | Low | Low | - | - | Low | Low |
| Lack of grazing (Undefined) |
Low | - | - | - | - | - | Low | Low | Low |
| Recreational use (Recreational Activities) |
- | Low | - | - | - | - | Low | - | Low |
| Inappropriate fire management (Fire & Fire Suppression) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | Low | Low |
| Threat Status for Targets and Project | Low | Medium | High | Medium | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High |
| Categories & Measures | Score | |
|---|---|---|
| People | ||
| Staff Leadership | - | |
| Multidisciplinary Team | - | |
| People Average | - | |
Internal Resources |
||
| Institutional Learning | - | |
| Funding | - | |
| Internal Resources Average | - | |
External Resources |
||
| Social/Legal Framework for Conservation | - | |
| Community and Constituency Support | - | |
| External Resources Average | - | |
| Overall Project Resource Rank | ||
| Conservation Target | Key Attribute (Category) |
Indicator | Current Indicator Measurement | Rating Comments: (Poor, Fair Good Very Good) |
Current Rating and Date | Desired Rating and Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Dune and Swale Complex |
Species composition / dominance
1
(Condition) |
distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) 2 |
-
|
Poor:
Weed patches more than 5% of system; some patches much greater than 5 acre
Fair: Weed patches 3 and 5% of system; a few patches greater than 5 acre, but still controlable Good: Weed patches between 1 and 3 % of system; no patches greater than 5 acre; Very Good: Weed patches less than 1% of system; no patches greater than 5 acre |
Good
3
Mar 15, 2005 |
Very Good
Mar 15, 2015 |
| Active Dune and Swale Complex |
Soil / sediment stability & movement
(Landscape Context) |
number of waking and sleeping dunes? 4 |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Active Dune and Swale Complex |
Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems
(Size) |
Areal extent of active dune and swale complex | ReGAP shows 27,000 acres of dunes, some areas classified as shrubland |
Poor:
less than 10,000 acres
Fair: 10,000 - 20,000 acres Good: 20,000 - 30,000 acres Very Good: more than 30,000 acres |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Stabilized sand dunes |
Presence of key species - sage sparrow
(Condition) |
Distribution and size of sage sparrow population 5 |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Stabilized sand dunes |
Species composition / dominance
6
(Condition) |
distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) 7 |
-
|
Poor:
Weed patches more than 5% of system; some patches much greater than 5 acre
Fair: Weed patches 3 and 5% of system; a few patches greater than 5 acre, but still controlable Good: Weed patches between 1 and 3 % of system; no patches greater than 5 acre; Very Good: Weed patches less than 1% of system; no patches greater than 5 acre |
Good
8
|
Very Good
|
| Stabilized sand dunes |
Intactness of ecological systems
9
(Landscape Context) |
Fragmentation of ecological systems 10 |
-
|
Poor:
Roads,canals, ditches, and trails more than 5% of needed ecological system occurences
Fair: Roads, canals, ditches, and trails between 3 and 5% of occurrences Good: Roads, canals, ditches, and trails between 1 and 3 % of occurrences Very Good: Roads, canals, ditches, and trails less than 1% of occurrences |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Stabilized sand dunes |
Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems
(Size) |
Areal extent of stabilized sand dunes | ReGAP shows 113,000 acres of intermountain semi-desert shrub steppe |
Poor:
less than 10,000 acres
Fair: 10,000 - 20,000 acres Good: 20,000 - 30,000 acres Very Good: more than 30,000 acres |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Wet meadows |
Presence of key species - slender spiderflower
(Condition) |
Persistence and size of slender spiderflower populations 11 | 7 As; 11 Bs; and 11 Cs |
Poor:
less than 13 of the 29 occurrences are high quality (A or B ranked)
Fair: 13-18 of the 29 occurrences are high quality (A or B ranked) Good: 19-25 of the 29 occurrences are high quality (A or B ranked) Very Good: Most of the 29 (at least 25) occurrences are high quality (A or B ranked) |
Good
|
Good
|
| Wet meadows |
Species composition / dominance
12
(Condition) |
distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) 13 |
-
|
Poor:
Weed patches more than 5% of system; some patches much greater than 5 acre
Fair: Weed patches 3 and 5% of system; a few patches greater than 5 acre, but still controlable Good: Weed patches between 1 and 3 % of system; no patches greater than 5 acre; Very Good: Weed patches less than 1% of system; no patches greater than 5 acre |
Good
14
|
Good
|
| Wet meadows |
Groundwater
(Landscape Context) |
Depth to groundwater |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Good
|
Good
|
| Wet meadows |
Intactness of ecological systems
15
(Landscape Context) |
Fragmentation of hydrologic pathways |
-
|
Poor:
Roads,canals, and ditches affect more than 20% of water volume
Fair: Roads, canals, and ditches between 10 and 20% of water volume Good: Roads, canals, and ditches between 5 and 10 % of water volume Very Good: Roads, canals, and ditches less than 5% of water volume |
Good
|
Good
|
| Wet meadows |
Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems
(Size) |
Areal extent of wet meadows | more than historically with irrigation expansion |
Poor:
less than 1 acre
Fair: 1 - 20 acres Good: 20 - 75 acres Very Good: more than 75 acres |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats |
Species composition / dominance
16
(Condition) |
distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) 17 |
-
|
Poor:
Weed patches more than 5% of system; some patches much greater than 5 acre
Fair: Weed patches 3 and 5% of system; a few patches greater than 5 acre, but still controlable Good: Weed patches between 1 and 3 % of system; no patches greater than 5 acre; Very Good: Weed patches less than 1% of system; no patches greater than 5 acre |
Good
18
|
Very Good
|
| Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats |
Intactness of ecological systems
19
(Landscape Context) |
Fragmentation of hydrologic pathways | Canal isolates large area |
Poor:
Roads,canals, and ditches affect more than 20% of water volume
Fair: Roads, canals, and ditches between 10 and 20% of water volume Good: Roads, canals, and ditches between 5 and 10 % of water volume Very Good: Roads, canals, and ditches less than 5% of water volume |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats |
Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems
(Size) |
Areal extent of ephemeral wetlands and greasewood flats | ReGAP shows 80,000 acres of greasewood; and 8,600 playas |
Poor:
less than 10,000 acres
Fair: 10,000 - 20,000 acres Good: 20,000 - 30,000 acres Very Good: more than 30,000 acres |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Lower Montane Riparian - perennial |
Species composition / dominance
20
(Condition) |
distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) 21 | Big and Little Spring Creeks have been mapped and weeds treated |
Poor:
Weed patches more than 5% of system; some patches much greater than 5 acre
Fair: Weed patches 3 and 5% of system; a few patches greater than 5 acre, but still controlable Good: Weed patches between 1 and 3 % of system; no patches greater than 5 acre; Very Good: Weed patches less than 1% of system; no patches greater than 5 acre |
Very Good
Mar 5, 2005 |
Very Good
|
| Lower Montane Riparian - perennial |
Surface Water Flow Regime
22
(Landscape Context) |
Amount of water diverted from creeks 23 |
-
|
Poor:
More than 50% of water diverted and lost to system
Fair: 25-50% of water diverted and lost to system Good: 10-25% of water diverted and lost to system Very Good: less than 10% of water diverted and lost to system |
Very Good
|
Very Good
|
| Lower Montane Riparian - perennial |
extent of native riparian vegetation
24
(Size) |
% of each creek dominated by native vegetation 25 |
-
|
Poor:
less than 25% floodplain area dominated
Fair: 50 - 25 % floodplain area dominated Good: 50 - 75% floodplain area dominated Very Good: more than 75% floodplain area dominated |
Very Good
26
Mar 15, 2005 |
Very Good
Mar 15, 2015 |
| Lower Montane Aquatic |
Species composition / dominance
(Condition) |
presence of invasive species (bullfrogs and exotic fish) 27 | carp are found coming up from San Luis Lakes |
Poor:
invasive species are found in more than 15% of the system
Fair: invasive species are found in 5 - 15% of the system Good: invasive species are found in less than 5% of the system Very Good: invasive species have not become established in the system |
Good
28
|
Good
|
| Lower Montane Aquatic |
Surface Water Flow Regime
29
(Landscape Context) |
Amount of water diverted from creeks 30 |
-
|
Poor:
More than 50% of water diverted and lost to system
Fair: 25-50% of water diverted and lost to system Good: 10-25% of water diverted and lost to system Very Good: less than 10% of water diverted and lost to system |
Good
31
|
Good
|
| Lower Montane Aquatic |
Population size & dynamics
(Size) |
population size of leopard frogs |
-
|
Poor:
-
Fair: - Good: - Very Good: - |
Poor
|
Good
|
| Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral |
Species composition / dominance
32
(Condition) |
distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) 33 |
-
|
Poor:
Weed patches more than 5% of system; some patches much greater than 5 acre
Fair: Weed patches 3 and 5% of system; a few patches greater than 5 acre, but still controlable Good: Weed patches between 1 and 3 % of system; no patches greater than 5 acre; Very Good: Weed patches less than 1% of system; no patches greater than 5 acre |
Good
|
Good
|
| Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral |
Surface Water Flow Regime
34
(Landscape Context) |
Amount of water diverted from creeks 35 |
-
|
Poor:
More than 50% of water diverted and lost to system
Fair: 25-50% of water diverted and lost to system Good: 10-25% of water diverted and lost to system Very Good: less than 10% of water diverted and lost to system |
Good
|
Good
|
| Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral |
extent of native riparian vegetation
36
(Size) |
% of each creek dominated by native vegetation 37 |
-
|
Poor:
less than 25% floodplain area dominated
Fair: 50 - 25 % floodplain area dominated Good: 50 - 75% floodplain area dominated Very Good: more than 75% floodplain area dominated |
Good
|
Good
|
| Bison |
Genetic composition
(Condition) |
% domestic cattle genes within bison population 38 | 4.5% of cows |
Poor:
greater than 5%
Fair: 3-5% Good: 1-3% Very Good: less than 1% |
Fair
|
Good
|
| Bison |
Population structure & recruitment
39
(Condition) |
sex ratio 40 | close to 1:1 |
Poor:
more than 10 :1 females to males ratio (typical production herd ratio)
Fair: 3-9 : 1 females to males ratio Good: 1.5 -3 : 1 females to males ratio Very Good: 1.4 or fewer :1 females to males ratio |
Very Good
41
Mar 15, 2005 |
Very Good
Mar 15, 2015 |
| Bison |
Intactness of ecological systems
(Landscape Context) |
Fragmentation of landscape and ecological systems |
-
|
Poor:
Roads,canals, ditches, and trails more than 5% of needed ecological system occurences
Fair: Roads, canals, ditches, and trails between 3 and 5% of occurrences Good: Roads, canals, ditches, and trails between 1 and 3 % of occurrences Very Good: Roads, canals, ditches, and trails less than 1% of occurrences |
Good
|
Good
|
| Bison |
Size of available habitat
(Landscape Context) |
Area of land available for bison 42 | approx. 35,000 acres |
Poor:
Fewer than 30,000 acres available for bison
Fair: 30,000 - 75,000 acres available for bison Good: 75,000 - 125,000 acres available for bison Very Good: more than 125,000 acres available for bison |
Fair
43
Mar 15, 2005 |
Good
Mar 15, 2015 |
| Bison |
Population size & dynamics
(Size) |
Herd size 44 | 1100 animals in 2004 |
Poor:
less than 1000 animals
Fair: 1000 - 2000 animals Good: 2000 - 3000 animals Very Good: More than 3000 animals |
Fair
45
Mar 15, 2005 |
Good
Mar 15, 2015 |
COMMENTS:
1
Species composition is important even in matrix systems, weeds can dominate and change ecological processes
2
The main weeds that we care about are Russian knapweed, whitetop, leafy spurge and Canada thistle
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Medium
5
decrease abundance with grass cover so indicator of heavy grazing and salty/poorer soils?
Map distribution and estimation of population size
6
Species composition is important even in matrix systems, weeds can dominate and change ecological processes
9
Unfragmented landscapes are not as easily invaded by invasive species, ecological processes more likely to be functioning
10
CNHP SRM viability specs for matrix systems
We will make an assumption of width of impact based on type of road then this can be assessed.
12
Species composition is important even in matrix systems, weeds can dominate and change ecological processes
13
The main weeds that we care about are Russian knapweed, whitetop, leafy spurge and Canada thistle
16
Species composition is important even in matrix systems, weeds can dominate and change ecological processes
17
The main weeds that we care about are Russian knapweed, whitetop, leafy spurge and Canada thistle
19
Unfragmented landscapes are not as easily invaded by invasive species, ecological processes more likely to be functioning
20
Species composition is important even in matrix systems, weeds can dominate and change ecological processes
21
The main weeds that we care about are Russian knapweed, whitetop, leafy spurge and Canada thistle
23
While quite a bit of water is diverted, much is probably recaptured as return flow
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Low
30
While quite a bit of water is diverted, much is probably recaptured as return flow
Confidence and reliability of these indicator rating descriptions: Low
32
Species composition is important even in matrix systems, weeds can dominate and change ecological processes
33
The main weeds that we care about are Russian knapweed, whitetop, leafy spurge and Canada thistle
- Show all:
Objective: By 2008, cooperative integrated weed management maintains or reduces weed distribution.
-
Strategic Action: establish an interagency partnership for weed management across GSD area
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - -
Strategic Action: Ensure adequate funding as needed to support cooperative weed efforts
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - -
Objective: By 2010, maintain water rights (TNC/FWS/NPS/BLM/Colorado) while optimizing conservation values.
-
Strategic Action: Develop long term integrated water strategy to meet long term ecological goals based on assessment
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments Planned - - -
Strategic Action: Continue to support NPS water right filing through process
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - -
Strategic Action: Use RGDSS to evaluate and minimize negative impacts to biodiversity from water decisions and uses
-
Strategic Action: Refine RGDSS groundwater model to assess impacts to biodiversity at finer scale
Objective: By 2015, a pure bison herd exists within the Great Sand Dunes area
-
Strategic Action: Test bison and replace animals over time as needed
Objective: By 2015, elk and bison are managed within ecological carrying capacity
-
Strategic Action: Implement integrated management plan for elk and bison across GSD
Objective: By 2015, more than 3000 bison are roaming freely across at least 125,000 acres
-
Strategic Action: Test bison and replace animals over time as needed
-
Strategic Action: Eliminate FWS and NPS policy barriers to bison
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - -
Strategic Action: Build coalition of interested parties to influence and facilitate bison expansion (tribes, local leaders, environmental organizations, national NPS and FWS, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), IUCN Species Action Group and media)
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - -
Objective: By 2015, recreational use and future projections will support biodiversity values.
-
Strategic Action: Cooperative recreation management plan is developed and implemented across GSD (NPS/FWS/TNC) to protect biodiversity.
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments Planned - - -
Strategic Action: Ensure that integrity of Big Spring, Little Spring, and Sand Creek by restricting use to supervised visitation
(measures info)
Progress Updated Comments On Track - - -
Strategic Action: Minimize fragmentation in stabilized sand dunes by restricting roads and trails and land use within largest/remotest areas through land use planning and management plan implementation.
Objective: By 2015, restore amphibian community (leopard frogs)
-
Strategic Action: Reintroduce leopard frogs onto the Baca NWR
Objective: Through 2015, maintain/improve variability in stabilized sand dune vegetation and persistence of sage sparrows
-
Strategic Action: Implement adaptive management plan to achieve variability of vegetation and persistence of sage sparrows.
- Show all:
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado)(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Mapping of high priority weeds across the site
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments Target: Active Dune and Swale Complex, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance Mar 15, 2005 Rough Guess Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance Big and Little Spring Creeks have been mapped and weeds treated Mar 5, 2005 Not Specified Target: Stabilized sand dunes, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Target: Wet meadows, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Active Dune and Swale Complex, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Stabilized sand dunes, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Wet meadows, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: % of each creek dominated by native vegetation(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Mapping of high priority weeds across the site
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Size, KEA: extent of native riparian vegetation Mar 15, 2005 Rapid Assessment Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: High Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Size, KEA: extent of native riparian vegetation - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Size, KEA: extent of native riparian vegetation On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Size, KEA: extent of native riparian vegetation On Track
-
Indicator: Amount of water diverted from creeks(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Water use is measured and reported SLV water conservation district
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments Target: Lower Montane Aquatic, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Surface Water Flow Regime - Rough Guess Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Surface Water Flow Regime - Not Specified Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Surface Water Flow Regime - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Lower Montane Aquatic, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Surface Water Flow Regime On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Surface Water Flow Regime On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Surface Water Flow Regime On Track
-
Indicator: Areal extent of ephemeral wetlands and greasewood flats(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- ReGAP and/or other ecoregional planning maps - I and M mapping effort
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments ReGAP shows 80,000 acres of greasewood; and 8,600 playas - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: Areal extent of wet meadows(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- ReGAP and/or other ecoregional planning maps - I and M mapping effort
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments more than historically with irrigation expansion - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: Depth to groundwater(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- groundwater wells across some of the area; may need to put some more in;
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of hydrologic pathways(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Assess impact of closed basin infrastructures on ephemeral wetlands and whether something can be done;
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems Canal isolates large area - Not Specified Target: Wet meadows, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems Planned Target: Wet meadows, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems Planned
-
Indicator: Persistence and size of slender spiderflower populations(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- CNHP methodology
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments 7 As; 11 Bs; and 11 Cs - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: % domestic cattle genes within bison population(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Hair samples will be DNA tested; high priority to do this once;
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments 4.5% of cows - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: Area of land available for bison(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- GIS map of bison fences
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments approx. 35,000 acres Mar 15, 2005 Rough Guess Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: Elk population size and distribution(methods) (progress report)Methods:
- New NPS methodology in elk/bison study
Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Bison; Threat: Management of/for certain species On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral; Threat: Management of/for certain species On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial; Threat: Management of/for certain species On Track Target: Stabilized sand dunes; Threat: Management of/for certain species On Track Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats; Threat: Management of/for certain species On Track Target: Wet meadows; Threat: Management of/for certain species On Track
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of landscape and ecological systems(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Fragstats
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
-
Indicator: Herd size(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Count during round up or from air
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments 1100 animals in 2004 Mar 15, 2005 Expert Knowledge Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: sex ratio(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Count during round up or from air
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments close to 1:1 Mar 15, 2005 Rough Guess Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: % domestic cattle genes within bison population(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Hair samples will be DNA tested; high priority to do this once;
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments 4.5% of cows - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: Area of land available for bison(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- GIS map of bison fences
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments approx. 35,000 acres Mar 15, 2005 Rough Guess Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of landscape and ecological systems(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Fragstats
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
-
Indicator: Herd size(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Count during round up or from air
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments 1100 animals in 2004 Mar 15, 2005 Expert Knowledge Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: sex ratio(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Count during round up or from air
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments close to 1:1 Mar 15, 2005 Rough Guess Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: Distribution and intensity of recreational use(methods) (progress report)Methods:
- TBD - trail survey?; hunting activity?
Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Bison; Threat: Bison management practices Planned Target: Stabilized sand dunes; Threat: Recreational use Planned Target: Bison; Threat: Federal land management policies Planned Target: Bison; Threat: Recreational use Planned
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of ecological systems(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Fragstats
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of hydrologic pathways(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Assess impact of closed basin infrastructures on ephemeral wetlands and whether something can be done;
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems Canal isolates large area - Not Specified Target: Wet meadows, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems Planned Target: Wet meadows, Category: Landscape Context, KEA: Intactness of ecological systems Planned
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of landscape and ecological systems(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Fragstats
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: population size of leopard frogs(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Auditory monitoring in spring; search for egg masses?
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
-
Indicator: presence of invasive species (bullfrogs and exotic fish)(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Presence/absence within site, might show up in amphibian surveys, etc.
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments carp are found coming up from San Luis Lakes - Expert Knowledge Not Specified Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Medium Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
Percent Complete: 0%
![]() |
|
-
Indicator: Areal extent of stabilized sand dunes(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- ReGAP and/or other ecoregional planning maps - I and M mapping effort
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments ReGAP shows 113,000 acres of intermountain semi-desert shrub steppe - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments On Track
-
Indicator: distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado)(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Mapping of high priority weeds across the site
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments Target: Active Dune and Swale Complex, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance Mar 15, 2005 Rough Guess Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Confidence and reliability of the current rating: Low Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance Big and Little Spring Creeks have been mapped and weeds treated Mar 5, 2005 Not Specified Target: Stabilized sand dunes, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Target: Wet meadows, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Areal extent of weeds on Baca is not known Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Active Dune and Swale Complex, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Stabilized sand dunes, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Wet meadows, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral, Category: Condition, KEA: Species composition / dominance On Track
-
Indicator: Distribution and size of sage sparrow population(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Distribution, density and abundance of sage sparrow assessed by different categories of ecological system variability - need to recruit graduate student
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
-
Indicator: Fire size, distribution, and suppression techniques(methods) (progress report)Methods:
- Interagency fire (USFS)
Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Target: Ephemeral Wetlands and Greasewood Flats; Threat: Invasive/alien species On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - ephemeral; Threat: Invasive/alien species On Track Target: Wet meadows; Threat: Inappropriate fire management On Track Target: Lower Montane Riparian - perennial; Threat: Invasive/alien species On Track Target: Stabilized sand dunes; Threat: Invasive/alien species On Track Target: Active Dune and Swale Complex; Threat: Invasive/alien species On Track Target: Wet meadows; Threat: Invasive/alien species On Track
-
Indicator: Fragmentation of ecological systems(methods) (measurement report) (progress report)Methods:
- Fragstats
Measurement Report:Measure Date Source Trend Comments - Not Specified Progress Report:Progress Updated Comments Planned
| Methods | Objectives | Key Indicator References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement) | Threat References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Indicator: % domestic cattle genes within bison population |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: % of each creek dominated by native vegetation |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Amount of water diverted from creeks |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Area of land available for bison |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Areal extent of active dune and swale complex |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Areal extent of ephemeral wetlands and greasewood flats |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Areal extent of stabilized sand dunes |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Areal extent of wet meadows |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Depth to groundwater |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Distribution and intensity of recreational use |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Distribution and size of sage sparrow population |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Elk population size and distribution |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fire size, distribution, and suppression techniques |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fragmentation of ecological systems |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fragmentation of hydrologic pathways |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Fragmentation of landscape and ecological systems |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Herd size |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: Persistence and size of slender spiderflower populations |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: distribution and abundance of high priority invasive species (Categories A or B in Colorado) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: number of waking and sleeping dunes? |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: population size of leopard frogs |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: presence of invasive species (bullfrogs and exotic fish) |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Indicator: sex ratio |
|||
|
|
|
|
The CAP data pack, available for download using the download link below, has been modified. You will need to use CAP Excel Workbook version 6b
(or later) to import the CAP data pack. The data pack is an Excel 97/2003 formatted file with an extension of .xls. So, if you are using Excel 2007,
please remember to save all CAP files in the Excel 97-2003 Workbook format.
Help regarding this issue can be found in the CAP Workbook instructions and on ConserveOnline at:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/resources
- Download the latest CAP Excel Workbook.
- Download the ConPro Data Pack now!
Notes:
Help regarding this issue can be found in the CAP Workbook instructions and on ConserveOnline at:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/resources
- Download the latest CAP Excel Workbook.
- Download the ConPro Data Pack now!
Notes:
- It is always a good idea to use the latest CAP Excel workbook!
- You may see a "File Error: Data may have been lost" message when opening a Data Pack that was downloaded from ConPro. Please ignore this warning.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

