Investigating the Ecology of the Rio Grande Sucker (Pantosteus plebeius): Early Life History, Threats, and Actionable Conservation

Abstract

The Rio Grande Sucker (Pantosteus plebeius) is a native catostomid that plays a critical role in structuring food webs and nutrient pathways in small to mid-sized streams throughout the Rio Grande Basin. Population declines have been documented in areas where habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alteration, increased sedimentation, and non-native fish introductions have occurred. Early life stages represent demographic bottlenecks for population persistence. Effective conservation requires integrated approaches that restore ecological processes, reconnect fragmented habitats, and align agricultural and water management practices with the species' seasonal requirements. This review synthesizes current understanding of Rio Grande Sucker ecology, evolutionary biogeography, population threats, and conservation opportunities, with emphasis on practical management actions implementable through Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation practices that landowners, communities, and agencies can deploy immediately.

Keywords: Rio Grande Sucker, Pantosteus plebeius, conservation, habitat connectivity, Working Lands for Wildlife, early life history, Rio Grande Basin, stream restoration

1. Introduction

The Rio Grande Sucker (Pantosteus plebeius) represents a key component of native fish assemblages in the Rio Grande Basin, inhabiting streams from high-elevation headwaters to mid-elevation valleys across Colorado, New Mexico, and northern Mexico (Calamusso et al. 2002; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a). As a member of the family Catostomidae, this species evolved in concert with Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis) and Rio Grande Chub (Gila pandora), forming a complementary assemblage characterized by distinct trophic roles: algivory and substrate scraping by the sucker, insectivory by the chub, and combined piscivory and insectivory by the trout (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a). This functional diversity stabilizes energy flow and nutrient cycling across diverse stream habitats.

Despite its ecological importance, the Rio Grande Sucker faces multiple anthropogenic threats that have led to population declines and range contractions. The species is currently listed as state-endangered in Colorado and remains a conservation priority in New Mexico due to habitat fragmentation, flow regime alteration, and competition with non-native fishes (Calamusso et al. 2002; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024c). A comprehensive Species Status Assessment completed in 2024 concluded that while the species is not currently warranted for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, continued conservation action is essential to prevent future endangerment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,b).

This review synthesizes current scientific understanding of Rio Grande Sucker biology, ecology, and conservation to provide actionable guidance for land managers, conservation practitioners, and community stakeholders. We emphasize practical interventions aligned with established NRCS conservation practices and WLFW program frameworks that can be implemented at multiple spatial scales, from individual properties to watershed-level initiatives.

2. Species Overview and Taxonomic Context

2.1 Phylogenetic Position

The Rio Grande Sucker belongs to the genus Pantosteus, a lineage within Catostomidae characterized by deep evolutionary roots and complex biogeographic patterns across western North America (Smith 1966; Bagley et al. 2018). Multilocus phylogenetic analyses indicate that Pantosteus represents an ancient divergence within the family, with basin-scale population structure shaped by Tertiary and Quaternary geological events including tectonic uplift, drainage reorganization, and climate-driven range shifts (Bagley et al. 2018).

Within the plebeius–nebuliferus species complex, phylogeographic investigations have revealed multiple historically independent lineages with fine-scale genetic structure that should inform conservation planning (Corona-Santiago et al. 2018; McPhee et al. 2008). These patterns suggest that local populations may represent genetically distinct units with potentially unique adaptations to regional environmental conditions, warranting careful consideration in translocation and connectivity enhancement efforts.

2.2 Evolutionary Biogeography and the San Luis Valley System

The Northern San Luis Valley of Colorado provides a particularly instructive case study for understanding Rio Grande Sucker biogeography and conservation challenges. The valley's complex hydrologic history, characterized by endorheic basins, pluvial lakes, and episodic connections to the through-flowing Rio Grande during Pleistocene high-water periods, has created a mosaic of isolated and semi-connected aquatic habitats (Leonard and Watts 1988; Powell 1958; Ruleman and Brandt 2021; Ruleman et al. 2016).

Biogeographic and genetic evidence suggests that Rio Grande Suckers colonized the valley through historical stream connections that formed when closed basin systems spilled into the mainstem Rio Grande during wetter Pleistocene periods (Ruleman et al. 2019; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a). Subsequent basin closure left remnant populations in isolated streams, creating the genetically structured populations observed today. This evolutionary legacy explains both the species' presence in endorheic systems and its vulnerability to modern anthropogenic fragmentation.

Management Implication: Conservation strategies should prioritize fine-scale passage improvements at road crossings and irrigation diversions while maintaining seasonal hydrologic connections that facilitate gene flow and demographic rescue among subpopulations. Recognition of historical connectivity patterns can guide where reconnection efforts will provide greatest conservation benefit.

3. Life History and Ecological Requirements

3.1 Reproductive Biology and Early Development

Rio Grande Suckers are broadcast spawners that reproduce during spring to early summer, utilizing clean gravel substrates in shallow riffle habitats (McPhee 2007; Rees and Miller 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a). Spawning activity is cued by rising water temperatures and the ascending limb of the spring snowmelt hydrograph, with adults subsequently redistributing to pool habitats following reproductive events.

Larvae emerge at relatively small sizes compared to congeners such as White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii), and experience drift during early summer as they passively disperse downstream (Rees and Miller 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a). Following drift, larvae settle into low-velocity marginal habitats and backwater areas. Where food availability and thermal conditions are favorable, native suckers can achieve robust first-year growth despite small emergence size (McPhee 2007), though this developmental period represents a critical demographic bottleneck.

3.2 Ontogenetic Habitat Shifts

Young-of-year Rio Grande Suckers initially occupy slack water margins and low-velocity microhabitats before transitioning to faster-flowing waters as their ventral mouth position develops and benthic feeding behavior becomes established (Rees and Miller 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c). Success of this ontogenetic habitat shift depends critically on summer baseflow conditions, channel complexity, and availability of suitable cover. Low summer flows compress available nursery habitat, increase water temperatures, and elevate predation risk, potentially limiting recruitment success.

3.3 Trophic Ecology and Ecosystem Function

Adult Rio Grande Suckers function primarily as algivores, scraping periphyton and biofilm from hard substrates using their specialized ventral mouths (Rees and Miller 2005). This feeding mode is supplemented opportunistically with detritus and benthic invertebrates. Through periphyton grazing and mobilization of fine organic matter, suckers influence primary production dynamics and benthic food web structure, indirectly supporting populations of native insectivorous fishes and trout that depend on benthic invertebrate production (Rees and Miller 2005; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a).

4. Environmental Drivers and Population Threats

4.1 Flow Regime Alteration

Natural snowmelt-driven hydrographs provide essential environmental cues for spawning, facilitate larval transport, and maintain hydraulically diverse nursery habitats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c). Anthropogenic flow modifications through dam operations, irrigation diversions, and infrastructure that creates perched or undersized culverts truncate natural hydrographs and fragment habitat connectivity. Even relatively short disconnections can block access to critical spawning areas or thermal refugia, particularly during low summer baseflows when habitat compression and thermal stress are most severe (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c; Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021).

4.2 Temperature Stress

Climate warming trends combined with reduced baseflows intensify thermal stress and reduce available habitat volume. Temperature influences multiple life history parameters including egg development rates, larval emergence timing, juvenile growth, and age at maturity, with cascading effects on population age structure and resilience (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c). Maintenance of riparian vegetation and hyporheic flow pathways represents a critical strategy for buffering thermal stress under future climate scenarios.

4.3 Sedimentation and Habitat Degradation

Increased fine sediment loading degrades spawning habitat by filling interstitial spaces in gravel substrates, reducing egg survival and larval emergence success (Rees and Miller 2005). Sedimentation also degrades larval settlement habitat and reduces overall channel complexity. Conversely, structural elements including large wood, diverse substrate size distributions, and aquatic vegetation increase refugia availability, promote hydraulic sorting of spawning gravels, and stabilize channel margins (Rees and Miller 2005; Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019).

4.4 Non-Native Species Interactions

Introduced salmonids and other predatory fishes prey on young-of-year and small adult Rio Grande Suckers, while White Sucker (C. commersonii) represents a potential competitor for food and space resources in some systems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c). Genetic analyses from New Mexico populations detected no hybridization between Rio Grande Sucker and White Sucker in sampled reaches (McPhee and Turner 2004), though repeated White Sucker introductions complicate management (McPhee 2009). The magnitude of predation and competition effects varies with channel morphology, cover availability, and thermal regime, suggesting that habitat restoration may partially mitigate non-native species impacts.

5. Actionable Conservation Through WLFW and NRCS Practices

Effective Rio Grande Sucker conservation requires integrated strategies combining habitat reconnection, riparian restoration, and water management aligned with the species' life history requirements. The conservation practices described below are proven, fundable through existing NRCS programs, and scalable from individual properties to watershed-level initiatives.

5.1 Habitat Connectivity and Barrier Remediation

Aquatic Organism Passage (NRCS Code 396): Replace perched, undersized, or otherwise barrier culverts with embedded, channel-spanning structures or bridges that maintain natural bed material continuity and longitudinal grade. Design criteria should ensure passage at lowest seasonal flows, not exclusively at bankfull conditions, to accommodate the full range of life stages and movement patterns (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021; U.S. Forest Service 2008).

Stream Crossing (NRCS Code 578): Where complete culvert replacement is not immediately feasible, implement interim retrofits including outlet roughness enhancement, step-pool roughness addition, or baffle installation to reduce outlet velocities and vertical drops. Size crossings to accommodate bankfull width and align with natural channel slope (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022b; U.S. Forest Service 2008).

5.2 Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration

Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (NRCS Code 395): Strategic placement of large wood and boulder clusters creates hydraulic diversity, provides cover for multiple life stages, and promotes natural sorting of spawning gravels and retention of organic matter (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019).

Riparian Forest Buffer (NRCS Code 391) and Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390): Establishment of native woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation provides multiple benefits including stream shading for thermal regulation, bank stabilization, sediment filtration, and recruitment of future large wood (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020b, 2022a).

Wetland Restoration (NRCS Code 657): Reconnection of floodplains and wet meadows attenuates flood peaks, stores and slowly releases cool groundwater, and provides off-channel rearing habitat for juveniles during summer low-flow periods (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2023).

5.3 Water Management for Life History Support

Irrigation Water Management (NRCS Code 449): Improvements in irrigation efficiency reduce return flow sediment loads and enable modification of diversion schedules to maintain ecologically important baseflows during spawning and early rearing periods (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020a).

Spring Development (NRCS Code 574) and Watering Facility (NRCS Code 614): Development of off-stream livestock water sources reduces trampling of stream banks and riparian areas while protecting springs and seeps that contribute to stream baseflow maintenance (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020c,d).

5.4 Low-Technology Process-Based Restoration

Working Lands for Wildlife programs support implementation of simple, low-cost structures including beaver dam analogs and post-assisted log structures that raise water tables, slow water velocities, and rebuild complex channel-floodplain connectivity (Huntington et al. 2015). These approaches can expand mesic area, extend late-season stream greenness visible in remote sensing data, and increase juvenile refugia availability in small streams. Availability of training and cost-share programs makes these techniques accessible to landowners and local crews without specialized equipment.

6. Ranching Practices Supporting Native Fish Conservation

Agricultural operations can be modified to support Rio Grande Sucker populations while maintaining productive ranching enterprises:

Prescribed Grazing (NRCS Code 528): Schedule livestock use to avoid March through August spawning and juvenile development periods in riparian pastures. Implement stubble height and bank alteration standards, then adapt management based on photographic monitoring and rapid habitat assessments (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2017).

Riparian Management and Upland Water Development: Strategic fencing or herding to manage streamside grazing intensity, coupled with development of upland water sources and shade, protects stream banks and facilitates riparian recovery without sacrificing forage productivity.

Road-Stream Crossing Management: Conduct systematic inventories of on-property crossings, rank barriers by risk to fish movement and sediment delivery, and prioritize replacements during scheduled road maintenance to reduce implementation costs.

Sediment Control: Stabilize road approaches at stream crossings, armor vulnerable culvert outlets, and address upland rill and gully erosion in adjacent catchments to reduce fine sediment delivery to spawning reaches.

7. Watershed-Scale Coordination and Adaptive Management

Individual property-level actions achieve greatest conservation benefit when coordinated across watersheds to create connected metapopulations rather than isolated habitat patches:

Strategic Barrier Prioritization: Coordinate barrier removal and retrofit efforts at watershed scale using decision frameworks that consider upstream habitat quality and quantity, current population status, and restoration feasibility (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021, 2022b; U.S. Forest Service 2008).

Environmental Flow Integration: Incorporate environmental flow objectives into water operations to partially mimic natural snowmelt hydrograph timing. Even modest shoulder-season flows can substantially improve spawning success and larval transport (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a).

Targeted Non-Native Control: Focus non-native fish removal efforts in small nursery reaches where cover is limited and thermal stress is elevated, paired with habitat enhancement to reduce reinvasion potential (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a).

Adaptive Monitoring: Implement simple, repeatable monitoring using continuous temperature loggers, standardized photographic monitoring points, spawning gravel quality assessments, and juvenile catch-per-effort indices. Use results to refine grazing rotations, irrigation diversion schedules, and restoration project designs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a).

8. Case Study: Baca Grande Community Conservation Opportunities

The Baca National Wildlife Refuge supports reproducing populations of Rio Grande Sucker and Rio Grande Chub and serves as a focal monitoring and conservation site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024c). Streams draining the western slope of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, including North Crestone Creek, supply water to the refuge, establishing hydrologic linkages between upstream residential development and downstream refuge habitats (U.S. Geological Survey n.d.; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024c).

The Baca Grande residential community and Property Owners Association represent key partners for native fish conservation through implementation of targeted connectivity, flow management, and sediment control measures:

8.1 Culvert Assessment and Redesign

• Conduct comprehensive inventory and passage risk assessment for all road-stream crossings within neighborhood road systems, utilizing NRCS Aquatic Organism Passage (Code 396) and Stream Crossing (Code 578) guidelines. Prioritize replacement or retrofit where upstream habitat length and quality are greatest (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2021, 2022b; U.S. Forest Service 2008).
  
  

• Implement channel-spanning, embedded structures or bridges that simulate natural bed conditions and maintain continuity for aquatic organism passage at both low summer flows and higher seasonal flows.
  
  

• Apply interim retrofits consistent with NRCS Code 578 standards where immediate replacement is not feasible, including outlet roughness, step-pool structures, or baffle systems (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022b; U.S. Forest Service 2008).
  
  

8.2 Riparian Management in Residential Context

• Establish riparian buffers using native woody and herbaceous vegetation consistent with NRCS Riparian Forest Buffer (Code 391) and Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390) standards to provide bank stabilization, stream shading, and sediment filtration (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020b, 2022a).
  
  

• Implement erosion control measures at road approaches and stormwater management at crossing locations to minimize fine sediment delivery that degrades spawning gravels (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2022b; Rees and Miller 2005).
  
  

8.3 Water Conservation and Baseflow Protection

• Improve irrigation efficiency and scheduling through NRCS Irrigation Water Management (Code 449) principles to maintain baseflow during spring spawning and early summer rearing periods (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020a).
  
  

• Develop off-stream livestock watering using Spring Development (Code 574) and Watering Facility (Code 614) standards where applicable to reduce stream bank trampling and protect springs that contribute to baseflow (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020c,d).
  
  

8.4 Coordination and Monitoring

• Coordinate neighborhood conservation projects with Baca National Wildlife Refuge to align with ongoing monitoring and native fish conservation programs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024c).
  
  

• Track project outcomes using accessible metrics including continuous temperature monitoring, standardized photographic points, and periodic juvenile fish surveys coordinated with agency staff (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a).
  
  

9. Case Study: Rio Costilla Native Fish Repatriation

The Rio Costilla basin restoration represents a comprehensive watershed-scale native fish recovery effort implemented by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and partner agencies. The multi-year project integrated non-native trout removal, strategic fish barrier installation to prevent reinvasion, floodplain reconnection and process-based restoration, and systematic reintroduction of native fishes across the watershed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2023).

By 2022, native fishes had been successfully restored to approximately 120 stream miles. Rio Grande Suckers and Rio Grande Chubs now occupy and reproduce in reaches where they had been extirpated, demonstrating the efficacy of coordinated invasive species management, habitat restoration, and strategic reintroductions in recovering native fish assemblages (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,c; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2023). This effort provides a replicable model for landscape-scale native fish conservation in the Rio Grande Basin.

10. Research Priorities to Inform Adaptive Management

Several key knowledge gaps limit precision in conservation planning and adaptive management. Priority research needs that would directly enhance management effectiveness include:

• Life-stage-specific thermal tolerance thresholds to refine flow management and riparian restoration targets under projected climate change scenarios.
  
  

• Larval drift distances and settlement habitat requirements under varying hydrograph characteristics to establish minimum seasonal flow objectives.
  
  

• Before-after-control-impact studies quantifying fish movement and population responses to NRCS Code 396 passage upgrades in small, flashy mountain streams.
  
  

• Context-dependent predation and competition impacts across habitat types to focus non-native suppression efforts where demographic benefits are greatest.
  
  

• High-resolution genetic structure and connectivity mapping to guide where barrier removal will enhance gene flow versus where protection of genetically distinct lineages should take precedence (McPhee et al. 2008; Corona-Santiago et al. 2018).
  
  

11. Conclusions

Rio Grande Sucker conservation requires integrated strategies that address habitat connectivity, channel complexity, thermal regime, sediment inputs, and seasonal flow requirements across working agricultural landscapes and residential developments. The conservation practices detailed in this review—primarily implemented through established NRCS programs and WLFW frameworks—provide landowners, communities, and agencies with proven, fundable tools for native fish recovery.

Key conservation priorities include: (1) reconnecting fragmented habitats through strategic culvert replacement and retrofit at road-stream crossings, (2) restoring riparian function and instream complexity through vegetation establishment and large wood placement, (3) managing water to maintain ecologically important seasonal flows during spawning and rearing periods, and (4) aligning livestock grazing with sensitive life history periods. When implemented at watershed scales with coordination among multiple landowners and agencies, these practices create connected metapopulations capable of persisting under ongoing environmental change.

The 2024 Species Status Assessment concluded that while the Rio Grande Sucker does not currently warrant federal listing under the Endangered Species Act, continued conservation action remains essential to prevent future population declines and range contractions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024a,b). Success stories including the Rio Costilla repatriation demonstrate that coordinated, landscape-scale restoration can recover native fish assemblages even in heavily modified systems. By implementing the actionable practices outlined here and tracking outcomes through adaptive monitoring, stakeholders across the Rio Grande Basin can ensure long-term persistence of this ecologically important native species.

Acknowledgments

This review synthesizes decades of research and management experience by fisheries biologists, hydrologists, conservation practitioners, and land managers throughout the Rio Grande Basin. We acknowledge the foundational work of state and federal agencies including New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service in developing the science and practice frameworks upon which this synthesis depends.

References

Bagley, J.C., Mayden, R.L., and Harris, P.M. 2018. Phylogeny and divergence times of suckers (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) inferred from Bayesian relaxed clock analyses of multilocus nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 121: 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.12.031

Calamusso, B., Rinne, J.N., and Turner, P.R. 2002. Distribution and abundance of the Rio Grande Sucker in the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests, New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 47(2): 182–186.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2023. CPW, USFWS and Great Sand Dunes partner to expand Rio Grande Chub and Sucker populations. Press release, December 22, 2023. https://cpw.state.co.us/news/12222023/cpw-usfws-and-great-sand-dunes-partner-expand-rio-grande-chub-sucker-populations

Corona-Santiago, D.K., Domínguez-Domínguez, O., Doadrio, I., and Perea, S. 2018. Historical biogeography reveals new independent evolutionary lineages in the Pantosteus plebeius–nebuliferus species group. BMC Evolutionary Biology 18: 157. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1286-y

Huntington, J., McGwire, K., Morton, C., Snyder, K., Peterson, S., Erickson, T., and Allen, R. 2015. Assessing climate and resource management impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems with the Landsat archive. Remote Sensing of Environment 185: 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.12.042

Leonard, G.J. and Watts, K.R. 1988. Hydrogeology and simulated effects of ground-water management alternatives for the Closed Basin Division, San Luis Valley, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4284. https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1987/4284/report.pdf

McPhee, M.V. 2007. Age, growth, and life history comparisons between invasive White Sucker and native Rio Grande Sucker in northern New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 52(1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909(2007)52[15:AGALHC]2.0.CO;2

McPhee, M.V. 2009. Genealogical diversity suggests multiple introductions of White Suckers (Catostomus commersonii) in the upper Rio Grande. The Southwestern Naturalist 54(4): 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1894/MRD-02.1

McPhee, M.V., Osborne, M.J., and Turner, T.F. 2008. Genetic diversity, population structure, and demographic history of the Rio Grande Sucker in New Mexico. Copeia 2008(1): 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-06-120

McPhee, M.V. and Turner, T.F. 2004. No genetic evidence for hybridization between native Rio Grande Sucker, Catostomus plebeius, and introduced White Sucker, C. commersonii, in the Rio Grande, New Mexico. Environmental Biology of Fishes 71(1): 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EBFI.0000043179.44431.d4

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2017. Conservation Practice Standard: Prescribed Grazing (Code 528). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Prescribed_Grazing_528_CPS.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019. Conservation Practice Standard: Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (Code 395). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Stream_Habitat_Improvement_And_Management_395_CPS.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020a. Conservation Practice Standard: Irrigation Water Management (Code 449). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Irrigation_Water_Management_449_CPS_9_2020.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020b. Conservation Practice Standard: Riparian Forest Buffer (Code 391). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Riparian_Forest_Buffer_391_CPS_10_2020.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020c. Conservation Practice Standard: Spring Development (Code 574). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Spring_Development_574_CPS_9_2020.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020d. Conservation Practice Standard: Watering Facility (Code 614). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Watering_Facility_614_NHCP_CPS_2020.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Conservation Practice Standard: Aquatic Organism Passage (Code 396). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/396_NHCP_CPS_Aquatic_Organism_Passage_2021_0.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022a. Conservation Practice Standard: Riparian Herbaceous Cover (Code 390). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/390-NHCP-CPS-Riparian-Herbaceous-Cover-2022.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022b. Conservation Practice Standard: Stream Crossing (Code 578). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Stream_Crossing_578_NHCP_CPS_2022_0.pdf

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Conservation Practice Standard: Wetland Restoration (Code 657). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/657_NHCP_CPS_Wetland_Restoration_2023_0.pdf

Powell, W.J. 1958. Ground-water resources of the San Luis Valley, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1379. https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1379/report.pdf

Rees, D.E. and Miller, R.J. 2005. Rio Grande Sucker (Catostomus plebeius) habitat suitability criteria. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.

Ruleman, C.A. and Brandt, T.R. 2021. Surficial geology of the northern San Luis Valley, south-central Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3475. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/sim3475

Ruleman, C.A., Mahan, K.H., and Kelley, S.A. 2016. Geomorphic evolution of the San Luis Basin and Rio Grande in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. Pages 291–333 in Geological Society of America Field Guide 44. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. https://doi.org/10.1130/2016.0044(12)

Ruleman, C.A., Mahan, K.H., Thompson Renkin, K., and McDougall, K.A. 2019. Middle Pleistocene formation of the Rio Grande Gorge, San Luis Valley, south-central Colorado and north-central New Mexico, USA. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70216344

Smith, G.R. 1966. Distribution and evolution of the North American catostomid fishes of the subgenus Pantosteus, genus Catostomus. Miscellaneous Publication 129, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/56373

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024a. Species Status Assessment Report for the Rio Grande Sucker (Pantosteus plebeius), Version 1.2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. https://downloads.regulations.gov/FWS-R2-ES-2024-0082-0011/content.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024b. Rio Grande chub and sucker not in danger of extinction. Press release, June 18, 2024. https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-06/rio-grande-chub-and-sucker-not-danger-extinction

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024c. Rio Grande Suckers and Rio Grande Chubs: Monitoring and conservation. Baca National Wildlife Refuge. https://www.fws.gov/project/rio-grande-suckers-and-rio-grande-chubs-monitoring-and-conservation

U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Stream simulation: An ecological approach to providing passage for aquatic organisms at road-stream crossings. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Technology and Development Program, San Dimas, California. https://www.fs.usda.gov/eng/pubs/pdf/StreamSimulation/lo_res/Cover_TOC.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. No date. Streamflows at Baca and Alamosa National Wildlife Refuges. Colorado Water Science Center. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/colorado-water-science-center/science/streamflows-baca-and-alamosa-national-wildlife