THE MONTANA GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

30 September 1998

Roland L. Redmond, Principal Investigator

Melissa M. Hart, Coordinator

J. Chris Winne, Image Analysis

Wendy A. Williams, Wildlife Modeling

Polly C. Thornton, Wildlife Modeling

Zhenkui Ma, Image Analysis

Claudine M. Tobalske, Stewardship & Wildlife Modeling

Michele M. Thornton, Image Analysis & Stewardship

K. Poody McLaughlin, Wildlife Modeling

Troy P. Tady, Image Analysis

Foster B. Fisher, Image Analysis

Steven W. Running, Co-Principal Investigator

Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit

The University of Montana

Missoula, MT 59812

Contract Administration Through:

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit

The University of Montana

Submitted by:

Roland L. Redmond

Research Performed Under:

Cooperative Agreement No. 1434-HQ-97-RU-01534

Research Work Order No. 40
Recommended citation for this report:

Redmond, R.L., M.M. Hart, J.C. Winne, W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, Z. Ma, C.M.

Tobalske, M.M. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, T.P. Tady, F.B. Fisher, S.W. Running. 1998. 

The Montana Gap Analysis Project: final report. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative

Wildlife Research Unit, The University of Montana, Missoula. xiii + 136 pp. + appendices.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Montana Gap Analysis project (MT-GAP) began in 1991 for the purpose of identifying

vegetation types and areas of high vertebrate species richness in the state that may lack adequate

protection under existing land ownership and management regimes. Montana is the fourth largest

state in the union and one of the least populated. When the project began, there were few statewide

datasets available. Consequently, much effort was devoted to building key data layers at

sufficiently fine scale and resolution for subsequent analysis. These data layers included: 1) land

cover and existing vegetation at a 2 ha minimum map unit (MMU), 2) ownership and management

of public lands (1:100,000 scale), and 3) predicted distributions of 425 terrestrial vertebrates that

occur in the state. At the completion of the project, these data became freely available, with the

intent that they be widely used, not only by those directly responsible for managing the state’s

valuable natural resources, but also by the public at large, so that everyone can be better informed. 

With this in mind, we emphasize that these data are dynamic, and in some places, already out-ofdate. Nonetheless, the data and analyses which constitute MT-GAP represent an important first

step toward planning for the conservation of biodiversity in Montana. 

Database Development

Land Cover

The land cover of Montana was mapped by a two-stage, digital classification procedure that was

applied independently to 33 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) images covering the state. All TM

images were “collected” during the growing season (mid-June to early September) between 1991

and 1994. In the first stage, data from TM channels 4, 5, and 3 were combined in an unsupervised

classification, and then pixels were merged into raster polygons conforming to designated MMUs

on the basis of their spectral similarity. Digital elevation models (7.5 minute wherever available),

hydrography, and ground-reference data then were used in supervised classifications to label each

mapping unit (raster polygon) according to its land cover type. A total of 50 different land cover

types were mapped across the state. The single most abundant type was Low/Moderate Cover

Grasslands, which comprised 24.7% of the state; as a group, grasslands covered more than 37%

of the state. Twenty-four percent of the state was forested; 19 different forest types were mapped,

the most common of which were Mixed Subalpine Forest, Douglas-fir, and Lodgepole Pine. 

Shrublands comprised another 14%, and riparian types were limited to 3.9% of the state’s land

area. Urban or Developed Lands occupied less than 1% of this land area, but agricultural lands

comprised nearly 15%. Barren types, including rock, snow, or ice, covered 4.3% of the state,

and slightly more than 30,000 ha (0.08%) could not be mapped because of cloud cover in the TM

imagery.

Thematic accuracy of the land cover map was assessed using a bootstrap method which did not

require the collection of an independent set of reference data. Cover type classification accuracies

were estimated for 45 types; these averaged 61.4%, and ranged from 4.4% for Western Hemlock

to 93.2% for Missouri Breaks. Interpolation of the mean error estimates at each ground reference

point allowed us to map the land cover accuracy across the state. Estimated mean accuracy

exceeded 80% in the southwest corner (Beaverhead and Madison Counties) and in the western

portion of the Highline in Glacier, Toole, and Pondera Counties; lower estimated accuracies were

associated with some of the insular mountain ranges in central Montana from Gallatin County north

through Cascade and Judith Basin Counties.

i
Predicted Vertebrate Distributions

Distributions of 425 terrestrial vertebrate species were predicted, including 16 amphibians, 17

reptiles, 290 birds, and 102 mammals. The modeling process involved several steps. First, range

limits for each species were delineated on the basis of existing information about the species’

presence or absence within either a latilong grid system for birds, or the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) hexagon grid system for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Next, associations

between species and habitat features such as land cover, elevation, and distance to water were

researched and summarized in a Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (WHR) database. After preparing

the necessary GIS layers to represent these habitat features, a raster-based modeling approach was

used to combine the distributional limits and WHR databases into predicted distributions for each

species at a resolution of 90 m grid cells. The actual modeling rules and preliminary maps of the

predicted distributions were reviewed by nearly 50 biologists from around the state. After review,

any necessary changes were made to the range limits and model rules. Once all predicted

distributions were complete, species checklists from 14 wildlife refuges and other management

units around the state were used to evaluate their accuracy. This involved a comparison between

predicted and observed species’ presence, not absence. As such, it cannot be considered a

complete accuracy assessment, in part because potential sampling errors in the validation data

limited our ability to distinguish between commission errors and correct predictions of absence. 

Geographic patterns of vertebrate species richness indicated generally higher diversity in the

mountainous regions of western Montana, and lower values in eastern Montana. Not surprisingly,

the high diversity was observed along ecotones and in riparian areas, where habitat diversity was

correspondingly high. Comparisons between predicted and observed species presence at 14 areas

around the state indicated relatively low omission error rates (< 10%), but considerably higher

rates of commission errors (24-41%). This means that the models were more likely to overpredict

species distributions than to underpredict them. In the context of most management decisions, this

is desirable for the same reason that Type I statistical errors are more serious than Type II errors. 

Failure to predict a species’ presence in an area where it actually occurs may cause inadvertent

harm if land-use decisions are made without that species in mind. If, however, a species is

predicted to occur where it has never been recorded, it is more likely that the species will be

targeted in future surveys and also considered in subsequent land-use decisions.

Land Stewardship & Management

The term “stewardship” is used in place of “ownership” because legal ownership, especially in the

case of public lands, does not necessarily identify the entity responsible for management of the

land resource. At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between stewardship and

management status because a single land steward, such as a national forest, may manage portions

of its lands differently.

The digital land stewardship layer was created by incorporating various administrative boundaries 

into a base layer of land ownership obtained from the BLM, Montana State Office. The BLM

produced a base layer by scanning the plates from their 1:100,000 scale Surface Management

Series maps. We added some additional information to this base layer, but only for lands managed

to protect some elements of biodiversity (i.e., Status 1 and 2). Each map unit in the stewardship

layer was assigned a management status code. Management plans for public lands were consulted

when available; otherwise agency personnel were consulted. 

Lands were assigned to one of four management classes based on the relative degree to which land

stewards were responsible for maintaining biodiversity values. Status 1 lands reflected the

ii
highest, most permanent level of restrictive management; such lands included National Parks,

designated Wilderness Areas, state Wildlife Preserves, Nature Conservancy Preserves, and

National Wildlife Refuges where grazing was not permitted. Management could be changed more

easily on Status 2 lands, such as Wilderness Study Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, and

National Wildlife Refuges where grazing was permitted, but it was still more restrictive than the

remaining multiple use public lands, which were assigned to Status 3. Finally, Status 4 included

all private lands with no irrevocable easement or mandate to preserve biodiversity values.

Public lands administered by federal and state agencies comprise approximately 35% of Montana. 

Most federal lands in the western half of the state are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the

National Park Service, whereas most federal lands in the eastern portion of the state are managed

by the BLM. Status 1 and 2 lands occupy less than 10% of the state and are generally found at

higher elevations. Status 3 and 4 lands occupy more than 90% of the state, and well over half of

these are in private ownership.

Analyses

Once the requisite statewide data were assembled, the actual gap analysis involved intersecting the

GIS layers of land cover and predicted vertebrate distributions with land stewardship. Generally,

the results indicated that high elevation cover types and associated vertebrate species should be

relatively well protected under Status 1 and 2 management regimes. But even in these areas,

biodiversity elements could be threatened by disease (e.g., white pine blister rust) and the

introduction of exotic weeds. Two areas in the state appear to be rich in vertebrate diversity and

perhaps in need of a finer filter analysis -- the East Front of the Rocky Mountains and the

Bighorn/Powder River basins in southeast Montana. The former is a very scenic area, which is

rich in birds and mammals. Much of the non-forest portion of this area is privately owned, and

although relatively large areas have been protected by various conservation measures during the

past 20 years, more efforts likely will be required to maintain the ecological integrity of the East

Front. The second area, the Bighorn and Powder River basins, are rich in mammals and reptiles. 

Underlying these lands, however, are massive coal deposits which threaten the long-term viability

of this area for wildlife habitat. We also note with some surprise that the longest free-flowing river

in the Lower 48 states, the Yellowstone, has no formal protection anywhere along its banks.

Conclusions

The land cover and vertebrate distribution data developed for Montana Gap are the most detailed

ever produced for the entire state. These data are based on a 90 m2 statewide grid which contains

more than 4.5 million grid cells. One of 50 different land cover types was assigned to each cell,

and information pertaining to 425 terrestrial vertebrates was synthesized into rules for predicting

species’ presence and absence in each cell. The resulting datasets are large and complex, which

may complicate their use by state and regional managers, as well as by policy makers. Moreover,

we found through the review process that the 90 m resolution was often still too coarse for many

wildlife biologists whose day-to-day concerns operate at even finer scale, project levels. This may

make product acceptance and use even more difficult.

In spite of these challenges, we point out that the relatively fine scale at which we mapped the

state’s land cover should make the data useful for considerably more than predicting wildlife

distributions. For example, we have already extended this work to the dasymetric mapping of

human population density (Holloway et al. 1998), median income, and median age of housing unit

across 34 counties in Montana. These results, in turn, could become inputs for improving

vertebrate distribution models or predicting where future conflicts are more likely to occur. 

iii
With the methodologies and reference data in place, remapping or updating land cover would be a

relatively straight-forward process. Although 23,351 ground-truth plots sound adequate, we

believe that higher accuracies would result from additional data, especially from certain areas in

central and eastern Montana. We do not advocate expensive field surveys, however, but rather

consideration by a consortium of state and federal agencies to fund airborne video sampling, at

least across areas like the Bighorn and Powder River basins where it may be important to improve

land cover mapping and to monitor changes in land use.

Validation of predicted vertebrate distributions also could be expanded by using more extensive

datasets, such as those from the Forest Service, Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program

(Hutto 1995). Additional sites in eastern Montana might have to be targeted for future field

surveys as well.

The vertebrate distribution models themselves also could be improved in many ways. For

example, incorporating interspecific relationships into the models could yield important insights. 

Although competitors, predators, and brood parasites may not actually limit the distribution of

other species, they certainly affect habitat quality. Greene et al. (in press) examined the predicted

breeding distribution of Lazuli Buntings in relation to that of Brown-headed Cowbirds in the state;

their results indicated that more than 90% of nesting buntings in Montana may be vulnerable to

cowbird parasitism. Similar analyses could be carried out for many other host or prey species.

Finally, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, managers of public lands in Montana have more

ready opportunities to manage for biodiversity in some landscapes than they do in others. For

example, more than 90% of several cover types, including Missouri Breaks and Mixed Whitebark

Pine Forest, is managed by federal agencies. Consequently, these types and any associated

wildlife species ought to be easier to manage than several of the riparian cover types, the vast

majority of which occur on privately owned lands. Thus, it should come as no surprise that

conservation of riparian areas, and their associated species, will depend on participation from the

private sector. Elected officials at all levels of government can certainly help encourage this

participation through enactment of laws which make conservation more appealing than

development.

Data Uses and Availability

How To Obtain the Products

It is the goal of the Gap Analysis Program and the USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD) to

make the data and associated information as widely available as possible. Use of the data requires

specialized software called geographic information systems (GIS) and substantial computing

power. Additional information on how to use the data or obtain GIS services is provided below

and on the GAP homepage (URL below). Although the most convenient way to obtain and store

the data may be on CD-ROM, they also can be downloaded via the Internet either from the national

GAP home page (http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap) or the Natural Resource Information System at

the Montana State Library (http://www.nris.mt.gov/). 

Hardware/Software Recommendations

The datasets comprising MT-GAP were created with the ARC/INFO Grid module running on IBM

RS/6000 workstation computers (under AIX 4.1) with at least 128 megabytes of RAM and 4

gigabytes of local disk. Although the total dataset is large, most of the individual files are relatively

iv
small; the largest single file is the land cover layer (<50 megabytes), and most files are closer to 5

megabytes in size. Despite the size of the overall dataset, its availability on CD-ROM minimizes

the need for large amounts of free disk space. Powerful computers should not be required to

process MT-GAP data, but they could only help: queries and analyses should run faster with more

memory and faster processors, and when restricted to study areas smaller than the entire state. For

users without access to ARC/INFO, display and query should be feasible using the ARC/VIEW

Spatial Analyst software.

Disclaimer

Below is the official USGS, Biological Resources Division (BRD) disclaimer as of 29 January

1996, followed by additional disclaimers from GAP. Prior to using the data, you should consult

the national GAP home page (see How to Obtain the Products, above) for the current disclaimer.

Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no

warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other

system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such

warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other

data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server [see

above for approved data providers] and not indirectly through other sources which may have

changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the

content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources Division shall not

be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the

limitations of the data. These data are meant to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such as

1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of vertebrate species

and vegetation types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been assessed

for statistical accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The Biological

Resources Division makes no claim as to the data's suitability for other purposes. This is writable

data which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from a designated data

distributor identified above.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An effort of this magnitude requires input, assistance, and support from many people. Below we

attempt to identify and thank all those as best we can, and we apologize for any omissions along

the way. 

Several individuals deserve special acknowledgment for their strong commitment to the project

from its inception through its completion. First and foremost, we thank Joe Ball, Leader of the

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, and Mike Scott, Leader of the Idaho Cooperative

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit; these two individuals not only initiated the MT-GAP project, but

they also helped guide it along its sometimes agonizing and circuitous route to completion. We

also extend special thanks to Virginia Johnston, Vanetta Burton, and Pam Tollefson at the Montana

Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, as well as to Ray Murray, Lloyd Chesnut, Ken Hubbard, Pat

Bristol, and Sheila Hoffland at the University of Montana’s Office of Research and Sponsored

Programs. Many friends and colleagues at UM helped us with matters ranging from image

analysis to network system administration to integrating maps into relational databases. These

individuals include Gary Gooch, Will Gustafson, Jodi Handley, John Hinshaw, Steven

Holloway, Ashley Jones, Charlie McGuire, Guy McWethy, Kathy Jurist Novasio, Ron Righter,

Desi Rollefson, Dave Schirokauer, Steve Stegman, Claudine Tobalske, Nico Tripcevich, Judy

Troutwine, Anne Vander Meer, and Bill Zollinger. Our colleague Jim Schumacher deserves

special mention, not only for preparing many of the figures in this report, but also for sharing his

considerable cartographic skills and experience with us over the years.

In addition to providing technical advice, moral support, and financial backing, Mike Scott, Mike

Jennings, and Patrick Crist were very patient with our efforts over the years; we only hope that

they are pleased with the fruits of all our labors. We also are grateful for the assistance provided to

the National Gap Analysis Program (and to us) by Kathy Merk, Becky Sorbel, and Elisabeth

Brackney. Finally, individuals from the Wyoming Gap Analysis project shared considerable

wisdom from the perspective of those who have “been there”. Special thanks go to Ken Driese,

Margo Herdendorf, Tom Kohley, and Evie Merrill, all of whom not only contributed data to help

get us started, but also inspired us by their example of how to get things done.

Land Cover

A number of people were instrumental in getting the land cover mapping process off on the right

track. Wendel Hann from the Forest Service, Northern Regional Office had the vision and trust to

support our early efforts, not only with much needed funding, but also with valuable field data. 

Ken Driese from the Wyoming Gap Analysis project generously shared his knowledge and

experience about methods and land cover classification systems. Ray Ford took an early interest in

many challenges, both computational and administrative, that arise in a project of this scope; over

the years he devised and recommended many elegant solutions. Moreover, he further inspired

several graduate students in the UM Computer Science Department, notably Jin Guo and Steve

Barsness, to develop newer and better “Merge” algorithms which ultimately contributed to the

success of our digital mapping process. 

Classification and labeling of the 11 TM images in western Montana was funded by the Forest

Service, Northern Region. Martin Prather provided the leadership and guidance to see it through

to completion; he was assisted by three different Contracting Officers -- Jim Hamilton, Roger

Thomas, and Dallas Summerfield. Dave Atkins devoted nearly two years to managing the day-today interactions between our respective organizations. Further coordination between Forest

Service field crews and this lab was provided by Kristen Loken, Marcy Mahr, and one of us

vi
(Fisher). The sometimes thankless job of data entry was carried out with care by Gerri Deleo and

Pat Mikota. Field data then were processed, formatted, and transferred to us by Dave Browder,

John Caratti, Mike Jensen, and Rosa Nygaard. Biophysical data related to landform boundaries in

Montana were provided by John Nesser. Dick Roullier and Bill Tanke helped us acquire all 7.5

minute DEM’s and Cartographic Feature Files available for the state from the Forest Service

Geometronics Service Center. A number of other Forest Service personnel also deserve special

mention: Art Zack (Idaho Panhandle), Pat Green (Nez Perce), Sonny Castille (Clearwater), Dan

Leavell (Kootenai), Maria Mantas (Flathead), Nora Leetch (Lolo), Janet Johnson and Linda

Pietarinen (Bitterroot), John Joy (Deer Lodge), Lee Harry and Dan Svoboda (Beaverhead), Lois

Olsen (Helena), Tim Horn (Lewis and Clark), Julie Neff-Shea (Gallatin), and Jeff DiBenedetto

(Custer). 

Processing of the 22 remaining TM images was funded by Montana Fish, Wildife & Parks. We

thank Don Childress, Steve Knapp, Glenn Erickson, and Heidi Youmans for supporting this

effort. Kathie Jewell and Bill Volk from the BLM, Montana State Office, also helped coordinate

and fund several trips to BLM Offices in eastern Montana to gather existing reference data. For

their time and assistance, we thank a number of BLM personnel, including Ron Soiseth, Mike

Gilkerson, John Grensten, Huey Long, and Roy Taylor from the Phillips Resource Area Office;

John Fahlgren, Steve Klesssens, Ray Neumiller, and Dave Waller from the Valley Resource Area

Office; Lou Hagner from the Havre Resource Area Office; Larry Rau and Sally Sovey from the

Headwaters District Office; and Gerry French, Todd Christensen, Dawn Doran, Louise

Demontigny, Kent Bowen, Holger Jensen, Kathy Lehman, Larry Padden, Ken Hanify, and Jay

Parks from the Miles City District Office. Additional ground-truth data were transferred to us from

the Forest Service by Jeff DiBenedetto (Custer), John Lane (Custer), Kent Houston (Shoshone),

and Chris Grove (Black Hills), and by Marty Holko and Doug Harrison from the Natural Resource

Conservation Service, NRI Program. 

Many other people deserve special mention for actively assisting us with mapping Montana’s land

cover. These include Carl Key, Laurie Kurth, and Richard Menicke (Glacier National Park); Mike

Rabenberg (Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge); Steve Fourstar (Bureau of Indian Affairs);

Jim Byer, Dan Dupuis, Sam Morigeau, and Art Soukalla (Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes);

Chuck Finan and Frank Roberts (Coeur d’Alene Tribe); Ray Callaway, Paul Hansen, Bob Pfister,

and Anna Sala (University of Montana); and Andy Hansen, Matt Kraska, Robin Patten, and John

Wilson (Montana State University). Finally, Brian Steele helped us to develop new techniques for

estimating and mapping the thematic accuracy of the land cover classifications.

Vertebrate Modeling

Nearly 50 individuals reviewed drafts of habitat associations, model rules, and the predicted

distributions for the 425 terrestrial vertebrates. These reviewers include, in alphabetical order,

Kathy Ake, Eric Atkinson, John Carlson, Chuck Carlson, Dan Casey, Jeff Copeland, Steve Corn,

Lance Craighead, Pat Dolan, Kristi DuBois, Mike Enk, John Ensign, Charlie Eustace, John

Firebaugh, Dennis Flath, Steve Gniadek, Don Godtel, John Grensten, Sallie Hejl, Colin

Henderson, Bob Henderson, Paul Hendricks, John Hoffland, Denver Holt, Dick Hutto, Jamie

Jonkel, John Malloy, Harriet Marble, Jeff Marks, Steve Martin, Randy Matchett, Bryce Maxell,

Clint McCarthy, Terry McEneaney, Ted Nordhagen, Harvey Nyberg, Alison Perkins, Dwain

Prellwitz, Mike Rabenberg, Sue Reel, Andy Sheldon, Mike Thompson, Nancy Warren, Kirwin

Werner, Vita Wright, and Jock Young. We are immensely grateful to all these individuals for their

time and feedback, and we certainly hope their efforts are reflected in the final product. 

In addition to providing many essential data, Cedron Jones, Paul Hendricks, Margaret Beer, Pete

vii
Feigley, Kathy Jurist Novasio, and others at the Montana Natural Heritage Program were always

willing to assist in many small ways and thereby to ensure that we used the information from their

databases properly. As Zoologist for the Montana Natural Heritage Program, the late Jim Reichel

made major contributions to populating hexagons, and to developing amphibian and reptile

models. For completion of these herptile models, we thank Chuck Peterson, Bryce Maxell, and

Paul Hendricks.

Land Stewardship

Development of the land stewardship layer began with an ownership base prepared by the BLM,

Montana State Office, from its 1:100,000 scale Surface Management Series maps. This ambitious

effort was conceived and directed by Kathie Jewell and Burt Williams; we are also grateful to Corla

DeBar at the BLM, Montana State Office, for her willingness and ability to answer many of our

questions about the BLM data. Cedron Jones (Montana Natural Heritage Program) deserves

special thanks for the innumerable ways in which he helped us transform the BLM files into a final

stewardship layer. The BLM data were supplemented with ownership and management

information obtained from the following agencies (and individuals): Montana Natural Heritage

Program (Cedron Jones, Gerry Daumiller, and John Hinshaw), Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

(Lydia Bailey, Jeff Hutton, Janet Decker-Hess, and Darlene Edge), U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

(Steve Fourstar), U.S. Forest Service, Northern Region (Kim Foiles and Kent Nelson), U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation (Mark Beatty), Glacier National Park (Jack Potter), Charles M. Russell

National Wildlife Refuge (Randy Matchett), and Plum Creek Timber Co. (John Woods). Finally,

the dichotomous key developed by Bruce Thompson and Patrick Crist to assign management status

codes to public lands in New Mexico was particularly helpful to our efforts as well.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

How This Report is Organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Gap Analysis Program Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Gap Analysis Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

General Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Land Cover Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Mapping Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Land Cover Classification Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Imagery Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Map Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Mapping Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Digital Elevation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Digital Hydrography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Ground-truth Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Processing Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Unsupervised Classification of Pixels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Merge to Minimum Mapping Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Build Raster Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Collect Training Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Analyze Training Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Supervised Classification of Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Edge-matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Create Statewide Land Cover Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Special Feature Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Urban Areas, Mines, Burnt Forest, Clouds, and Cloud Shadows . . . . . 20

Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Riparian and Woody Draw Cover Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Delineation of Riparian Zones (All 33 TM Images) . . . . . . . . . . 24

Riparian Classification - 11 Western Montana TM Images . . . . . 24

Riparian Classification - 22 Other TM Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Accuracy Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Limitations and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

TM Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ix
Map Unit Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Ground-truth Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Supervised Classification Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3. PREDICTED ANIMAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES RICHNESS . . . . . . . . 37

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Mapping Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Criteria for Species Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Delineating Species Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Amphibians, Reptiles, & Mammals by Hexagon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Birds by Latilong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Documenting Wildlife-Habitat Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

GIS Modeling to Predict Species Habitat & Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Input Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Modeling Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Expert Review of Species Distribution Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Accuracy Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Error Rates Between Validation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Error Rates Between Taxa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Limitations and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4. LAND STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Stewardship Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Management Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Limitations and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5. ANALYSIS BASED ON STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT STATUS . . . . . 86

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Analysis of Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Land Cover & Land Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Forest Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Shrub and Grass Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Unvegetated Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Land Cover & Management Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Land Cover with <10% Representation in Status 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . 89

Forest Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Shrub and Grass Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Unvegetated Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Land Cover with 10-20% Representation in Status 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . 93

Land Cover with 20-50% Representation in Status 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . 95

x
Land Cover with >50% Representation in Status 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . 95

Analysis of Predicted Distributions for Terrestrial Vertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Land Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Land Management Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Species with <10% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2 . . . . . . . 98

Species with 10-20% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2 . . . . 101

Species with 20-50% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2 . . . . 101

Species with >50% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2 . . . . . . 102

Limitations and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

6. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

7. PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

How To Obtain the Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Minimum GIS Required For Data Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of These Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Appropriate Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Inappropriate Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1

1.1 List of Example GAP Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1

2.1 Example from Montana Land Cover Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1

3.1 Remarks on the Construction of Models for Amphibians & Reptiles . . . . . . . . 3.1.1

3.2 Reviewers of Vertebrate Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1

3.3 Examples from Montana Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates, Parts 1 and 2 . . . . . . . 3.3.1

3.4 Accuracy Assessment per Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1

4.1 Administrative Units with Status Level 1 or 2 in Land Stewardship . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1

5.1 Predicted Distribution for Land Cover Types by Stewardship & Management . . 5.1.1

5.2 Predicted Distribution for Vertebrates by Stewardship & Management . . . . . . . 5.2.1

xi
LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 2 Land Cover

2.1 The MT-GAP land cover classification system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 Landsat Path/Row, acquisition date, general name, source, cloud cover (%), number of

spectral classes, number of regions (raster polygons), and main sponsor for the 33 TM

images classified for MT-GAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 Landsat Path/Row, general name, scene ID, and dominance rank of the 33 TM images

classified for MT-GAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4 Variables (and their relationships) used to classify irrigated and dryland agriculture for 22 TM

scenes in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.5 Number of patches, total hectares, and percent of the state mapped for 50 land cover types in

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.6 Fuzzy matrix used to assess the accuracy of land cover types in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.7 Estimated thematic accuracies (Accumulative Users’) of 45 land cover types mapped . . . . 32

Chapter 3 Predicted Animal Distributions and Species Richness

3.1 Confidence levels assigned to hexagons for each amphibian, reptile, and mammal . . . . . . 42

3.2 GIS layers prepared as inputs to the vertebrate modeling process, all in ARC/INFO grid

(raster) format, 90 m cell size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.3 Minimum, maximum, and mean predicted richness of native terrestrial vertebrates for 50 land

cover types mapped in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.4 Size, elevation range, and checklist source for 14 validation areas used to assess the

agreement of predicted vertebrate distributions in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3.5 Number of commission errors, omission errors, matches, and percent agreement of predicted

species occurrences in 14 validation areas compared to species occurrence checklists

compiled for these same areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.6 Mean commission rate, omission rate, and percent agreement for each taxonomic group,

regardless of validation area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.7 Selected results from the regression analysis of agreement on log validation area . . . . . . . 68

Chapter 4 Stewardship

4.1 Description of the codes used to designate management status to lands within Montana . . 74

4.2 Source and scale of the digital data added to the BLM land ownership base . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.3 Management status by land management entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.4 Area and percent of Montana’s land stewardship categories by land management status . . 80

4.5 Area and percent of seven elevation ranges by management status categories . . . . . . . . . 82

Chapter 5 Analyses

5.1 Area and percent land cover within major land stewardship categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.2 Area and percent of each land cover type by management status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.3 Average percent of the total predicted distribution of species within taxonomic groups by

major categories of land stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5.4 Number and percent of species according to the percentage of their predicted distribution

within lands assigned management status 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.5 Native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals according to the percent of their predicted

distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 7 Product Use and Availability

7.1 Metadata element categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

xii
LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS

Cover and Back Cover

Enlargement of native species richness maps for the Dillon, Montana area

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 A relief map of Montana showing major towns, highways, lakes, and rivers in relation to

county boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 2 Land Cover

2.1 Distribution of ground-truth reference data used to map land cover in 33 Landsat TM images;

shown in relation to the state and TM scene boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Image classification process applied to 33 Landsat TM images for Montana . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3 Edge-matching scheme for 33 TM images classified to map land cover in Montana . . . . . 19

2.4 Montana land cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.5 Estimated mean thematic map accuracy for 45 of 50 land cover types mapped in Montana 34

Chapter 3 Predicted Animal Distributions and Species Richness

3.1 Relationship between latilongs and hexagons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.2 Steps in the vertebrate modeling process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.3 Frequency distribution of species richness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.4 Predicted distribution of total native vertebrate richness within hexagons . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.5 Predicted native terrestrial vertebrate richness in Montana (number of species by hexagon) 52

3.6 Frequency distributions of native species richness for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and

mammals within 656 equal-area hexagons in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.7 Total species richness by hexagon, divided into five equal-area classes, for native

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.8 Predicted native amphibian richness in Montana (number of species by hexagon) . . . . . . 55

3.9 Predicted native reptilian richness in Montana (number of species by hexagon) . . . . . . . 56

3.10 Predicted native avian richness in Montana (number of species by hexagon) . . . . . . . . . 57

3.11 Predicted native mammalian richness in Montana (number of species by hexagon) . . . . . 58

3.12 Patterns of native terrestrial vertebrate richness underlying total richness values per hexagon,

Madison Valley and vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.13 Locations of the 14 validation areas used to assess the agreement of predicted vertebrate

distributions in Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.14 Agreement, commission errors, and omission errors for each taxonomic group as a function

of validation area size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Chapter 4 Stewardship

4.1 Montana land stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.2 Montana land management status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 5 Analyses

5.1 Percent area of cover types in each Management Status class (1-4): Forest cover types . . 90

5.2 Percent area of cover types in each Management Status class (1-4): Grass cover types and

Shrub cover types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5.3 Percentages of land cover types in Management Status 1 and 2 classes in relation to the mean

elevation of the total area occupied by the cover type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.4 Area and proportion of cover types in Management Status 1 and 2 classes . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.5 Percent of predicted distribution in lands assigned to management status 1 and 2 for native

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5.6 For 414 native terrestrial vertebrates, percent of each species’ habitat in land management

status 1 and 2 in relation to its mean elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5.7 Percent of species’ habitat in management status 1 and 2 in relation to its mean elevation . 99

xiii

Animal Distribution Maps (links to Montana Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates)
1. INTRODUCTION

How This Report is Organized

This report is a summation of a complex scientific project. Its organization follows the general

chronology of the project, beginning with the production of the individual data layers and

concluding with analysis of the data. It departs from standard scientific reporting by mixing results

and discussion within individual chapters. This was done to provide users of the data layers with a

concise and complete reference for each data and analysis product.

We begin with an overview of the Gap Analysis mission, concept, and limitations, and then

describe the state and how its current landscape conditions came to be. Following that are chapters

on the individual data layers: mapping land cover, predicting animal distributions and species

richness, as well as land stewardship mapping and categorization. Next is an analysis chapter,

which reports on the status of the elements of biodiversity (natural community alliances and

terrestrial vertebrate species) in Montana. Finally, we describe the management implications of the

analytical results and provide information on how to acquire and use the data.

The Gap Analysis Program Mission

The mission of the Gap Analysis Program is to prevent conservation crises by providing

conservation assessments of native vertebrate species and their habitats and to facilitate the

application of this information to land management activities.

This is accomplished through the following five objectives:

1) Map actual land cover as closely as possible to the Alliance level (Grossman et al. 1998).

2) Map the predicted distribution of those terrestrial vertebrates that spend any important part

of their life history in the project area and for which adequate distributional habitats,

associations, and mapped habitat variables are available. Map other taxa as cooperative

opportunities allow.

3) Document the representation of natural land cover types and animal species in areas

managed for the long-term maintenance of biodiversity.

4) Make all GAP Project information available to the public and those charged with land use

research, policy, planning, and management.

5) Build institutional cooperation in the application of this information to state and regional

management activities.

To meet these objectives, it is necessary that GAP be operated at the state level but maintain

consistency with national standards. Within the state, participation by a wide variety of

cooperators is necessary and desirable to ensure understanding and acceptance of the data and

forge relationships that will lead to cooperative conservation planning.

The Gap Analysis Concept

The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) brings together the problem-solving capabilities of federal,

state, and private scientists to tackle the difficult issues of land cover mapping, vertebrate habitat

characterization, assessment, and biodiversity conservation at the state, regional, and national

levels. The program seeks to facilitate cooperative development and use of information. 

Throughout this report we use the terms “GAP” to describe the national program, “GAP Project”

1
to refer to an individual state or regional project, and “gap analysis” to refer to the gap analysis

process or methodology.

Much of the following discussion was taken verbatim from Edwards et al. 1995, Scott et al. 1993,

and Davis et al. 1995. The gap analysis process provides an overview of the distribution and

conservation status of several components of biodiversity. It uses the distribution of actual

vegetation and terrestrial vertebrates and, when available, invertebrate taxa. Digital map overlays

in a GIS are used to identify individual species, species-rich areas, and vegetation types that are

unrepresented or under represented in existing management areas. It functions as a preliminary

step to the more detailed studies needed to establish actual boundaries for potential biodiversity

management areas. These data and results are then made available to institutions as well as

individual land owners and managers so that by having more complete knowledge about how these

elements of biodiversity are managed, they can become more effective land stewards. GAP, by

focusing on higher levels of biological organization, is likely to be both cheaper and more likely to

succeed than conservation programs focused on single species or populations (Scott et al. 1993).

Biodiversity inventories can be visualized as "filters" designed to capture elements of biodiversity

at various levels of organization. The filter concept has been applied by The Nature Conservancy,

which has established Natural Heritage Programs in all 50 states, most of which are now operated

by state government agencies. The Nature Conservancy employs a fine filter of rare species

inventory and protection and a coarse filter of community inventory and protection (Jenkins 1985,

Noss 1987). It is postulated that 85-90% of species can be protected by the coarse filter, without

having to inventory or plan reserves for those species individually. A fine filter is then applied to

the remaining 10-15% of species to ensure their protection. Gap analysis is a coarse filter method

because it can be used to quickly and cheaply assess the other 85-90% of species.

The intuitively appealing idea of conserving most biodiversity by maintaining examples of all

natural community types has never been applied, although numerous approaches to the spatial

identification of biodiversity have been described (Kirkpatrick 1983, Margules and Nicholls 1987,

Pressey and Nicholls 1989, Nicholls and Margules 1993). Furthermore, the spatial scale at which

organisms use the environment differs tremendously among species and depends on body size,

food habits, mobility, and other factors. Hence, no coarse filter will be a complete assessment of

biodiversity protection status and needs. However, species that fall through the pores of the coarse

filter, such as narrow endemics and wide-ranging mammals, can be captured by the safety net of

the fine filter. Community-level (coarse-filter) protection is a complement to, not a substitute for,

protection of individual rare species. 

Gap analysis is essentially an expanded coarse-filter approach (Noss 1987) to biodiversity

protection. The vegetation types mapped in GAP serve directly as a coarse filter, the goal being to

assure adequate representation of all types in biodiversity management areas. Landscapes with

great vegetation diversity often are those with high edaphic variety or topographic relief. When

elevational diversity is very great, a nearly complete spectrum of vegetation types known from a

biological region may occur within a relatively small area. Such areas provide habitat for many

species, including those that depend on multiple habitat types to meet life history needs (Diamond

1986, Noss 1987). By using landscape-sized samples (Forman and Godron 1986) as an expanded

coarse filter, gap analysis searches for and identifies biological regions where unprotected or under

represented vegetation types and vertebrate species occur. 

A second filter uses combined species distribution information to identify a set of areas in which

all, or nearly all, mapped species are represented. There is a major difference between identifying

the richest areas in a region (many of which are likely to be neighbors and share essentially the

2
same list of species) and identifying areas in which all species are represented. The latter task is

most efficiently accomplished by selecting areas whose species lists are most different or

complementary. Areas with different environments also tend to have the most different species

lists for a variety of taxa. As a result, a set of areas with complementary sets of species for one

higher taxon (e.g. mammals) often will also do a good job representing most species of other taxa

(e.g. trees, butterflies). Species with large home ranges, such as large carnivores, or species with

very local distributions may require individual attention. Additional data layers can be used for a

more holistic conservation evaluation. These include indicators of stress or risk (e.g. human

population growth, road density, rate of habitat fragmentation, distribution of pollutants) and the

locations of habitat corridors between wildlands that allow for natural movements of wide-ranging

animals and the migration of species in response to climate change. These more detailed analyses

were not part of this project, but are areas of research that GAP as a national program is pursuing.

General Limitations

Limitations must be recognized so that additional studies can be implemented to supplement GAP. 

The following are general project limitations; limitations for the specific data layers are described in

the separate sections below.

1. GAP data are derived from remotely-sensed data and modeling procedures to make general

assessments about conservation status. Any decisions based on the data must be supported by

ground-truthing and more detailed analyses.

2. GAP is not a substitute for threatened and endangered species listing and recovery efforts. A

primary argument in favor of gap analysis is that it is pro-active: it seeks to recognize and

manage sites of high biodiversity value for the long-term maintenance of populations of native

species and natural ecosystems before individual species and plant communities become

critically rare. Thus, it should help to reduce the rate at which species require listing as

threatened or endangered. Those species that are already greatly imperiled, however, still

require individual efforts to assure their recovery. 

3. GAP data products and assessments represent a snapshot in time generally representing the

date of the satellite imagery. Updates are planned on a 5-10 year cycle, but users of the data

must be aware of the static nature of the products.

4. GAP is not a substitute for a thorough national biological inventory. As a response to rapid

habitat loss, gap analysis provides a quick assessment of the distribution of vegetation and

associated species before they are lost, and provides focus and direction for local, regional, and

national efforts to maintain biodiversity (see Appendix 1.1 for examples). The process of

improving knowledge in systematics, taxonomy, and species distributions is lengthy and

expensive. That process must be continued and expedited, however, in order to provide the

detailed information needed for a comprehensive assessment of our nation's biodiversity. 

Vegetation and species distribution maps developed for GAP can be used to make such surveys

more cost-effective by stratifying sampling areas according to expected variation in biological

attributes.

The Study Area

As the fourth largest state in the nation, Montana covers approximately 38.1 million hectares (94.1

million acres). It is a vast and structurally complex area that is generally characterized by the

Rocky Mountains in the west and the Great Plains in the east (Figure 1.1). These landscapes date

3

back more than 600 million years when the present-day sandstones, shales, and limestones began

to be formed as sedimentary marine deposits. Nearly 100 million years ago, in what was to

become the mountainous western portion of the state, these sedimentary formations and their

underlying basement rocks (such as those currently found in the Beartooth, Gravelly, and Ruby

Ranges), began to be uplifted and folded by tectonic actions associated with the collision of the

North American and Pacific plates (Alt and Hyndman 1986). These sedimentary and metamorphic

rocks were further uplifted and pushed aside by intrusions of granite, most notably in the

Bitterroots and Boulder Mountains. More recent, though still very old volcanic intrusions helped

shape other mountains in the state like the Gallatin and Absaroka Ranges in the Greater

Yellowstone area, as well as many insular ranges like the Highwood, Bears Paw, Adel, Crazy,

and Little Rocky Mountains. The most recently formed mountains like the Little Belts, Judiths,

Bridgers, and Big Snowies developed as upthrusts along major fault lines. Finally, the forces of

erosion and glaciation have counteracted all the mountain-building events to shape the present

Montana landscape. 

East of the Rocky Mountains lie the Great Plains. These too were formed by the geologic upheaval

to the west and the ensuing processes of sedimentation and erosion. Only in the northeastern part

of the state, where large continental glaciers smoothed out the ancestral landscape and created

thousands of pothole wetlands, is the terrain relatively flat. Elsewhere, the plains of eastern

Montana are arid, eroded landscapes dominated by bluffs, buttes, ridges, and coulees. These

forms are most dramatically developed in the Missouri River Breaks in central Montana and

Badland formations in the far eastern part of the state.

From the Continental Divide, waters in the state flow predominately west to the Pacific Ocean via

the Clark Fork, Flathead, and Kootenai Rivers, and east to the Atlantic via the Missouri and

Yellowstone Rivers. A small area in the northeastern portion of Glacier National Park drains north

to Hudson Bay via the St. Mary and Belly Rivers. Elevations in the state range from 597 m (1820

ft) above sea level where the Kootenai River flows into Idaho, to nearly 4200 m (12,799 ft) at the

summit of Granite Peak in the Beartooth Mountains. 

General climate patterns in the state also reflect the topography (Caprio and Nielsen 1992). West

of the Continental Divide, maritime conditions from the Pacific prevail; temperatures are less

extreme than to the east and precipitation is more plentiful, averaging 50 cm per year in the

mountain valleys, and reaching 305 cm/yr at the Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park. East of

the divide, however, temperatures fluctuate more widely and precipitation is less than to the west. 

Temperatures in summer often exceed 100 degrees (F) along the lower Yellowstone River and

drop below -35 degrees in winter; mean precipitation east of the divide is 33 cm/yr, with the driest

area (15 cm/yr) lying in the rain shadow of the Beartooths along the Clarks Fork of the

Yellowstone River south of Belfry.

Averaging slightly more than 6 people per mi2, Montana is one of the least populated states,

ranking third behind Alaska and Wyoming. The Census Bureau estimated Montana’s 1996

population to be 879,372; most inhabitants reside in or near the cities of Billings, Great Falls,

Helena, Butte, Missoula, Bozeman, and Kalispell (Merrill and Jacobson 1997). Since Lewis and

Clark charted the way west through the state nearly 200 years ago, people from many different

ethnic groups followed to seek their fortunes from furs, gold, land, cattle, timber, minerals, and

recreation. Today, the state’s population is predominately white (92%); American Indians

comprise 6% of the population. These native people represent 11 different tribal groups, and most

live on 7 reservations scattered around the state.

5
Grazing and agriculture predominate almost wherever they are economically viable; the same can

be said for lumber, mining, and tourism. Fire represents the largest natural disturbance process

operating in the state. Reflecting the variable nature of land ownership patterns in the state, land

management practices vary from being relatively simple and straightforward in remote areas of

rock, snow, and ice, to being complex and highly controversial in and around places like

Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. Between these extremes, land management tends to be

complicated by competing demands for water, grazing, timber, and petroleum resources. Thus the

stage is set for a timely gap analysis.

6
2. LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING

Introduction

Patterns of natural vegetation are determined by many physical and chemical forces and

disturbances which work together to shape the environment of a given land area (Whittaker 1965). 

In turn, these vegetative patterns often relate directly to patterns of overall biological diversity in an

area (Levin 1981, Noss 1990, Franklin 1993). Gap Analysis, in its “coarse filter” approach to

conservation (e.g., Jenkins 1985, Noss 1987), relies on maps of dominant natural land cover as

the fundamental spatial component for terrestrial analyses and assessments (Scott et al. 1993). 

There are three general steps to mapping land cover: 1) adopt or develop a classification system of

the types, 2) delineate units or cartographic “objects”, and 3) assign a class label to each areal unit. 

Then, for the map to be most useful, its thematic accuracy must be assessed. How we

accomplished each of these steps for MT-GAP is described below.

Land Cover Classification

Land cover classifications must rely on specified attributes, such as the structural features of

plants, their floristic composition, or environmental conditions, to consistently differentiate

categories (Küchler and Zonneveld 1988). Criteria for a land cover classification system for GAP

include: (a) its ability to distinguish among different types of dominant vegetation that occur in a

region; (b) the suitability of the classes for modeling vertebrate species habitats; (c) the

transportability of the classes within and among different biogeographic regions; (d) how well the

classes represent patterns and features that can be delineated and distinguished from Landsat

Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery; (e) the capability to link with classification systems used by other

organizations and nations to the greatest extent possible; and (f) the capability to fit, both

categorically and spatially, with classifications of other themes such as agricultural and built

environments.

For GAP, the system that best fits these criteria is the National Vegetation Classification System

(Grossman et al. 1998) which is based on the structural characteristics of vegetation derived by

Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974), adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific,

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 1973) and later modified for application to the United States

by Driscoll et al. (1983, 1984). The basic assumptions and definitions for this system have been

described by Jennings (1993) and Grossman et al. (1998).

In 1991, at the outset of MT-GAP, there was no classification system for existing vegetation

available for Montana, and by the time our land cover map was completed in 1997, we were aware

of no complete list of alliance types for the state. Consequently, we followed the lead of neighbors

in Wyoming (Merrill et al. 1996) and developed a classification based on the hierarchical design of

Anderson et al. (1975). Land cover types were targeted and defined according to known

occurrences in the state and from classifications used for GAP projects in both Idaho (Caicco et al.

1995) and Wyoming (Merrill et al. 1996). We believe these types have been cross-walked to

regional and national classification systems at the University of Idaho.

Mapping Standards

No formal standards were in effect at the time MT-GAP began in 1991, although the target

resolution was a 100 ha minimum map unit (MMU). Because of resistance from potential

7
cooperators to this relatively coarse level of resolution, we invested heavily early on to develop an

approach that would allow us to map dominant cover types at a considerably smaller MMU, with

an acceptable degree of spatial accuracy, and a mean thematic accuracy of 80%. Our final land

cover map has a variable MMU, ranging from 0.8 ha (one 90 m2 pixel) for water, riparian and

woody draw cover types, to 100 ha (125 90 m2 pixels) for clouds and cloud shadows. The

intended MMU for all other cover types was 2 ha, the target of our final merge, but because the

land cover grid was resampled from 30 m2 to 90 m2 pixels after this merge operation, some upland

types do remain in the database as single 90 m2 pixels. Most upland types, however, are found in

patches 2.4 ha (three 90 m2 pixels) or larger.

Methods

The Land Cover Classification Scheme

When we completed a statewide land cover map in 1997, our classification system contained 94

different cover types. For a variety of reasons, however, not all cover types were mapped

consistently in each TM scene. Moreover, some cover types were very similar physiognomically,

differing only in terms of dominant species composition. Thus to provide better consistency in

terms of mapping “habitat” for terrestrial vertebrates in the state, we reduced the final classification

system to 50 cover types (Table 2.1). These are illustrated and described in more detail in an

accompanying Montana Land Cover Atlas(Fisher et al. 1998; see example in Appendix 2.1).

Imagery Used

Data from 33 Landsat TM images were used to map the land cover of Montana (Figure 2.1; Table

2.2). Thirty-one were purchased in a batch of mosaic-quality, terrain-corrected images from

Hughes-STX Corporation in 1992; these were acquired during the growing seasons (June through

early September) between 1989 and 1992. Later, when imagery from the Multi-resolution Land

Characterization (MRLC) archive (EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD) became available, we

replaced two images (for P34/R28 and P35/R29) that were collected in 1989 with ones collected in

1993. We also used a third MRLC image to replace one in the northwestern corner of the state

(P43/R26) that was quite hazy. Similarly, we substituted better data from a 1994 image purchased

from EOSAT Corporation for P34/R27 to improve the map along the eastern edge of the state. All

images were obtained in terrain-corrected format, with a final pixel size of 30 m2, and, except for

the MRLC images, in an Albers Equal Area Conic projection based on the following projection

parameters:

Units = meters

Spheroid = Clarke 1866

Datum = NAD27

1st Parallel = 46 degrees

2nd Parallel = 48 degrees

Central Meridian = -109.5 degrees

Latitude of Projection's Origin = 44.25 degrees

False Easting = 600,000 meters

False Northing = 0

The MRLC images were reprojected from UTM to the same Albers projection, and manually

mosaicked to fit with the adjacent images. The MRLC images also lacked band 6 which normally

contains reflectance data from the thermal wavelengths (Loveland and Shaw 1996).

8
Table 2.1. The land cover classification system used for MT-GAP. These 50 land cover types

were mapped across the entire state using Landsat TM imagery and ancillary biophysical data. 

Each cover type is illustrated, described, and mapped in an accompanying volume (Fisher et al.

1998; see Appendix 2.1).

I. Urban and Agricultural Lands

1100 Urban or Developed Lands

2010 Agricultural Lands - Dry

2020 Agricultural Lands - Irrigated

II. Grasslands

3110 Altered Herbaceous

3130 Very Low Cover Grasslands

3150 Low / Moderate Cover Grasslands

3170 Moderate / High Cover Grasslands

3180 Montane Parklands & Subalpine

Meadows

III. Shrublands

3200 Mixed Mesic Shrubs

3300 Mixed Xeric Shrubs

3309 Silver Sage

3310 Salt-Desert Shrub / Dry Salt Flats

3350 Sagebrush

3510 Mesic Shrub - Grassland Associations

3520 Xeric Shrub - Grassland Associations

IV. Forest Lands

4000 Low Density Xeric Forest

4140 Mixed Broadleaf Forest

4203 Lodgepole Pine

4205 Limber Pine

4206 Ponderosa Pine

4207 Grand Fir

4210 Western Red Cedar

4211 Western Hemlock

4212 Douglas-fir

4214 Rocky Mountain Juniper

4215 Western Larch

4216 Utah Juniper

4223 Douglas-fir / Lodgepole Pine

4260 Mixed Whitebark Pine Forest

4270 Mixed Subalpine Forest

4280 Mixed Mesic Forest

4290 Mixed Xeric Forest

4300 Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Forest

4400 Standing Burnt Forest

V. Water

5000 Water

VI. Riparian Types

6110 Conifer Riparian

6120 Broadleaf Riparian

6130 Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Riparian

6200 Graminoid & Forb Riparian

6300 Shrub Riparian

6400 Mixed Riparian

VII. Barren Lands

7300 Rock

7500 Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits

7600 Badlands

7604 Missouri Breaks

7800 Mixed Barren Sites

VIII. Alpine

8100 Alpine Meadows

IX. Perennial Snow & Ice

9100 Snowfields or Ice

X. Other

9800 Clouds

9900 Cloud Shadows

9

Despite our best attempts, we could not obtain completely cloud-free imagery (Table 2.2).

Fortunately, however, most clouds occurred either in areas of overlap between scenes, such that

they could be excluded, or outside the state boundary. The patches of cloud and cloud shadow

remaining in the final land cover map occurred in a few areas where we had no alternate data with

which to replace them.

Map Development

To map existing vegetation and land cover across the state of Montana, we employed a two-stage,

digital classification process. In the first stage, land cover patterns were delineated from a falsecolor composite of Landsat TM channels 4, 5, and 3 (assigned to Red, Green, and Blue,

respectively) using an unsupervised classification algorithm (Ma et al. ms1.). Adjacent pixels of

the same spectral class then were grouped into contiguous areas greater than or equal to specified

map units. These spatial units were brought into ARC/INFO as raster polygons, termed regions. 

The second stage involved a supervised classification to label all regions according to land cover

type (Ma et al. ms2). This general process was carried out independently for each TM image, then

all 33 images were edge-matched to create a “virtually” seamless raster database, or series of grids,

containing cover type attributes for each region. The cover type attribute was extracted from each

of the 33 grids, and these were appended together into a single, land cover grid which then was

clipped to the state boundary buffered by 10 km to facilitate edge-matching with other states (or

provinces). Further details about how this grid was resampled to a final one with 90 m2 cell size

are described below under Processing Steps - Create Statewide Land Cover Grid, page 20.

All processing and analyses were conducted on IBM RS/6000 workstations running AIX (version

4.1). Primary commercial software packages included: ARC/INFO (versions 7.04 and 7.11),

ERDAS (version 7.5), and IMAGINE (version 8.1). In addition, for many processing steps, we

constructed customized software written in FORTRAN and C, or scripts written in Arc Macro

Language (AML).

Mapping Inputs

Landsat TM imagery (described above), digital elevation models (DEMs), digital hydrography, and

ground reference plots were the primary data layers incorporated in the mapping process. Data

acquisition and database construction are described below.

Digital Elevation Data -- Elevation, slope, and aspect information were derived from digital

elevation models (DEMs). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ DEMs were used wherever

available (N ~ 1,935). Some quadrangles, however, particularly in eastern Montana, were not

available in digital form. Digital elevation data for these quads were patched with three arc-second

DEM data from the Defense Mapping Agency (source scale 1:250,000), resampled to 30 m2

pixels, and co-registered to the TM images either by Hughes STX Corp or the EROS Data Center. 

11
Table 2.2. Landsat path/row, acquisition date, general name, source, cloud cover (%), number of

spectral classes, number of regions (raster polygons), and main sponsor for the 33 TM images

classified for MT-GAP. Eleven images in western Montana were classified using slightly different

methods than the remaining 22; these 11 can be identified in the “sponsor” column by the USFSR1 distinction.

Path/

Row Date Name Source

%

Cl

N

Class

N

Regions Sponsora

P43/R26 09/25/93 Priest Lake, ID MRLC 0 33 359,340 USFS-R1

P42/R26 08/14/92 Lake Koocanusa/Eureka H-STX 5 30 316,840 USFS-R1

P41/R26 09/06/91 Glacier National Park H-STX 4 36 294,261 USFS-R1

P40/R26 08/30/91 Sweet Grass Hills/Shelby H-STX 0 130 659,910 MTFWP

P39/R26 08/07/91 Fresno Reservoir/Goldstone H-STX 1 128 539,896 MTFWP

P38/R26 07/15/91 Havre/Chinook H-STX 0 130 617,496 MTFWP

P37/R26 07/24/91 Nelson Reservoir/Malta H-STX 2 129 522,898 MTFWP

P36/R26 06/15/91 Poplar River/Scobey H-STX 10 129 707,675 MTFWP

P35/R26 08/13/92 Medicine Lake/Plentywood H-STX 0 130 681,884 MTFWP

P42/R27 08/14/92 Noxon Res/Thompson Falls H-STX 0 29 306,632 USFS-R1

P41/R27 07/20/91 Flathead Lake/Missoula H-STX 2 31 319,117 USFS-R1

P40/R27 07/31/92 East Front/Choteau H-STX 3 33 319,635 USFS-R1

P39/R27 07/06/91 Highwood Mtns/Great Falls H-STX 0 27 290,685 USFS-R1

P38/R27 07/31/91 Judith Mtns/Winifred H-STX 1 129 802,228 MTFWP

P37/R27 07/24/91 CMR West/Winnett H-STX 0 129 537,547 MTFWP

P36/R27 06/15/91 Fort Peck Reservoir/Circle H-STX 0 130 777,603 MTFWP

P35/R27 08/13/92 Big Sheep Mtns/Glendive H-STX 0 128 646,881 MTFWP

P34/R27 07/11/94 Wibaux/Golden Valley, ND EOSA 1 126 834,119 Custer NF

P41/R28 07/20/91 Selway/Bitterroot H-STX 2 123 618,008 USFS-R4

P40/R28 07/29/91 Pintlar/Pioneer Mtns H-STX 3 18 228,308 USFS-R1

P39/R28 07/22/91 Canyon Ferry Lk/Bozeman H-STX 4 27 274,808 USFS-R1

P38/R28 07/31/91 Crazy Mtns/Big Timber H-STX 1 130 669,496 MTFWP

P37/R28 08/09/91 Bull Mtns/Billings H-STX 5 130 737,547 MTFWP

P36/R28 06/15/91 Little Wolf Mtns/Forsyth H-STX 0 130 845,325 MTFWP

P35/R28 08/11/91 Lower Powder R/Miles City H-STX 0 130 902,080 MTFWP

P34/R28 08/09/93 Little Missouri R/Ekalaka MRLC 0 121 804,587 Custer NF

P40/R29 07/31/92 Beaverhead Mtns/Big Hole H-STX 0 126 583,206 USFS-R4

P39/R29 08/09/92 Centennial Valley H-STX 1 28 230,176 USFS-R1

P38/R29 07/15/91 Yellowstone National Park H-STX 7 31 293,545 USFS-R1

P37/R29 07/26/92 Pryor Mtns/Greybull, WY H-STX 3 130 622,409 MTFWP

P36/R29 06/15/91 Bighorn Mtns/Sheridan, WY H-STX 0 130 721,102 MTFWP

P35/R29 08/16/93 Powder R/Gillette, WY MRLC 0 130 814,156 MTFWP

P34/R29 06/17/91 Alzada/Devil's Tower, WY H-STX 2 130 983,374 MTFWP

a USFS-R1 = Forest Service: Northern Region; USFS-R4 = Forest Service: Boise, Payette, Sawtooth, and Salmon/Challis

National Forests; Custer NF = Custer National Forest; and MTFWP = Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks.

12
Digital Hydrography -- USGS 1:100,000 digital line graphs (DLGs) were acquired for the full

extent of the state. These were appended together to create a seamless, statewide coverage. When

compared to current, corresponding USGS 1:100,000 scale topographic maps, however, many of

the DLGs contained inconsistent hydrographic information. These inconsistencies were of concern

because the DLG data were to be used, in conjunction with TM imagery, to model riparian and

woody draw vegetation, and any inaccuracies would affect the modeling output. After consulting

with the USGS, we learned that the recently published hardcopy topographic maps were the most

reliable and accurate source for the 1:100,000 scale cartographic information. Thus, we used the

hardcopy maps as references when evaluating and editing the DLG data; steps in this process are

described below.

1. Check/Verify. Precision of each DLG coverage was verified by direct comparison to a recent

version of its 1:100,000 scale USGS topographic map. If inconsistencies were found between

the two, the DLG coverage was edited. Generally, the older the preparation date of the DLGs,

the more editing was required to make them match the printed reference maps.

2. Edit. In the editing process, all streams and lakes added to a DLG coverage were coded with

the standard, appropriate attributes, and also were assigned a supplementary attribute item (in the

arc attribute table) that flagged these features as “new” additions to the DLG coverage. Miscoded

hydrography was also flagged as such, via the supplementary attribute item. Because the true

source of the USGS DLG hydrography is somewhat unclear, the original information was

preserved in the form that it was acquired from the USGS: no streams or lakes were physically

deleted or changed in shape, and no changes were made to the codes assigned to the standard

DLG attributes. However, inconsistencies in the DLG coverages were flagged using new

attributes.

3. Create New Coverages for Each TM Scene. Edited DLGs were reprojected to the Albers

coordinate system using the Montana parameters described previously and then appended to

create scene-wide and statewide coverages. 

Ground-truth Data -- Ground reference data (N = 23,351 plots; see Figure 2.1) were acquired

from major land management agencies and organizations. These were all cross-walked to a more

extensive land cover classification system for the state which contained 94 cover types. ASCII

files containing plot information were converted to ARC/INFO point coverages and then sorted and

stored as separate coverages for each TM image. Plots falling in areas of overlap between two

adjacent images were copied and used as training data for both images. 

Processing Steps

Unless otherwise stated, each of the following steps was applied to each of the 33 Landsat TM

images independently; they are summarized in Figure 2.2.

Unsupervised Classification of Pixels -- A two-pass, unsupervised classification procedure was

designed by Zhenkui Ma to replicate the patterns observed in a false-color composite of TM

imagery (channels 4, 5, and 3 assigned to red, green, and blue). Spectral classes were defined

based on Euclidean distance according to an algorithm which searched for the shortest distance

between points in multivariate space, or in this case, the distance between RGB values for different

pixels. Color similarity thus determined spectral class. In the first pass of the unsupervised

classification, a color palette file, which mapped spectral values for the three TM channels to RGB

values, was created by randomly sampling pixels to represent patterns evident in the color

composite and thus to define spectral classes. In the second pass, Euclidean distances were

13
Figure 2.2. Image classification process applied to 33 Landsat TM scenes for Montana.

14
calculated between pixels in the input image and spectral classes in the color palette; input pixels

were assigned to the nearest spectral class as measured by Euclidean distance. Additional details

may be found in Ma et al. (ms1). 

At the time when the first 11 TM images were classified, our hardware and software capabilities

were such that to take the next step of merging pixels to desired map units for full TM scenes (see

below), it was necessary to reduce the number of spectral classes by approximately one half

(typically from 80 to 40 classes). These first 11 TM images were all in western Montana and are

shown in Figure 2.3. Spectral classes were regrouped in each of these images in the following

manner. Pixels were clustered in the color palette, and spectral classes combined based on their

Euclidean distance positions in RGB color space. The grouped pixels then were used to determine

the colors for displaying the classified image. After visually comparing the classified image to the

false-color composite (with a 24-bit graphics display), pixel groupings in the color palette were

manually adjusted as necessary. Once the grouped color palette produced a satisfactory display,

one that maintained patterns in the original classified image, spectral groups in the image were

physically regrouped to correspond with the revised color palette. To further reduce data volume,

pixels in each of these 11 regrouped images also were filtered using a 3 x 3 majority window. 

Unsupervised classifications of the other 22 TM images resulted in the creation of 120-130 spectral

classes (Table 2.2), and none of these classes was regrouped or filtered prior to merging.

Merge to Minimum Mapping Units -- After the unsupervised classification, pixels in all 33 TM

images were merged to specified minimum mapping units using specially developed software

routines. Groups of pixels smaller than these designated MMUs were merged with their most

similar neighbor in a rule- and object-based process (Ford et al. 1997). A similarity matrix

controlled the incorporation of small patches into larger neighbors. This matrix was built based on

the TM channel values for the input spectral groups. The merging process first identified regions

smaller than the MMU, then listed neighboring regions and examined similarities between small

regions and their neighbors. Finally, small regions were merged with larger neighbors having the

most similar spectral values. A single, 2 ha (22 pixel) MMU was used for the first 11 TM images,

with pixels representing water preserved at 30 m resolution. For the remaining 22 TM images, a

more complex merging process was devised to better delineate cover types occurring in narrow

riparian areas (see below). 

Build Raster Database -- The supervised classification, where regions were assigned labels based

on ground-truth data, required a raster database containing multiple TM and ancillary attributes. 

Logically, supervised classifications could not take place until such databases (or scene grids) had

been constructed for each TM image. Once a classified and merged image was created through the

unsupervised classification process, the resultant file was converted from ERDAS GIS to

ARC/INFO GRID format, thus maintaining its raster file structure. Each scene grid contained

between 228,308 and 983,374 regions (Table 2.2). For each scene grid, a value attribute table

(VAT) was built to contain statistics by region for spectral and biophysical (TM and DEM) data. In

addition to the mean values for all available TM channels (either 1-7 for H-STX & EOSAT images,

or 1-5, + 7 for MRLC images), mean elevation and slope values for each region were calculated

and stored in the attribute table. Because mean values were unlikely to offer representative

measures for aspect (e.g., when averaged, northeast and northwest slopes would be recorded as

south), aspect was grouped into eight classes and stored as majority values for each region. We

also calculated a version of modified NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) adapted from

Nemani et al. (1993) as follows:

MNDVI = (TM4 - TM3) / (TM4 + TM3 + 1) * (256 / (TM5 + 1)) * 100

15
Spatial attributes (hectares, perimeter length, and x,y coordinates) were also calculated and

recorded. The latter two were derived by converting the raster file to vector format; attributes were

automatically created in the conversion, and their values were transferred back to the attribute table

of the raster file. More information about these attributes can be found in Redmond et al. (1997).

Collect Training Data -- For reasons of cost and efficiency, considerable efforts were expended to

obtain and use existing data for training the supervised classifications. Ideally these data came

from relatively large, homogeneous stands or areas. Use of existing data from highly

heterogenous areas (where two or more different cover types occurred) was avoided. The

following criteria were followed to determine the suitability and eventual use of existing plot or

reference data for the supervised classifications:

1. Existing data should not be over 10 years old, nor should the site have been disturbed

(natural or management induced) since the data were collected.

2. Existing data must represent an area 8 ha or larger (stand versus single plot data) for upland

cover types and 0.4-2 ha for riparian or woody draw cover types.

3. Location of the training data plot must be more than 30 m from the edge of an existing

stand or patch, and ideally in a representative area near its center.

4. For training data that were interpreted from aerial or orthophotos, the plot location should

fall within a large homogeneous stand.

For all newly collected field data we tried to adhere to two criteria. First, the plot should be located

near the center of a 2 ha or larger stand and with a differentially-corrected GPS; and second, the

stand should be a homogeneous representation of the cover type. We had greater success with the

latter than the former, primarily due to failures in obtaining differentially-corrected GPS locations. 

Many training data points were checked and verified by personnel from various management

agencies who visited The University of Montana to review initial classifications and to help us

input additional training data sites from aerial photos and existing maps. Again, emphasis was

placed on choosing large areas representing a single cover type. A final source of training data was

the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) dataset from the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). Because the precise locations of these plots were confidential, we were unable to obtain

a points coverage for them. Instead, we sent merged grids for 22 TM images to the NRCS, where

the points were overlaid, and our regions attributed accordingly. 

Analyze Training Data -- A total of 23,351 unique plots (Figure 2.1) were compiled in the groundtruth database. ARC/INFO point coverages with numerous attributes were created and

manipulated to obtain training datasets for each TM scene. Because of the overlap between scenes,

individual plots may have been stored in multiple training set coverages. All training data were

subjected to a series of positional and ecological checks to ensure their quality and accuracy; for

example, checking a plot’s assigned cover type label for consistency with its species composition

attributes. Plots or points expected to cause problems were identified. If problems could not be

resolved, the associated plots were eliminated from the training set. Examples include multiple

plots with different cover type labels in a single region, and plots with low or unknown positional

accuracy. Generally, plots also were set aside if they represented cover types that were manually

rather than digitally labeled; these included urban, agricultural, and water cover types, but the

specific set of excluded types varied slightly among the 33 TM images.

Training data analysis did not truly end until all the supervised classifications were complete. To

assess the quality of training data at various stages of the process, each training plot was removed

sequentially from the dataset, and the remaining plots used to classify it (a “leave-one-out” method;

Huberty 1994). A matrix then was generated from the classified output files to evaluate potential

16
confusion among training plots. Diagonal elements in the ‘confusion’ matrix represent the number

of plots properly classified; misclassified plots (omission and commission errors) were further

evaluated, and in some cases, dropped altogether from subsequent analyses. 

Supervised Classification of Regions -- Once the raster database and training data sets were in

place for a given TM scene, supervised classifications were conducted to assign cover type labels

to each region. This proved to be an iterative process. Multiple classifications may have been

conducted for a single image, with intermediate modifications to training data, until satisfactory

results were obtained and analysts felt that they had exhausted the potential of the training data to

yield improvements. The algorithm used to classify regions is a supervised, nonparametric

classification called the NEAREST MEMBER of GROUP (NMG). The mathematical description

of NMG is:

An unknown region Y belongs to group i if

ED(Y,Xi) < ED(Y,Xj) for j <> i 

where ED is Euclidean distance, Xi and Xj are supervised training data, and Xi is any one of the

known training regions for group i. 

With NMG, Euclidean distances were calculated between each unknown (i.e., unsampled) region

and every training region in the data set; thus, all training regions were treated independently, and

had an equal chance of affecting the assignment of labels. Each region was assigned a label

corresponding to the group that contained the training region closest to the unknown region in

terms of Euclidean distance. 

The first step in each supervised classification was to overlay training plots with regions in the

raster database and to extract the necessary attributes from each region for use in the classification. 

For each training plot, an attribute was added to identify the exact region in which it fell. Attribute

tables were then related for the training plot and raster files, and the attribute values desired for

each classification were exported into a training data file (ASCII format), sorted by cover type. To

classify cover types, we used mean values for all available TM channels (either 1-7, or 1-5, + 7),

elevation, and modified NDVI (M_NDVI). Because TM values range from 0-255 (well below

typical elevation values in m), elevation was rescaled by dividing the raw value by 25 so that it

would not be accorded extra weight in the classification. In addition to creating an ASCII file for

training data, a similar file was created by exporting a matching set of attributes for every region in

the raster database to be labeled. Using custom software, the file of training data was compared

with the file of regions to be labeled, and every region was classified using the NMG algorithm. 

The NMG algorithm used Euclidean distances derived as follows: 

(TM1train - TM1unknown)2 + (TM2train - TM2unknown)2 + ... (TM7train -

TM7unknown)2 + (ELEtrain - ELEunknown)2 + (M_NDVItrain - M_NDVIunknown)2

Distances between attribute values were squared to avoid mixing positive and negative values, and

to magnify the amplitude of distances, thereby helping to distinguish differences among groups. 

Attribute values thus played the primary role in determining which labels should be assigned to

each region; these were the values between which Euclidean distances were calculated. 

Three cover type labels were assigned to each region, in decreasing order of likelihood (or rather,

in increasing Euclidean distance). Labels were maintained without any modifications in the raster

database (as COV_CODE_1, COV_CODE_2, and COV_CODE_3). The actual Euclidean distance

values (rescaled by dividing ED by 1000) also were recorded. Smaller values indicated a higher

17
likelihood of correct classification: even if a cover type proved to be incorrect for a given polygon,

a very small ED value would indicate that, based on the training data available, the assigned label

offered the best possible fit. These ED values were used in evaluating classification results by

looking at the relative differences between all three values for individual regions and at the various

combinations of values across regions. ED values were also instrumental in making some

modifications to cover type labels. Only the smallest Euclidean distance (COV_PROB_1) was

maintained as an attribute for use in manual modifications. After the cover type classification was

complete, a new attribute (COVERTYPE) was added and populated with the most likely cover type

code (COV_CODE_1); this attribute (COVERTYPE) was later manipulated through manual

modifications. 

Two general types of manual modifications were used: attribute recoding based on decision rules,

and geographic limits which were only defined for certain cover types. All modifications were

applied to the COVERTYPE attribute only. As an example of a rule-based modification, elevation,

slope, and aspect were used in an ecological limit rule to check the classification of Lodgepole Pine

in several images as follows: If COV_CODE_1 = 4203 (Lodgepole Pine), and elevation < 2000

(meters), aspect = 5 (south aspect), and slope > 6 (degrees or 15 percent), then the COV_CODE_1

field was assumed to be incorrect and the COVERTYPE field should be set to COV_CODE_2 (the

second most likely cover type label assignment).

Edge-matching -- We employed a simple solution for seamlessly edge-matching classified data

from the 33 adjacent TM images once the raster databases had been constructed. This method was

designed to preserve the integrity of individual image classifications and to minimize the perception

of an ‘edge’ between adjacent overlapping ones. Rather than physically deleting regions, they are

simply flagged to indicate whether or not they should be used. As a result, the original data can

always be retrieved, and new edge-matching schemes can be devised and implemented at any time.

The scheme is illustrated in Figure 2.3; results are evident in the statewide land cover map (Figure

2.4).

Edge-matching occurred only within overlapping areas for adjacent images. Before edge-matching

could occur, each of the 33 overlapping images was evaluated and ranked in descending order of

dominance (Table 2.3). Factors such as the distribution of cloud cover, the image acquisition

date, and the classification accuracy levels for each scene were carefully weighed in determining

the dominance ranking. Once dominance relationships were established, the following processing

sequence was implemented to achieve virtual edge-matching:

1. Generally define the portion of each TM image that should be retained after edge-matching

by drawing a polygon through the areas of overlap between adjacent scene(s); areas outside

the polygon will be eliminated after edge-matching, the polygon should exclude areas with

undesirable characteristics like cloud cover.

2. Perform an overlay and masking operation in ARC/INFO to identify all regions contained

at least partially within the portion of the scene to be kept; add an attribute, KEEP, to the

database and populate with value = 1 for all these regions.

3. Calculate a KEEP grid for each scene database; assign the value of the scene id to each

region to be kept (i.e., with KEEP = 1); all other regions in the KEEP grid have no data for

this attribute.

4. In order of dominance, merge the KEEP grids into one single grid.

18

Create Statewide Land Cover Grid -- Once the supervised classification process was complete for

all 33 TM images, the cover type attributes were selected for each region with a KEEP = 1. This

produced a single land cover grid (30 m2 cell size, and 94 classes) for the entire state which we

clipped to the state boundary (1:100,000 scale, U.S. Census Bureau, TIGER line file) buffered by

10 km on all sides to facilitate future edge-matching. The 94 cover types then were recombined

into 50 types that we felt were adequately and consistently mapped (see Table 2.1). The 30 m2

resolution of this grid rendered it impractical for modeling wildlife distributions across the entire

state. Consequently, we applied a final merge process to remove 1) water and riparian areas

smaller than 1 ha, 2) clouds and cloud shadows smaller than 100 ha, and 3) patches of all other

cover types smaller than 2 ha. This grid then was resampled to a 90 m2 cell size. To recover as

many of the small water, riparian, and woody draw features that might have been lost in this

resampling process, we created a separate statewide “water/riparian” grid by selecting just those

cover types (codes 5000-6400) from the 33 individual image grids. This in turn was resampled to

90 m2 and then combined with the previously merged and resampled grid to produce the final land

cover grid for MT-GAP.

Special Feature Mapping

Urban Areas, Mines, Burnt Forest, Clouds, and Cloud Shadows

Owing to the wide range of spectral classes associated with urban and suburban areas, mines,

burnt forest, and cloud shadows, visual interpretation was used to help distinguish and map these

land cover types. We used digital coverages of existing cities and towns obtained from the

Montana State Library, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS; http://www.nris.mt.gov) to

locate urban areas in the state. Similarly, for mines and forest fires, we obtained digital coverages

from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP;

http://www.icbemp.gov). These vector coverages were displayed over a false-color composite of

TM bands 4, 5, and 3, along with a coverage of the raster polygon boundaries, to identify those

polygons obviously associated with urban areas, mines, or fires. These were manually tagged,

then, after the supervised classification, an AML script was run to ensure these regions were

labeled correctly. We also had trouble with clouds because their shadows were sometimes

confused with shadows caused by steep, north-facing slopes. Fortunately the clouds themselves

were relatively rare and easy to identify based on spectral class alone. With this information, and

using a similar AML to that described above, GIS analysts located clouds and any associated

shadows and tagged them for relabeling after the supervised classification.

Agricultural Lands

Agricultural lands presented a problem created by “land use” similar to urban areas in that the range

of spectral classes associated with agriculture was too varied for accurate classification with a

supervised process. Agricultural lands were classified into two types: irrigated and dryland. Fields

in active growth at the time the satellite imagery was acquired were assumed to be irrigated,

whereas dryland agriculture included fallow and/or sparsely vegetated fields or pastures. Our

methods changed somewhat between classification of the first 11 TM images and the remaining 22.

For these first 11, the two agricultural types were manually identified and polygons tagged in a

manner similar to that for urban areas and clouds described above. For the 22 other TM images,

20
Table 2.3. Landsat Path/Row, general name, and dominance rank of the 33 TM images from

which the statewide land cover map was derived.

Path/Row Name Dominance Rank

P43/R26 Priest Lake, ID 33

P42/R26 Lake Koocanusa / Eureka 31

P41/R26 Glacier National Park 32

P40/R26 Sweet Grass Hills / Shelby 02

P39/R26 Fresno Reservoir / Goldstone 04

P38/R26 Havre / Chinook 05

P37/R26 Nelson Reservoir / Malta 06

P36/R26 Poplar River / Scobey 03

P35/R26 Medicine Lake / Plentywood 01

P42/R27 Noxon Reservoir / Thompson Falls 30

P41/R27 Flathead Lake / Missoula 23

P40/R27 East Front / Choteau 24

P39/R27 Highwood Mountains / Great Falls 29

P38/R27 Judith Mountains / Winifred 19

P37/R27 CMR West / Winnett 13

P36/R27 Fort Peck Reservoir / Circle 12

P35/R27 Big Sheep Mountains / Glendive 10

P34/R27 Wibaux / Golden Valley, ND 11

P41/R28 Selway / Bitterroot 21

P40/R28 Pintlar / Pioneer Mountains 26

P39/R28 Canyon Ferry Lake / Bozeman 25

P38/R28 Crazy Mountains / Big Timber 20

P37/R28 Bull Mountains / Billings 09

P36/R28 Little Wolf Mountains / Colstrip / Forsyth 08

P35/R28 Lower Powder River / Miles City 07

P34/R28 Little Missouri River / Ekalaka 14

P40/R29 Beaverhead Mountains / Big Hole Valley 22

P39/R29 Centennial Valley 27

P38/R29 Yellowstone National Park 28

P37/R29 Pryor Mountains / Greybull, WY 16

P36/R29 Bighorn Mountains / Sheridan, WY 18

P35/R29 Powder River / Gillette, WY 17

P34/R29 Alzada / Devil's Tower, WY 15

we developed a 6-step process for identifying and classifying all agricultural lands that was based 

on the following four assumptions:

1. They tended to be associated with particular spectral classes.

2. They tended to occur in larger patches (> 25 pixels) than other types.

3. These patches tended to be more homogeneous in term of their spectral composition than

other types.

4. They tended to be spatially clumped across entire TM scenes.

21
Step one involved determining the relationship between the two agricultural types and the 120-130

spectral classes derived from the unsupervised classification. Each spectral class was visually

inspected and assigned to one of the following seven groups based on its association with

agricultural lands:

0) Never agriculture

1) Occasionally dry agriculture

2) Sometimes dry agriculture

3) Usually dry agriculture

4) Occasionally irrigated agriculture

5) Sometimes irrigated agriculture

6) Usually irrigated agriculture

In the second step, the resulting file was used in conjunction with the unsupervised classification

(the u-grid), the merged image (the m-grid), and the full database file (the z-grid) to produce a new

output image (the out-grid). An AML assigned output class values to every region based on the

following three attributes: agricultural class value (0-6; see above list), the size of the region

(number of pixels), and a homogeneity class value based on the spectral similarity of pixels in the

u- versus m-grids in 10 percentile groups (see Table 2.4). In other words, if less than 10% of the

region was comprised of pixels assigned its own spectral class by the unsupervised classification,

then it was assigned to the lowest homogeneity class (1). All regions then were assigned to one of

two size classes: small ( 25 pixels) or large (> 25 pixels). This size index often helped to

distinguish between regions representing narrow, linear riparian areas and actual agriculture. The

six possible agricultural classes, each of which could occur in 10 different homogeneity classes

and two different sizes, yielded a possible list of 120 agricultural type codes, plus another 10 codes

for those that were never agriculture. The AML then assigned one of these 130 output code values

to every region in the grid. Referring again to Table 2.4, regions with spectral class 0 were

assigned to output classes 1-10, depending on their homogeneity percentile ranking. Regions with

spectral classes 1-6 were assigned to output values of 11-70 if they were less than or equal to 25

pixels in size, or 71-130 if they were larger than 25 pixels. A region with an output value of 115

should have a spectral class that sometimes indicated irrigated agriculture, a size greater than 25

pixels, and a 50-60% spectral correspondence between pixels in the u-grid and the m-grid. 

In step three, breakpoints and association “rules” to assign agricultural class values (irrigated vs

dryland) were determined for each of the seven groupings. This was an interpretive process that

involved evaluating the association of each output class with an agricultural type in each image. 

For example, a classification rule might be based on the following observations: regions with

spectral code 6 (indicating “usually irrigated agriculture”) were more likely to represent irrigated

agriculture when the output class value was between 65 and 70 for small polygons and between

122 and 130 for large polygons. 

The next two steps (4 and 5) required that an analyst delineate areas within each TM image where

the output rules should be applied, and then apply them there. In other words, the classification of

agricultural types was restricted to certain specific areas in each image. 

In the sixth step, the final classification of the two agricultural cover types (2010 and 2020) was

transferred into the z-grid. Although this method of classifying agricultural lands was more time

consuming and somewhat less objective than others, it had the advantage of producing quite

accurate results.

22
Table 2.4. Variables (and their relationships) used to classify irrigated and dryland agriculture for

22 TM scenes in Montana.

Region Size

(N pixels)

Spectral

Codea

Probable

Agricultural Class

Frequency of

Occurrence

Output Class

Valuesb

n/a 0 Non-Agriculture n/a 1-10

< 26 1 Dry Occasional 11-20

< 26 2 Dry Sometimes 21-30

< 26 3 Dry Usually 31-40

< 26 4 Irrigated Occasional 41-50

< 26 5 Irrigated Sometimes 51-60

< 26 6 Irrigated Usually 61-70

> 25 1 Dry Occasional 71-80

> 25 2 Dry Sometimes 81-90

> 25 3 Dry Usually 91-100

> 25 4 Irrigated Occasional 101-110

> 25 5 Irrigated Sometimes 111-120

> 25 6 Irrigated Usually 121-130

a Determined from original 120-130 spectral classes from unsupervised classification.

b One value per homogeneity percentile group; i.e., output class 1 = non-agriculture with 10% correspondence

between pixels in u- versus m-grids; 2 = non-agriculture with 11-20%, etc.

Nonetheless, after appending all 33 land cover grids together, it became apparent that the

distinction between irrigated and dryland agriculture was inconsistent from scene to scene,

primarily due to phenological differences related to different acquisition dates among all the

images. To rectify this, we reclassified the two agricultural types across the entire state in the

following manner. First all regions labeled as agriculture were selected in each scene grid. Their

boundaries were converted to vector format and overlayed on the merged grid of the unsupervised

classification (m-grid) to identify all regions that would end up being labeled agriculture. These

regions then were selected, and a ratio of TM bands 5 to 4 was calculated for each one. Ratios

were summarized for each image grid and evaluated prior to selecting a threshold value to

distinguish between the irrigated and dryland classes. For all 33 images, threshold ratios ranged

between 1 and 1.2. Ratios below the designated threshold indicated a preponderance of green,

growing vegetation compared with those above the threshold which indicated browner, senescent

vegetation. Using an AML script, all selected polygons with TM 5:4 ratios below the threshold

were coded as irrigated agriculture (2020), whereas those with ratios above the threshold were

labeled dryland agriculture (2010).

23
Riparian and Woody Draw Cover Types

Because woody draw and riparian vegetation often occurs in small patches associated with moist

soil conditions, much information about their distribution can be lost in the process of aggregating

30 m pixels to larger (2 ha) MMUs. We tried to rectify this situation in two ways. For the first 11

TM images in western Montana (Table 2.2), we classified and labeled woody draw and riparian

vegetation using unregrouped spectral values for individual 30 m pixels within a variable-width

buffer (riparian zone) around water features (see below). For the other 22 TM images, riparian

zones were delineated in a similar manner, but instead of classifying individual 30 m pixels and

maintaining a separate grid, we merged them to a smaller (0.4 ha) MMU than the 2 ha one used for

pixels outside the zone. All regions in each image then were labeled to cover type in a single

supervised classification process, then manual modifications were made to ensure that assignment

of riparian codes was limited to regions within the designated zones. 

Delineation of Riparian Zones (All 33 TM Images) -- Boundaries of riparian zones near water

features were modeled using USGS 7.5' digital elevation models (DEMs), where available, and 1-

degree DEMs otherwise (USGS 1993), and USGS 1:100,000 scale digital hydrographic features

(USGS 1989). Our goal was to approximate lowlands adjacent to all lakes and streams (both

intermittent and perennial). 

Given the uncertainty of absolute elevation values in DEMs, we developed a robust yet flexible

approach to the zone delineation which included all pixels whose elevation was within 5 m of the

surface elevation of all stream or lake shore segments. The process was automated as an AML

script which assigned an elevation to each 30 m stream or lake shore segment (from the DEM). 

Then, extending out perpendicularly from each shoreline pixel, elevation values were compared

until a 5 m threshold was reached and the boundary of the zone drawn. We added a perpendicular

distance limit to the delineation process for the 22 images in central and eastern Montana because of

the flatter terrain there. Specifically, perpendicular distance limits were set at 150 m for perennial

streams, 300 m for single-line rivers (DLG code 610), 300 m for pond and lake shore lines (DLG

code 200), and 450 m for rivers coded with 2 stream banks in the DLGs (codes 605 and 606). In

other words, the zone boundary was set to either the point at which the 5 m threshold for elevation

change was met, or the appropriate distance limit for that hydrographic feature, whichever was

less. Specific criteria were selected to approximate the farthest distance that riparian zones would

typically extend from the hydrographic features in question; estimates were generous to avoid

regularly truncating the predicted zones before elevation limits were reached. Another goal in

selecting distances was to minimize the misclassification of irrigated agricultural lands adjacent to

hydrography. Distance criteria also were reviewed and refined by Jeff DiBenedetto, Ecologist at

the Custer National Forest. 

Riparian Classification - 11 Western Montana TM Images -- First, riparian spectral classes were

selected. Training data based on either field sampling or aerial photo interpretation were acquired

from a variety of sources and assigned to a spectral class from the unmerged and unregrouped

image. Although we focused more attention on points and spectral classes located within the zone,

all riparian training data and their associated spectral classes were used to some extent because we

knew that the 1:100,000 scale DLGs did not contain all water features. Moreover, data outside the

zone still offered valid information to support decisions made about those within the zone. 

Overall, five classes were initially defined: Grass-Forb Riparian/Wetland, Shrub Riparian/

Wetland, Needleleaf Dominated Riparian, Broadleaf Dominated Riparian, and NeedleleafBroadleaf Riparian. Broad as these classes are, they failed to capture the continuum of riparian

vegetation observed in the field. Two more classes were required to reasonably categorize all

24
selected spectral classes: Mixed Grass-Forb-Shrub Riparian/Wetland, and Mixed Riparian, which

could have included trees and any other riparian vegetation class. In practice, it was not realistic to

separate analysis of spectral classes by their characteristics from analysis of ground-truth data. The

intent was to assign only one riparian class label to one spectral class based on training data, color,

and spatial distribution of the class.

Once spectral classes had been selected, it was necessary to distinguish between agricultural and

riparian classes. Because color patterns for agricultural areas can be nearly identical to those

representing riparian areas, further interpretation was required to reconcile labeling inconsistencies

between the 30 m and 2 ha MMU databases. Without this step, riparian vegetation would have

been overestimated in agricultural areas for the 11 TM scenes in western Montana. After

agricultural lands (> 2 ha) were manually identified and riparian spectral classes selected (see

above), riparian areas that overlapped agricultural areas were modified in a two-stage procedure. 

Much of this process was automated within ARC/INFO using an AML to implement user-defined

rules. However, in most cases, analysts made final decisions based on visual interpretation. 

In the first stage, individual 2 ha MMU regions labeled as agriculture were flagged for editing if

>50% of their area overlapped with 30 m pixels designated as riparian. Typically, the number of

regions flagged did not exceed 2500. Selected agricultural regions were then displayed on-screen

in a sequence of editing windows. Overlapping areas were outlined; these could be parts of either

riparian regions or agricultural polygons. The background view included the agricultural portions

of the unregrouped image, so that shifts in color across the agricultural polygons (2 ha) were

visible. As additional cues in determining the pattern of predicted riparian cover types, colored

label points within the overlapping areas indicated the riparian classes. The boundaries of the

predicted riparian zone and hydrographic features were also displayed for reference. As a general

rule, if an agricultural region fell within a riparian zone, but no color change was evident near a

water feature, then the overlapping riparian pixels were flagged for deletion. If colors did change

in association with water features in the zone, then the overlapping pixels were retained and

considered to be riparian, unless the color clearly indicated a non-vegetated cover type, e.g., a sand

or gravel bar.

The second stage was targeted toward agricultural regions that fell only partly within the predicted

riparian zone. For these regions, the proportion inside was compared to the proportion outside the

riparian zone. If <10% of the region was inside, the overlap was automatically flagged for

removal; if it was >10% but <20%, the area was edited by analysts in a manner similar to that in

the first stage. 

Riparian Classification - 22 Other TM Images -- Riparian and woody draw cover types were

labeled, together with upland cover types, in the supervised classifications for the remaining 22

TM images. However, because no spatial limits were placed on where either of these general types

could occur, we ended up with upland types being mapped in obviously riparian settings and vice

versa. To rectify this, manual modifications were made to each classification. These

modifications were based generally on life-form. All regions inside the designated zones were

assigned riparian or woody draw cover type labels (6110-6400). If one of these labels was

assigned to a region outside the designated zones, then it was replaced with the upland cover type

label closest in terms of life-form and Euclidean distance (e.g., alternate COV_CODE

assignments). For example, if the supervised classification assigned a 3100 (Upland Grassland)

level code to a region within a designated riparian zone, it would be recoded to 6210

25
 (Graminoid/Forb Dominated Riparian). Similarly a shrub type like 3210 (Mesic Shrub) occurring

within a zone would be recoded to 6310 (Shrub Dominated Riparian), 4203-4280 types

(coniferous forest) would become 6110 (Conifer Dominated Riparian), and 4300 types (mixed

broadleaf conifer) would end up as a 6130 (Mixed Broadleaf/Conifer Riparian) type. This revised

approach for labeling riparian and woody draw types allowed us to classify and maintain all cover

types in a single database for each of these 22 TM scenes. Because agricultural cover types were

labeled first (and care taken to avoid including riparian areas), most of the confusion between

agriculture and riparian types was eliminated up front, and there was no need to reconcile

differences between two separate classifications.

Results

In all, 50 land cover types were mapped for Montana (Figure 2.4). As mapped, the single most

common cover type was Low/Moderate Cover Grasslands which covered 27.4% of the state

(Table 2.5), and taken as a group, grasslands (3100 level codes) comprised more than 37% of the

state. Forest cover types (4000 level codes) covered 24% of the state. These represented 19

different types, the most common of which were Mixed Subalpine Forest (4270), Douglas-fir

(4212), and Lodgepole Pine (4203). Fires of moderate or high intensity were mapped across

139,261 hectares, or 0.37% of the state. Shrublands (3200-3500 codes) comprised another 14%,

and riparian types were limited to 3.9% of the state’s land area. Urban or Developed Lands

occupied less than 1% of land area, but agricultural lands (both dry and irrigated; 2000 codes)

comprised nearly 15%. Finally, Rock and barren types (7000 level codes) plus Snowfields or Ice

(9100) covered 4.3% of the state, and slightly more than 30,000 ha (0.08%) could not be mapped

because of cloud cover.

Accuracy Assessment

Introduction

Land cover is mapped for Gap Analysis to answer the fundamental question: what is the current

distribution and management status of the nation's major natural land cover types and wildlife

habitats? Yet without an accuracy assessment, users of the land cover map have little information

about its overall reliability, particularly with respect to which land cover types and which regions

of the map do not meet the program’s stated accuracy objectives. It is impossible for image

analysts and cartographers, who may create a statewide land cover map, to anticipate all future

applications of their work, so an accuracy assessment should provide sufficient information to

enable users to evaluate the suitability of the data for their particular purpose. This can be described

as the degree to which the data quality characteristics collectively suit an intended application. The

information reported include details on the database's spatial, thematic, and temporal characteristics

and their accuracy. 

The approach currently recommended in the Gap Analysis Handbook for assessing land cover map

accuracy (Scott and Jennings 1994) involves collection of an independent set of reference data,

ideally after the final land cover map has been created and using a suitable sampling unit and

statistical design. In keeping with the research and development mission of the Gap Analysis

Program, we developed a new approach to accuracy assessment which does not require the

collection of an independent set of reference data. Instead, all reference data are used not only to

label raster polygons via the supervised classifications, but also to assess the classification

accuracy via a bootstrap procedure (see below). Although the method has withstood peer-review

(Steele et al. in press), the results have not been field-tested, and readers may wish to interpret the

method and results with caution.

26

Table 2.5. Number of patches, total hectares, and percent of the state mapped for 50 land cover

types in Montana.

Code Cover Type N Patches N Hectares % State

1100 Urban or Developed Lands 1,109 63,733 0.17

2010 Agricultural Lands - Dry 96,092 3,632,611 9.54

2020 Agricultural Lands - Irrigated 94,928 1,957,294 5.14

3110 Altered Herbaceous 109,396 1,014,946 2.67

3130 Very Low Cover Grasslands 139,493 1,104,361 2.90

3150 Low / Moderate Cover Grasslands 432,016 10,427,464 27.38

3170 Moderate / High Cover Grasslands 196,470 1,236,660 3.25

3180 Montane Parklands & Subalpine Meadows 59,185 528,201 1.39

3200 Mixed Mesic Shrubs 172,497 949,873 2.49

3300 Mixed Xeric Shrubs 184,013 1,227,852 3.22

3309 Silver Sage 20,022 73,334 0.19

3310 Salt-Desert Shrub / Dry Salt Flats 22,824 131,141 0.34

3350 Sagebrush 220,288 2,145,574 5.63

3510 Mesic Shrub - Grassland Associations 64,714 280,075 0.74

3520 Xeric Shrub - Grassland Associations 79,041 524,061 1.38

4000 Low Density Xeric Forest 63,913 286,187 0.75

4140 Mixed Broadleaf Forest 72,262 357,539 0.94

4203 Lodgepole Pine 98,028 1,286,156 3.38

4205 Limber Pine 22,148 120,372 0.32

4206 Ponderosa Pine 127,272 1,066,130 2.80

4207 Grand Fir 3,328 22,017 0.06

4210 Western Red Cedar 4,551 36,339 0.10

4211 Western Hemlock 1,990 20,940 0.05

4212 Douglas-fir 139,735 1,329,994 3.49

4214 Rocky Mountain Juniper 17,669 80,379 0.21

4215 Western Larch 13,652 90,437 0.24

4216 Utah Juniper 2,686 14,843 0.04

4223 Douglas-fir / Lodgepole Pine 50,494 451,332 1.19

4260 Mixed Whitebark Pine Forest 38,963 394,340 1.04

4270 Mixed Subalpine Forest 83,658 1,582,611 4.16

4280 Mixed Mesic Forest 62,871 1,227,309 3.22

4290 Mixed Xeric Forest 79,625 542,049 1.42

4300 Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Forest 23,137 99,843 0.26

4400 Standing Burnt Forest 3,431 139,261 0.37

5000 Water 42,576 398,405 1.05

6110 Conifer Riparian 71,033 85,004 0.22

6120 Broadleaf Riparian 91,838 198,372 0.52

6130 Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Riparian 29,923 34,932 0.09

6200 Graminoid & Forb Riparian 281,322 702,574 1.84

6300 Shrub Riparian 200,240 363,596 0.95

6400 Mixed Riparian 88,540 122,662 0.32

7300 Rock 55,313 591,067 1.55

7500 Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits 477 11,921 0.03

7600 Badlands 106,929 749,602 1.97

7604 Missouri Breaks 13,487 69,175 0.18

7800 Mixed Barren Sites 38,597 197,051 0.52

8100 Alpine Meadows 6,495 54,664 0.14

9100 Snowfields or Ice 2,157 27,076 0.07

9800 Clouds 138 18,172 0.05

9900 Cloud Shadows 137 12,345 0.03

28
Methods

 

Due to the relatively small sample of reference data available for the supervised classifications of

the 33 TM images, we devised a method of estimating the probability of misclassification at each

reference point using a bootstrap procedure (Efron 1982, Efron and Tibshirani 1993). This

procedure simulates the process of sampling and classification many times (with replacement) by a

Monte Carlo method, and thereby allows us to estimate the probability that the true cover type is

correctly classified at each reference point from the number of times that the reference observation

is correctly classified in all the simulations (Steele et al. in press). We ran the bootstrap 100 times

with replacement for each reference dataset (1 per TM image). On average, 63% of the reference

data were selected in each sample; these were then used as training data to classify the remaining

reference data (37%) that were not selected. The remaining 37% of the reference data constitute a

new and independent set of test data for each resampling event. For further details regarding the

procedure and how the bootstrap classification error matrices were constructed for each TM scene

see Steele et al. (in press).

Once misclassification probabilities were calculated for 21,348 reference points representing 45

land cover types for which we could reasonably assess thematic accuracy across all 33 TM images

(see below), they were entered into the ARC/INFO (GRID module). Mean thematic accuracy (for

the 45 types) then was interpolated to a 1 km statewide lattice using the routine, POINTINTERP

(exponential option with neighborhood = 75 km, and decay = 15 km). Finally, lines connecting

lattice points of equal mean thematic accuracy were drawn at 5% intervals.

Because the land cover classification scheme was complex (Table 2.1), and some types were quite

similar, map accuracy was evaluated using fuzzy sets (Gopal and Woodcock 1994). A fuzzy

matrix, derived from two-way tabulation of cover types, was constructed to evaluate the

acceptability of various misclassification possibilities (Table 2.6). Acceptability was ranked

through scores assigned to each cell in this matrix. For example, confusion between Big

Sagebrush (3350) and Xeric Mixed Shrubs (3360) was considered to be less serious than

confusion between a High Cover Grass (3170) and Douglas-fir (4212) . Acceptability was rated

on a scale from 1 to 5, as outlined by Gopal and Woodcock (1994): 1) absolutely wrong; 2)

understandable, but wrong; 3) acceptable; 4) good; 5) perfect match. When evaluating cover types

according to this scheme, the following logic was applied:

• If cover type codes matched exactly, a score of 5 was assigned; 

 • If the codes did not match exactly, but the types shared a dominant species in the

cover type name, a score of 4 was given (i.e., 3130 Very Low Cover Grasslands

and 3150 Low/Moderate Cover Grasslands were assigned a score of 4); 

 • If the cover type was a commonly occurring species in a mixed type, it received a

score of 3 (i.e., 3350 Sagebrush is a common component of 3300 Xeric Mixed

Shrubs, and thus the confusion between these types was scored 3);

 • If the cover type fell within the correct lifeform, but was not similar to the species in

the label, it was assigned a score of 2 (i.e., 3200 Mixed Mesic Shrubs and 3300

Mixed Xeric Shrubs);

 • If the lifeform was mismatched, a score of 1 was given.

By rating acceptability in this manner, accuracy assessments could be conducted at both the

acceptable and ideal levels, thus offering more information than traditional approaches. 

29
Table 2.6. Fuzzy matrix used to assess the accuracy of land cover types in Montana, ranging from 1 (worst) to 5 (best match). 3110 3130 3150 3170 3180 3200 3300 3309 3310 3350 3510 3520 4000 4140 4203 4205 4206 4207 4210 4211 4212 4214 4215 4216 4223 4260 4270 4280 4290 4300 4400 6110 6120 6130 6200 6300 6400 7300 7500 7600 7604 7800

81009100

3110 5 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3130 4 5 4 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 1

3150 4 4 5 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1

3170 4 3 4 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

3180 4 3 3 4 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

3200 1 1 2 3 3 5 2 3 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

3300 1 3 3 2 1 2 5 4 4 4 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1

3309 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 5 3 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3310 1 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 5 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1

3350 1 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 3 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

3510 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

3520 2 3 3 3 1 2 4 4 3 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

4000 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4140 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4203 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4205 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4206 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4207 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 5 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4210 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4211 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4212 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 2 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4214 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1

4215 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 5 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4216 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 5 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1

4223 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 5 2 3 4 4 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4260 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4270 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4280 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 4 5 3 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4290 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 3 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 5 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4400 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1

6110 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6120 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 5 4 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6130 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 1 4 4 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6200 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6300 1 1 1 2 2 4 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6400 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 4 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

7300 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 3 3 4 1 1

7500 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 2 1 3 1 1

7600 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 4 3 1 1

7604 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 5 3 1 1

7800 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 5 3 1

8100 1 3 3 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1

9100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5

 30
Producer and user accuracies were assessed both individually (for scores 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 in

‘match matrices’) and cumulatively (for scores 5+4+3+2+1 in ‘accumulate matrices’) for each

image classification; for the entire state, however, only the cumulative users’ results are provided

in Table 2.7. For more information about how to interpret error matrices see Lachowski et al.

(1995).

Final accuracy figures were weighted for each cover type using the proportion of the scene mapped

as that cover type (as a surrogate for its population size), and results were scaled to a hypothetical

population of 1000 units (to make numbers easier to interpret). Thus, the number of these units

correctly classified for each cover type was estimated by multiplying the percentage of the scene

mapped as that cover type, times the hypothetical population size of 1000, times the cumulative

percentage of test plots correctly classified (using scores 5+4+3). These estimates were summed

for each cover type, and the results divided by 1000 to yield an overall area-weighted producer’s

accuracy:

 (% cover type in scene) * 1000 * (% correct plots)

1000

= (% cover type in scene) * (% correct plots)

Note that accuracy was not assessed for all the classes that were mapped. Specifically, classes like

urban, agriculture, and clouds were omitted from the accuracy assessment, in part because the

available test data were not representative of common occurrences of these classes. Nevertheless,

because urban, agriculture, and cloud classes can be readily identified through visual interpretation,

their actual accuracy should exceed 80%. 

Results

Cover type classification accuracies for 45 types are reported in Table 2.7 at two levels: absolutely

right (Level 5), and acceptably right (Level 3). Absolute thematic accuracy averaged 61.4%,

ranging from 4.4% for Western Hemlock to 93.2% for Missouri Breaks. At the acceptable level,

mean accuracy increased to nearly 89%, and ranged between 51% for Utah Juniper and 98% for

Badlands. Absolute thematic accuracy (Level 5), averaged for all 45 cover types, varied spatially

across the state (Figure 2.5), with estimates exceeding 80% in the southwest corner (Beaverhead

and Madison Counties) and in the western portion of the Highline in Glacier, Toole, and Pondera

Counties.

In general, when ample training data were available (N > 100), accuracy estimates exceeded 50%

at Level 5 and 80% at Level 3 (Table 2.6). Mixed Mesic Shrubs, Mixed Barren, and Limber Pine

were the main exceptions. For the first two classes, we suspect that their “mixed” nature

contributed to classification errors. The lower Limber Pine accuracy, especially at Level 3,

suggests confusion with other lifeforms like shrub or rangelands. We suspect this could arise

from training data collected from very open stands where spectral reflectance was driven more by

the understory than the forest canopy (see below). Not surprisingly, Water (5000) and Rock

(7300) also classified well (78-90%).

Limitations and Discussion

In general, many factors can influence the accuracy of classifications derived from Landsat TM

data (see Congalton 1991, Congalton and Green 1993, Lachowski et al. 1995). These range from

limitations associated with input data, including TM imagery or ground-truth data, to errors

introduced in the classification process itself. We discuss these below.

31
Table 2.7. Estimated thematic accuracies (Accumulative Users’) of 45 land cover types for MT-GAP.

________________________________________________________________________________

 Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Total 

Code Land Cover Type N % N % N % N

3110 Altered Herbaceous 506 67.6 666 88.9 670 89.5 749

3130 Very Low Cover Grassland 275 65.1 337 79.9 412 97.8 422

3150 Low/Mod Cover Grassland 3631 78.7 3907 84.6 4390 95.1 4616

3170 Mod/High Cover Grassland 455 55.0 592 71.5 733 88.5 828

3180 Montane Parklands/Subalpine 193 56.1 204 59.3 274 79.6 344

3200 Mixed Mesic Shrub 450 53.4 510 60.5 574 68.1 843

3300 Mixed Xeric Shrub 243 44.4 318 58.5 443 81.1 546

3309 Silver Sage 26 29.8 34 38.9 54 61.5 88

3310 Salt Desert Shrub 138 84.6 141 86.8 158 96.9 163

3350 Sagebrush 745 64.8 834 72.5 1045 90.9 1150

3510 Mesic Shrub/Grass 85 31.2 106 38.7 230 83.6 274

3520 Xeric Shrub/Grass 86 45.8 119 62.9 171 90.8 189

4000 Low Density Xeric Forest 103 51.6 103 51.6 153 76.2 200

4140 Mixed Broadleaf Forest 270 59.3 311 68.3 347 76.2 456

4203 Lodgepole Pine 338 43.3 455 58.2 753 96.3 782

4205 Limber Pine 48 31.3 61 39.5 97 63.0 154

4206 Ponderosa Pine 1217 76.0 1305 81.5 1486 92.8 1602

4207 Grand Fir 30 26.5 96 85.6 106 94.5 113

4210 Western Red Cedar 3 18.5 14 73.3 17 88.9 19

4211 Western Hemlock 1 4.4 9 75.3 11 94.8 12

4212 Douglas-fir 814 55.1 1008 68.3 1375 93.1 1477

4214 Rocky Mountain Juniper 29 45.5 45 70.6 48 75.6 64

4215 Western Larch 5 16.0 6 18.3 26 85.2 30

4216 Utah Juniper 5 45.2 6 50.7 6 50.7 11

4223 Douglas-fir/Lodgepole Pine 82 25.4 243 75.3 302 93.8 322

4260 Mixed Whitebark Pine 79 49.5 113 70.8 129 81.3 159

4270 Mixed Subalpine Forest 437 57.0 535 69.8 738 96.2 767

4280 Mixed Mesic Forest 485 59.4 733 89.8 781 95.7 816

4290 Mixed Xeric Forest 158 40.5 269 68.9 351 89.9 390

4300 Mixed Broadleaf/Conifer Forest 89 34.1 90 34.5 227 87.1 260

4400 Standing Burnt Forest 6 53.9 6 54.0 7 59.9 12

5000 Water 216 90.0 216 90.0 216 90.0 240

6110 Conifer Riparian 4 6.8 28 48.3 48 83.8 58

6120 Mixed Broadleaf Riparian 491 67.3 538 73.5 608 83.2 731

6130 Mixed Broadleaf/Conifer Riparian 2 4.8 8 21.1 24 60.9 39

6200 Herbaceous Riparian 219 40.6 225 41.6 403 74.5 540

6300 Shrub Riparian 176 33.7 233 44.6 385 74.0 520

6400 Mixed Riparian 10 31.0 18 54.2 24 73.7 32

7300 Rock 453 77.8 480 82.4 484 83.0 583

7500 Mines/Quarries/Gravel Pits 2 39.0 3 48.2 4 57.9 7

7600 Badlands 289 71.9 289 71.9 394 98.1 402

7604 Missouri Breaks 76 93.2 76 93.7 76 93.7 81

7800 Mixed Barren 100 49.8 121 60.3 138 68.7 201

8100 Alpine Meadow 18 47.3 22 56.9 29 74.7 39

9100 Snow/Ice 16 89.9 16 89.9 16 89.9 18

TOTALS 13107 61.4 15448 72.4 18963 88.8 21348

32
TM Data

Given both the spatial and spectral resolutions of TM data, not all vegetation patterns can be

delineated or classified accurately. For instance, we typically find variation in the spectral

composition of 30 meter pixels representing the same cover type. If variation within a cover type is

greater than the variation among different cover types, then these cover types necessarily will be

confused spectrally with others. In the case of Limber Pine mentioned above, its spectral signature

varied quite widely among the different TM scenes in which it was classified, depending on tree size

and density, as well as the presence and amount of understory grass or shrubs. This contributed to

spectral overlap between the Limber Pine cover type and certain non-forest types, and undoubtedly

led to lower classification accuracies.

Time of year and atmospheric conditions affect the quality of TM data and any resulting

classifications. Information about existing vegetation and land cover is best obtained from TM data

acquired at certain times of the year. For existing vegetation, acquisition times close to the peak of

the growing season are generally best, although to distinguish particular vegetation cover types, such

as aspen (4101), spring or fall images might be best. Sun angle and atmospheric conditions also can

adversely affect the quality of TM imagery. For example, in September the sun is lower in the sky

and casts more shadows in steep terrain than earlier in the season. Similarly, smoke or haze can

interfere with spectral reflectance patterns and thereby limit the variation available in TM data. In the

western U.S., hazy atmospheric conditions commonly occur in late August and September as a result

of wildfires. For all these reasons, mid-summer (late July through mid-August) should be the ideal

time to acquire TM data for this project area; we were fortunate to be able to obtain high quality

images from this time period and to have them all terrain-corrected.

Reflectance data from the TM thermal channel (band 6) were missing from three images, P43/R26,

P40/R29, and P35/R29 obtained from the Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium

archive at the USGS EROS Data Center. Because our supervised classification method used mean

values for all seven TM channels, the lack of thermal data for these three images hindered our ability

to distinguish among general cover types, like water, rock, grass, shrub, and forest, that we know

absorb, radiate, and reflect heat differently. For the other 29 TM images, we observed general

patterns of association between thermal values and cover classes, such as low values for water,

moderate ones for forest, and relatively high ones for grass, shrub, and rock. Similarly, cover types

occurring on south and west facing slopes tended to have higher thermal values than cover types on

north and east facing slopes. Thus, we feel that the absence of thermal data for the three TM images

reduced the power of our classification method and may have reduced the resulting map accuracies as

well, at least for those edge portions of the state.

Map Unit Definition

Our unsupervised classification and merging process produced map units of variable size which, in

the end were resampled to a 90 m2 grid cell size. No doubt this resulted in some degradation of patch

boundaries, and perhaps some loss of fine scale features as well. Of greatest concern was the loss of

linear patterns associated with wetlands, woody draws, and riparian areas. We anticipated this

problem prior to resampling and tried to minimize it by creating a separate grid of all regions in the

state with a riparian cover type label (codes 6110-6400), resampling this to a 90 m2 grid (independent

of all the other regions), then merging it back into the 90 m2 statewide land cover grid. The net effect

was probably to slightly overestimate the amount of riparian land cover in the state, but we felt that

this option was better than losing many smaller patches in a single resampling procedure. Finally,

33

because we resampled to an even multiple of the original 30 m2 pixels, we did not have to contend

with any planimetric shift in the patch boundaries.

Ground-truth Data

Much of the reference data used in this project came from existing sources, primarily federal

agencies. Very few new data plots were collected in the field, and we made no effort to devise an

unbiased sampling methodology. Nonetheless, given the relative abundance of reference data

available to label each TM image, as well as the results of the accuracy assessment, we do not believe

that the classification results were overly biased in favor of cover types that were sampled or managed

by federal agencies, rather than those types occurring either in inaccessible areas, or on privatelyowned lands. 

We were very selective in our use of training data for each TM classification; but it was not possible

to eliminate all possible sources of error. For example, the accuracy of ground-truth plots, both in

terms of their location and content, will directly affect classification accuracies. Again, we tried to

identify plots with potential errors early in the processing pipeline. If these errors could not be

corrected, then the individual plots were eliminated. Undoubtedly, however, some errors were

missed. If these ended up in the training data set, they could still be detected by further quality

control measures. If they were not detected and used for training, however, their effects would be

distributed throughout the classification and result in a lower map accuracy. 

It was inevitable that more plots would be available for some scenes than for others (see Figure 2.1). 

To maximize the use of all available data, we tried to use data from plots that were located on multiple

scenes. However, because adjacent scenes were sometimes acquired in different years, and possibly

under different environmental or atmospheric conditions, this may not have been appropriate. When

these plots were selected for training two or more adjacent image classifications, they were removed

if they did not meet certain filtering criteria.

When the locations of riparian training data were examined in relation to the delineated riparian zones,

some points fell outside the predicted zones in nearly every image. In some cases, the points were

close, but the delineated zones were just too narrow, but in other cases, training data occurred quite

far from any zones. The latter was caused at least in part by use of 1:100,000 scale DLGs as a basis

for zone delineation; these hydrography data contained fewer water features, especially intermittent

streams, than 1:24,000 scale DLGs which were not available in digital form for the state. The net

effect here was to underestimate the amount of riparian land cover because only those regions with a

majority of their area inside the modeled riparian zone could be assigned a riparian cover type label. 

All TM images were acquired between 1991 and 1994, whereas the ground-reference data could have

been acquired either before or after the TM imagery. For stable, slow-changing cover types, these

temporal differences should not have caused classification problems, unless land use suddenly

changed. Again, our training data analysis was designed to catch gross inconsistencies between field

and satellite data, but we certainly did not eliminate all errors. 

Related to the topics of plot location and patch uniformity, some pre-existing field data were collected

for purposes and at scales that do not match the 30 m2 spatial resolution of TM data. Although single

pixels might represent relatively pure cover types on the ground, it is important to remember that we

were classifying patches 0.4 ha and larger. Thus, the training data must match this scale as well. 

Once again, we tried to minimize this potential conflict in the classification process by careful analysis

of the training data and removal of plots that sampled inclusions smaller than our mapping units.

35
Supervised Classification Algorithm

In the supervised classification of each TM image, ground-truth plots were used as training data for

assigning cover type labels to unlabeled patches (i.e., raster polygons). Prior to classification, each

training plot was assigned to a unique patch based on its x,y coordinates. Because the distribution of

mean TM digital numbers and ancillary data for all training patches representing a single cover type

was almost certainly multi-modal, a classifier based on a single mean value for each cover type could

yield misleading results. We circumvented this problem by treating the mean values for each TM

channel and for each attribute independently for every patch in the training set, such that each one

could make a unique and equal contribution to the classification. In this sense, the classifier was

nonparametric. It was also based on the shortest Euclidean distance between a labeled (training) and

an unlabeled patch in multidimensional space (Ma et al. ms2). The algorithm did not take geographic

proximity into account, however, in spite of the well-known and obvious fact that the distributions of

many land cover types are neither random nor uniform across the landscape (i.e., whitebark pine is

only found in mountainous settings and at high elevations). At the time we began this project,

contextual methods designed to model spatial dependence were limited in application to pixel

classifications (see McLachlan 1992). Since then, we have developed new methods that exploit

spatial information in the training data and that are suitable for polygon-type classifications. 

Preliminary results show considerable improvement in thematic accuracy, especially in

physiographically complex areas where vegetation may be more strongly affected by landscape

gradients (Steele and Redmond ms.). Because the thematic accuracy of our land cover map was

generally lower in the mountainous and forested portions of the state (Figure 2.5), we would expect

that using new methods to reclassify the TM images covering these areas would produce substantially

better results.

36
3. PREDICTED ANIMAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES RICHNESS

Introduction

All species’ range maps are predictions about the occurrence of those species within a particular

area (Csuti 1994). Traditionally, the predicted occurrences of most species begin with samples

from collections made at individual point locations. Most species range maps are small-scale (e.g.,

>1:10,000,000) and derived primarily from point data to construct field guides. The purpose of

the GAP vertebrate species maps is to provide more precise information about the current predicted

distribution of individual native species within their general ranges. With this information, better

estimates can be made about the actual amounts of habitat area and the nature of its configuration.

GAP maps are produced at a nominal scale of 1:100,000 or better, and are intended for

applications at the landscape or “gamma” scale (homogeneous areas generally covering 1,000 to

1,000,000 hectares and made up of more than one kind of natural community). Applications of

these data to site- or stand-level analyses (site: a microhabitat, generally 10 to 100 square meters; 

stand: a single habitat type, generally 0.1 to 1,000 ha; Whittaker 1977, see also Stoms and Estes

1993) are likely to be compromised by the finer-grained patterns of environmental heterogeneity

that are resolved at those levels.

Gap analysis uses the predicted distributions of native vertebrate species to evaluate their

conservation status relative to existing land management (Scott et al. 1993). However, the maps of

vertebrate species distributions may be used to answer a wide variety of management, planning,

and research questions relating to individual species or groups of species. In addition to the maps,

great utility may be found in the consolidated observations and literature that are assembled into

databases used to produce the maps.

Prior to this effort no maps were available -- digital or otherwise -- showing the likely present-day

distribution of species by habitat type across their ranges. Because of this, ordinary species (i.e.,

those not threatened with extinction or not managed as game animals) are generally not given

sufficient consideration in land-use decisions in the context of large geographic regions or in

relation to their actual habitats. Their decline because of incremental habitat loss can, and does,

result in one threatened or endangered species “surprise” after another. Frequently, the records

that do exist for an ordinary species are truncated by state boundaries. Simply creating a consistent

spatial framework for storing, retrieving, manipulating, analyzing, and updating the totality of our

knowledge about the status of each vertebrate species is one of the most necessary and basic

elements for preventing further erosion of biological resources.

Mapping Standards

Mapping methods were designed to meet the standards of the Gap Analysis Handbook as of

January 1997, at which time a newly-revised version of the vertebrate methods chapter became

available. All GIS analyses were conducted in ARC/INFO version 7.0.4 on IBM RS/6000

workstations.

Methods

To predict vertebrate distributions in Montana, we followed an iterative, five-step approach. First,

we determined which species would be included in the modeling process. Second, species ranges

37
were delineated by recording each species’ presence or absence within either a latilong grid system 

for birds, or the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) hexagon grid system for amphibians,

reptiles and mammals. Third, we developed a Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (WHR) database to

document associations between species and habitat features such as land cover, elevation, and

distance to water. Fourth, after preparing the necessary GIS layers to represent these habitat

features, we used a raster-based modeling approach to combine the known distributions and WHR

databases into predicted distributions for each species. Fifth, modeling rules and distribution maps

were reviewed by more than 50 biologists from around the state. After review, the necessary

changes were made and the entire process was repeated. Once all predicted distributions were

complete, species checklists for wildlife refuges and other management units were used to evaluate

the accuracy of these maps.

Each species was assigned to one MT-GAP staff member. Amphibians and reptiles were

coordinated by Melissa Hart, but were modeled by a group of biologists, including Paul Hendricks

(Montana Natural Heritage Program, MTNHP), Bryce Maxell (University of Montana), Chuck

Peterson (Idaho State University), and Jim Reichel (MTNHP). Wendy Williams, Poody

McLaughlin, Claudine Tobalske, and Melissa Hart were responsible for birds, and mammals were

handled by Polly Thornton.

Criteria for Species Selection

Roughly 565 terrestrial vertebrates are known to occur in Montana (MTNHP, Biological

Conservation Database 1996). This total includes many rare or accidental migratory birds which

have been found in the state only a handful of times, and other species whose occurrence in the

state is similarly uncertain. Species included in Montana Gap Analysis were those known to breed

within the state, and those that are regularly occurring non-accidentals.

To narrow the list of vertebrates to be included in Montana Gap Analysis, we primarily considered

the state ranks assigned by Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP). For birds, we also

consulted Wright (1996), as well as Montana Bird Distribution Committee (1996); the latter

database was used to evaluate the number of observations per species along with their dates and

geographic distribution. Expert opinion was also sought for some species. 

We excluded species with the following state ranks: SR (reported in the state, but lacking

documentation to accept or reject the report), SP (may potentially occur in the state), and SX

(believed extinct). Birds with ranks SAN, SAB/SAN, SAB/SZN, and SZN (accidental

occurrences in the breeding or non-breeding seasons) were generally excluded, but these were

treated on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, exotic species (SE) were determined individually. All

exotic game species were included, and others were added as they were deemed by modelers to

have potentially significant influence on other species. 

To describe species, we adopted taxonomy and nomenclature from The Nature Conservancy

(TNC), as recommended by National GAP standards. Species’ common names, scientific names,

and element codes (unique identifiers) were last downloaded from the TNC website (www.tnc.org)

in November 1997. This database contains a few discrepancies where species recently have been

split or where names are disputed, as well as some names not commonly used in Montana (e.g.,

“grizzly or brown bear” instead of “grizzly bear”). For consistency, we maintained TNC data and

noted discrepancies in a related report, the Montana Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates (Hart et al.

1998).

38
Delineating Species Ranges

Distributional limits are a necessary ingredient of the vertebrate modeling process, because they

allow us to place bounds on where a species is predicted to occur. Counties and latilongs (onedegree blocks of latitude and longitude) are units that are commonly used to document species

presence or absence across a state. Excluding Yellowstone National Park, Montana’s 56 counties

average 6786 sq km in size. The 49 latilong blocks within the state average 7977 sq km (calculated

in Albers equal-area projection), but offer the advantage of an equal area sampling structure. Use

of either unit results in overestimation of a species’ distribution where its range extends only partly

into a county or latilong. A third option which alleviates this problem is the EPA’s hexagon grid

system, based on units 635 sq km in size (White et al. 1992); Montana contains all or part of 656

hexagons. Hexagon distribution maps were created for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. 

However, because of project constraints, for birds we opted to use an existing, latilong-based

system (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996). Because of this difference in units, a single

bird observation is extrapolated across a larger area than observations for other species (see Figure

3.1), making our predicted bird distribution maps fundamentally different from those for all other

species.

Figure 3.1. Two grid systems used to define distributional limits for native terrestrial

vertebrates in Montana: hexagons (n = 656) and latilongs (n = 49). Each latilong is roughly

12 times the size of a hexagon; parts of more than 20 hexagons may be contained in a single

latilong.

39
Amphibians, Reptiles and Mammals by Hexagon -- Distributional limits for amphibians, reptiles,

and mammals were mapped using the hexagon grid system (White et al. 1992). The Montana

Natural Heritage Program was contracted to compile point locations and populate EPA hexagons as

outlined by Master et al. (1994) for each species in these taxonomic groups, and to deliver both in

GIS databases: a point coverage for species’ observations and a series of INFO tables for species’

status within hexagons.

Point observations of these terrestrial vertebrates were compiled from the following sources:

museum specimens, published literature, unpublished reports and theses, existing MTNHP

databases, wildlife observations recorded by agency and independent biologists, and a U.S. Forest

Service database on carnivores. Sources were entered into the MTNHP bibliographic database and

given a unique identifier called sourcecode. The approximately 16,000 records of herptiles and

mammals compiled came from the following sources: ca. 8600 are specimens; ca. 800 are from

published accounts; ca. 3000 are from unpublished (gray literature) accounts; ca. 1000 are from

other databases; and ca. 2500 are from sightings by individuals.

Species observations were entered into the MTNHP Point Observation Database (POD). This

database, currently maintained using Microsoft Access software, stores information on the species,

source (sourcecode), date, observer, type of record (sighting, specimen, ‘heard only’, etc.),

breeding status, and other details of the observation.

All available locational information was also entered into POD: descriptive, coordinate (UTM or

geographic), or Public Land Survey System (PLSS, or township/range/section). The locational

information was then assessed to determine (a) how best (most accurately and efficiently) to

generate a point feature for that observation and (b) the precision (measured in meters) of the

locational information. For example, an observation reported to a quarter section would have a data

precision of ca. 500 meters, since a point generated in the center of that quarter section would be at

most 500 meters from the actual location. However, an observation with only a descriptive

location (e.g., 20 miles south of Fort Musselshell) could have a data precision of as much as

40,000 meters. In every case, the point feature is created in as accurate a location as possible; so,

for the above example, MTNHP staff would measure exactly 20 miles due south from their best

estimate of Fort Musselshell’s location.

Observations with descriptive locations only were mapped onto a mylar overlay of a 1:500,000

scale map of Montana that was mounted on foam board, and the points were later digitized. For

observations with PLSS locations, points were digitized on-screen, using the BLM’s 1:100,000

scale PLSS coverage to guide placement of the point. For observations with coordinate locations,

points were generated in ARC/INFO. 

When this work began, the POD system already contained ca. 4700 observations of herptiles and

mammals. Many of these had been entered by mapping point locations onto mylar overlays of a

1:1,000,000 map of Montana, or overlays of the various National Forest Visitor Maps that cover

parts of Montana. These pre-GAP observations had been assigned to three precision classes,

rather than estimating the actual (im)precision in meters. Also, for many observations, the

precision with which they were mapped, and the points generated, were worse (a greater distance)

than their inherent data precision. For example, a museum specimen card might say “west of

Highwood,” but also give a PLSS location to the section. That point, mapped on a 1:1,000,000

mylar overlay, would have a mapping precision of ca. 3000 meters, but a data precision of ca.

1000 meters. So at the start of this project, MTNHP staff retrofitted all existing observations with

both their data and mapping precisions, and then re-mapped many of those for which the mapping

precision was greater (less precise) than the data precision.

40
After entering the data into POD and creating a unique point feature for all observations, MTNHP

staff used an overlay analysis to create an initial hexagon status map for each species. Each point

was first buffered by its data precision, then overlayed with the EMAP hexagon coverage. If a

certain hexagon contained 95% or more of the area of a buffered point, the species represented by

that point was considered ‘confirmed’ in that hexagon (Table 3.1). If only 80-95% of the area

occurred in one hex, that hexagon was coded as ‘probable’ for that species. For 10-80% overlap,

it was coded ‘possible’, and for less than 10% overlap it was not coded at all. Note that under this

scheme a single observation could result in up to seven hexagons being coded as ‘possible’ for that

species. (An observation mapped in roughly the center of a hexagon with a data precision of ca. 40

km would overlay seven hexagons, each containing roughly 14% of its buffered area.)

It is important to keep in mind just what the words ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ mean in this context. 

There are no uncertain records in POD -- observations which are questionable as to species are not

entered. The uncertainty, and hence the use of ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ vis-a-vis hard (POD)

data, relates only to locational accuracy. In the example above, the species was definitely observed

(i.e., is confirmed) somewhere in that 7-hexagon area; but one cannot say with certainty in which

particular hexagon it occurred.

The result of this analysis was an intermediate data file that contained a record for each PODpoint/hexagon overlap. That file was then queried to retrieve the best record (‘confirmed’ better

than ‘probable’ better than ‘possible’) for each species in each hexagon, and data from that record

were entered into the INFO files status.data and source.data. Each are matrices of Montana’s 656

hexagons (records) by its 148 mammals and herptiles (fields). The status.data file was then used

to produce draft maps for each species that showed its status in each hexagon. The source.data

file contained the unique identifier, or sourcecode, for the source of the observation that supported

that species’ status in that hexagon. For game animals, digital distribution data from the Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MTFWP) was also used to create additional

species/hexagon overlap records. These records have as their source "DFWP_9705".

The draft hexagon status maps were then subjected to in-house review. Mammals were reviewed

by J. Reichel, P. Hendricks, and P. Feigley; amphibians and reptiles by J. Reichel, P. Hendricks,

B. Maxell, and C. Peterson. Reviewers used their personal knowledge of the species and

published range maps for Montana and adjacent areas to update the hexagon distributions based on

professional judgment. For amphibians and reptiles, where documented locations tended to be

sparse, the following rules were used (see Appendix 3.1): 

1. Extensions of a species’ range beyond documented locations were made conservatively

unless: a) published records in adjacent states and territories suggested a continuous range

to the state border; b) published articles, theses, or dissertations with reliable records

suggested a range extension; or c) as a function of computer processing, hexagons

adjacent to a confirmed hexagon were included when a modeled habitat type was

continuous across the confirmed hexagon and its neighbor (see Modeling Process).

2. Hexagons within the known range of a species were included liberally, even without

documented presence. The assumption was made that the modeling process would later

eliminate unlikely habitat within the range (e.g., exclusion of a mountain range).

A variety of sources were consulted when editing hexagon maps for mammals, including maps

(MTFWP atlas of ungulate and mountain lion distributions) and published information (Hoffmann

and Pattie 1968, Banfield 1974, Turner 1974, Hall 1981, Clark and Stromberg 1987, Smith 1989,

Pattie and Hoffmann 1992, Buskirk et al. 1994, Groves et al. 1997). Also, for all species, input

was sought from knowledgeable individuals (see Appendix 3.2). In addition, T. Kohley (WYGAP) was consulted on hexagon population for wide-ranging mammals and bats. 

41
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 3.1. Confidence levels assigned to hexagons for each amphibian, reptile, and mammal.

Status Confidence

Level

Definition

1 Confirmed >95% of an observation’s buffered areaa within the hexagon, or professional estimate

of greater than 95% probability that the species occurs within the hexagon.

2 Probable 80-95% of an observation’s buffered area within the hexagon, or professional estimate

of 80-95% probability that the species occurs within the hexagon.

3 Possible 10-80% of an observation’s buffered area within the hexagon, or professional estimate

of 10-80% probability that the species occurs within the hexagon.

4 Historical Reported prior to 1950 (status based on that ‘historical’ report could be 1, 2, or 3).

5 Excluded Eliminated based on professional judgment. Mostly accidentals: observations likely

to be migrating or dispersing individuals; habitat and/or area could not sustain the

species. Occasionally, misidentifications detected after initial hexagon population.

 a ‘Buffered area’ means the area created by buffering the point location for each observation by its data precision, as

expressed in meters (i.e., the more imprecise the data, the larger the precision and the larger the buffered area.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Hexagons were edited to better reflect species’ known or expected distributions. For some wideranging mammals, this meant overriding actual location data (see Status 5 definition, Table 3.1). 

Examples include observations of wolverine (Gulo gulo) in the Billings vicinity, and of moose

(Alces alces) along the Yellowstone River in eastern Montana, near the North Dakota border.

Based on in-house review, additional species/hexagon overlap records were created and stored in a

separate data file. These records generally raised the status of a species in a particular hex. For

example, suppose species A in hexagon 1 was ranked as ‘possible’ based on actual observations

entered into POD; but the reviewer felt that its status was at least ‘probable’ in that hex. He or she

would create that new record (species A in hexagon 1 = ‘probable’), and attach his or her personal

sourcecode to that record. Occasionally, reviewers wanted to overwrite observation data based on

transient, dispersing or migrating individuals. If so, he or she could create a new record as above

that would essentially erase POD-based records when generating the hexagon status files. 

All of these editing changes were then added to the species/hexagon overlap records generated

from POD data and a final query was run to retrieve the best record for each species in each

hexagon and appropriately code the status.data and source.data files. Note that additional

observations were being entered into POD, and existing POD data were being remapped, while the

review process was occurring. Because of this, in some cases reviewers’ records that elevated a

‘possible’ to ‘probable’ were in turn superseded by newer POD data that confirmed the species’

presence in a hexagon. 

Later, these species-hexagon range maps were reviewed for MT-GAP by biologists from around

the state (see Appendix 3.2). Reviewers were given the opportunity to make changes to individual

hexagon occurrences if they questioned the assigned codes. They were also given the opportunity

to add new locations to the database. 

42
Species-hexagon range maps were then ready to be used as inputs to the final vertebrate modeling

process. It should be noted that this is the only manner in which these particular maps were used. 

Maps of species richness within hexagons were created after distributions were predicted, and do

not reflect sums based on hexagons at this stage. Rather, the richness sums were calculated by

overlaying each species’ predicted distribution with the hexagon layer; if any amount of habitat was

predicted within a hexagon, the species was coded as Present (1) for that hexagon. In effect, this

“extends” the hexagon distributions, because predicted habitat was allowed to extend slightly

beyond hexagon boundaries (see Modeling Process below). Thus, when predicted habitat is in

turn used to populate hexagons, a species’ range is stretched past the original hexagon range limits.

This post-prediction approach to richness calculation was selected for consistency across

taxonomic groups. We needed to account for bird distributions, which were based on latilongs

rather than hexagons, so we chose to calculate richness at the end of the modeling process rather

than at the beginning.

Birds by Latilong -- Distributional limits for birds were mapped using an existing latilong grid

system, P.D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution database (fifth edition, Montana Bird Distribution

Committee 1996). We acquired a copy of this database from MTNHP and converted it to GIS

format; however, our latilong layer differs from the published version in four ways. First,

although the published maps include quarter-latilong observations, we mapped all observations at

the coarser latilong level because there weren’t sufficient quarter-latilong observations to justify

this finer scale. Second, observation types were combined into a new coding scheme devised for

MT-GAP. Third, new observations were added by MT-GAP reviewers. Fourth, after the review

period, an in-house update was conducted to fill in holes in species’ distributions based on

professional judgment. 

To create a GIS layer, we first converted the dbase files from MTNHP to INFO database format,

then created an ARC/INFO coverage with the necessary items to document species’ observations

per latilong, using TNC element codes as species identifiers. Element codes were updated in the

latilong database so that they would match those obtained from TNC. We also collapsed

subspecies data to the species level. 

Next, we ran queries to populate latilongs with species observations. Initially, quarter-latilong

(QLL) observations were distinguished from latilong (LL) observations, and queries were run to

select the highest observation type for each species in each QLL or LL, keeping breeding and

wintering observations separate. In the Skaar database, the highest possible code for breeding

observations is B (direct evidence of breeding), followed by b (indirect or circumstantial evidence

of breeding) and t (no evidence of breeding). Wintering observations include W (overwintering)

or w (overwintering not yet documented). After queries were run separately for QLL and LL

observations, another similar query was run to combine information from each into one database.

Here again, we selected for the highest observation type per species per latilong, and kept breeding

and wintering data separate.

We then recoded observations to seven classes that were intended to maintain seasonal ranges for

birds, but in a condensed form. These seven classes include:

1. Breeding and wintering observations (B + W/w from the Skaar database);

2. Breeding only (B);

3. Possible breeding only (b);

4. Possible breeding and wintering observations (b + W/w);

5. Transient and wintering observations (t + W/w);

6. Transient only (t);

7. Wintering only (W/w).

43
As part of the overall MT-GAP review process, latilong maps with these codes were circulated

among reviewers from around the state (see Appendix 3.2). Reviewers were given the opportunity

to make changes to individual latilong occurrences if they questioned the assigned codes, as well as

the opportunity to add new locations to the database. After the review process was complete and

all changes had been made to the database, we conducted a final in-house review to fill in latilong

holes in individual species’ distributions. Our intent was conservative. For each latilong in

question, we examined species codes for the surrounding latilongs, amount of predicted habitat

within the latilong, and biogeographic similarity with neighboring latilongs (e.g., mountains vs.

plains). For breeding birds, we assigned code 3 to latilongs where breeding appeared probable. 

Wintering and migratory birds were assigned codes 5 and 6 respectively. At this point, latilong

maps were ready to be incorporated into the final run of the vertebrate modeling process.

Documenting Wildlife-Habitat Relationships

We developed a set of WHR databases for Montana to document wildlife-habitat relationships for

425 terrestrial vertebrates. At the core of this system are: 1) descriptions of habitats with which

each species is associated, related references, and also modeling assumptions and caveats; and 2)

descriptions of modeling rules per species, and matrices associating each species with land cover

types, elevation ranges, hydrographic features, and other data layers. An example is provided in

Appendix 3.3; information for all species can be found in Hart et al. (1998).

When MT-GAP began, no WHR existed for the state; however, we were able to capitalize on

information available in WHR databases developed for WY-GAP, as well as the TNC’s Biological

Conservation Database, or BCD, obtained from MTNHP in November 1996. Because our input

layers and raster modeling process differed significantly from WY-GAP’s, we conducted our own

extensive literature review of habitat associations for each species so that models could be tailored

accordingly. After WHR materials were subjected to outside review, we incorporated changes

suggested by expert reviewers. WHR databases were created and maintained using FileMaker Pro

software (Macintosh version 4.0 v1); data were transferred between FileMaker Pro and

ARC/INFO in dBase format as needed.

GIS Modeling to Predict Species Habitat and Distribution

Input Layers -- Land cover, topography, and hydrography were the basic input layers for the

modeling process (Table 3.2). From these, other specialized layers were developed to refine

predicted species distributions. Most of these derived layers incorporate spatial queries that require

consideration of each 90 m cell’s surroundings, not just its own value. For example, a 500 m

buffer might be applied to all lakes and major rivers. 

All layers were created in or converted to ARC/INFO grid (raster) format, cell size 90 m. To avoid

slivers of missing data, all layers were prepared so that their extent was either larger than the state

boundary (typically including the 10 km buffer applied to land cover), or clipped precisely to the

state border using the same standard boundary layer as a mask. Further, the cell increment

(starting position of rows and columns) was specified to match that of the land cover layer. This

“snapgrid” function was needed to avoid sub-cell shifts, and hence potential (albeit nearly

undetectable) modeling errors. In all instances, null data values were set to 0 to facilitate the

modeling process: when grids were overlayed, areas with null data would have typically been

excluded, even if all other layers satisfied the query. For some models, the presence of null data

would have yielded unsatisfactory results. Note, however, that the presence of null data does not

necessarily indicate problems within the layer; for example, a 500 m buffer layer might be coded 1

within the buffer, and either null data or 0 outside the buffer. Both options represent the same

44
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 3.2. GIS layers prepared as inputs to the vertebrate modeling process, all in ARC/INFO

grid (raster) format, 90 m cell size. Primary layers in bold, derived layers in italics.

______________________________________________________________________________

LAYER SOURCE DESCRIPTION

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Land Cover Classified Landsat TM data, 50 cover types. Water/riparian types at 90 m

30 m resolution. Derived from minimum mapping unit (MMU), cloud/shadow 

individual databases per TM scene, at 100 ha MMU, all others at 2 ha MMU.

including numerous attributes.

Forest Canopy 3 canopy closure levels. Low (<40%),

Medium (40-70%), High (>70%).

Buffers Buffers could be applied to any single cover

type or combination of cover types; for example,

1 km buffer on urban areas. Computationally

intensive, thus used conservatively.

Merged Land Cover Land cover layer merged to 100 ha MMU; 

largest polygons (>100,000 ha) split using

5th code watersheds. Used to soften hexagon

and latilong boundaries.

Topography 7.5’ Digital Elevation Models Elevation in meters. Differences between

(DEMs) where available, input sources were especially apparent in

patched with three-arc second slope and aspect derivations, thus, these

data (Defense Mapping Agency, were rarely used.

source scale 1:250,000) as needed.

Elevation Contours Elevation contoured into 150 m intervals.

Slope Percent slope, split into 7 classes: flat, 1-10%, 

11-20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, >80%.

Aspect Aspect, split into 9 classes: flat, N, NE, E, SE,

S, SW, W, NW.

Hydrography USGS Digital Line Graphs Lakes, rivers, streams, ditches, and all other 

(DLGs), source scale 1:100,000. features as mapped in standard DLGs. No polygon 

Edited in-house to match topology. Differences in line densities apparent

corresponding published maps. among 1:100,00 scale tiles.

All features Includes all features mapped within the DLGs.

Lakes All lakes, attributed with size (ha) and presence of

islands. Required fairly extensive manual editing to

create polygon topology.

Major rivers Manually selected; includes features coded with left

and right shorebanks in the DLGs.

Perennial streams Perennial streams coded in the DLGs.

Buffers Buffers could be applied to any combination of the

above sets of hydrographic features. Typical buffers

include 90 m, 500 m, 1 km, 2 km. 

______________________________________________________________________________

45
information. Quality control methods were applied to ensure that each layer had been correctly

constructed.

Modeling Process -- All modeling was conducted in the ARC/INFO grid environment. Each

species was approached individually, yielding the potential for 425 individual models, although we

made every effort to simplify the process by developing groups of similar models. In the end,

most species were assigned to modeling loops, where the model logic remained the same for each

species -- querying the same set of layers, but for different values (e.g., a different set of cover

types or a different hexagon distribution). To create predicted distribution grids, five programs

were written in Arc Macro Language (AML): one for amphibians and reptiles, one for mammals,

and three for birds. Nineteen separate loops were developed, and unique queries were created for

123 species. Models for each species follow the same approach (see Figure 3.2): 

1. Create a grid delineating the known distribution based on either hexagons or latilongs.

2. Generalize the edges of the known distribution using land cover polygons merged to 100

ha MMU. Assign each land cover polygon the lowest code (highest probability of

occurrence) within its borders so that distributions are effectively extrapolated outward by

one polygon, always favoring the lowest code when land cover polygons span hexagons

or latilongs.

3. Query layers for predicted habitat based on land cover types and other features. Code all

areas selected as habitat using values from the extrapolated hexagon or latilong

boundaries. Assign a special code to predicted habitat outside the known distribution to

distinguish it from areas not predicted to be habitat. 

4. Recode the output of Step 3 to reduce it from a range of values (probabilities of

occurrence) to 1/0 values indicating a species’ presence or absence. Eliminate areas with

lower probability of species occurrence. For amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, keep

hexagon codes 1-3 (confirmed-possible). For breeding birds, keep latilong codes 1-4

(breeding and possible breeding); for wintering birds, codes 5 and 7, and for migrating

birds, codes 5 and 6. 

Outputs of Step 3 were provided to reviewers so that they could see habitats coded by probability

of occurrence, as well as predicted habitat outside the known range, and use this extra material in

commenting on distribution patterns. Outputs of Step 4 were used in final maps and analyses. 

Expert Review of Species Distribution Maps

We conducted a review of vertebrate species distribution maps and their ingredients in JanuaryApril 1998. Nearly 50 biologists from around the state participated in this process (see Appendix

3.2). Review was conducted by mail and telephone. We first sent letters to potential reviewers,

then followed up with telephone calls to determine whether each could participate within the

specified period, and if so, which species they would like to review. We then prepared and mailed

review packets for each person, customized to their species list.

Each reviewer received a letter outlining the modeling process and how they could help us improve

it; a description of each input data layer; a list of cover type descriptions and a statewide map of

land cover; a transparency of the state, with towns, county lines, and rivers, to be overlayed with

distribution maps; and a response sheet on which suggested changes per species could be

summarized. In addition, for each species, reviewers were provided with a map of the

documented range (hexagons or latilongs); a map of the predicted distribution; a summary sheet

with modeling rules and all data layers included in each model; and a description of habitat

preferences with pertinent references. Upon request, reviewers also received finer-scale maps

specific to their area of geographic expertise. Many reams of paper were consumed in this

process.

46

Typically, reviewers returned their comments by mail, but many telephone calls were involved as

well, especially when comments triggered additional questions. After the review period was

completed, we incorporated suggested changes into our databases and re-created the predicted

distribution maps.

Every species had at least one reviewer. Our goal was to have each species reviewed by at least

three people; we met that target for all but 88 of 425 species (21%). All amphibians and reptiles

were reviewed by four or more people. Mammals were the most sparsely reviewed group: 44 had

one reviewer; 28 had two, and the remaining 30 had three or more reviewers. Small mammals

tended to be reviewed by the fewest people, whereas carnivores and ungulates were wellreviewed. As a group, birds were very well-reviewed: only 16 out of 290 species had less than

three reviewers, 93 met the target, and 181 were reviewed by four or more people. Given the

short period of time during which the reviews were conducted, response was remarkable.

Results

Distributions of 425 terrestrial vertebrate species were predicted, including 16 amphibians, 17

reptiles, 290 birds, and 102 mammals. Of the 425, 9 were exotic species (1 amphibian and 8

birds). Two others, the Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana

sylvatica) have been reported but not confirmed in the state; models were created only to guide

future field surveys. Thus, distributions were predicted for 414 native terrestrial vertebrates; these

414 were included in subsequent analyses. Because 68% of the native terrestrial vertebrates are

birds (282/414), results of the avian modeling process heavily influence all richness calculations. 

Of the 425 species models developed, 136 were based solely on land cover, 73 on land cover and

forest canopy, 28 on land cover and elevation, and 9 on land cover, elevation, and canopy. Many

of the rest were based on some combination of land cover, canopy, elevation, and buffers on

hydrographic features, although additional layers such as slope were used to a limited degree. 

Associations with water and riparian land cover were established for 339 species. All riparian

types except graminoid/forb riparian were predicted to provide habitat for more than 100 species on

average, with the highest richness scores assigned to forested riparian areas (Table 3.3). 

Low/moderate cover grasslands had the highest richness scores of any grassland type, averaging

about 78 species. For forest types, those with a broadleaf component were predicted to support

the most species (mixed broadleaf - 90 species; mixed broadleaf/conifer - 82 species). Ponderosa

pine was the highest-scoring conifer (79 species), perhaps in part because it is the most widely

distributed conifer type in the state.

Total predicted richness of native terrestrial vertebrates within hexagons ranged from 16 to 339,

with a mean of 265±37 SD. The distribution of vertebrate richness appeared bimodal, with peaks

at 221-240 species/hexagon and around 300 species/hexagon (Fig. 3.3). Geographic patterns of

richness generally suggest higher diversity in the mountainous regions of western Montana, with

the lowest values in northeastern Montana (Fig. 3.4). Not surprisingly, the highest diversity was

observed for hexagons along ecotones, where habitat diversity is correspondingly high. Hexagons

along the Rocky Mountain Front illustrate this trend, running from peaks to plains. To some

degree, boundary effects are also evident, with lower values predicted for hexagons spanning the

state border than for their interior neighbors. It is important to recognize, however, that patterns of

richness are sharpened, sometimes artificially, when richness counts are combined into classes. 

Contrast Figure 3.4 with Figure 3.5, which shows actual scores for each hexagon in the state:

some patterns appear more “real” than others. It is also important to note that species composition

has been only cursorily considered in these calculations.

48
Table 3.3. Minimum, maximum, and mean predicted richness of native terrestrial vertebrates for

50 land cover types mapped in Montana.

Code Cover Type

% of 

State

Number of Species

Minimum Maximum Mean

1100 Urban or developed lands 0.17 27 59 42.589

2010 Agricultural lands - dry 9.54 39 98 58.209

2020 Agricultural lands - irrigated 5.14 36 105 57.225

3110 Altered herbaceous 2.67 27 122 65.990

3130 Very low cover grasslands 2.90 40 105 68.077

3150 Low/moderate cover grasslands 27.38 38 127 78.043

3170 Moderate/high cover grasslands 3.25 31 113 71.580

3180 Montane parklands & subalpine meadows 1.39 42 106 61.681

3200 Mixed mesic shrubs 2.49 42 107 63.449

3300 Mixed xeric shrubs 3.22 38 93 74.551

3309 Silver sage 0.19 47 86 60.806

3310 Salt-desert shrub/dry salt flats 0.34 17 58 28.874

3350 Sagebrush 5.63 36 100 73.594

3510 Mesic shrub - grassland associations 0.74 58 109 75.223

3520 Xeric shrub - grassland associations 1.38 62 102 84.789

4000 Low density xeric forest 0.75 38 108 83.410

4140 Mixed broadleaf forest 0.94 41 148 90.238

4203 Lodgepole pine 3.38 24 95 64.972

4205 Limber pine 0.32 27 72 52.675

4206 Ponderosa pine 2.80 25 124 79.413

4207 Grand fir 0.06 46 95 66.558

4210 Western red cedar 0.10 41 89 57.454

4211 Western hemlock 0.05 39 81 51.233

4212 Douglas-fir 3.49 27 114 77.125

4214 Rocky Mountain juniper 0.21 24 82 58.112

4215 Western Larch 0.24 47 99 74.305

4216 Utah juniper 0.04 50 81 69.750

4223 Douglas-fir/lodgepole pine 1.19 26 104 71.892

4260 Mixed whitebark pine forest 1.04 18 57 38.726

4270 Mixed subalpine forest 4.16 24 100 67.143

4280 Mixed mesic forest 3.22 32 115 76.436

4290 Mixed xeric forest 1.42 27 109 75.737

4300 Mixed broadleaf & conifer forest 0.26 34 134 81.991

4400 Standing burnt forest 0.37 37 84 63.421

5000 Water 1.05 2 92 38.471

6110 Conifer riparian 0.22 52 150 113.822

6120 Broadleaf riparian 0.52 89 174 123.154

6130 Mixed broadleaf & conifer riparian 0.09 80 174 133.904

6200 Graminoid & forb riparian 1.84 50 141 71.645

6300 Shrub riparian 0.95 77 195 109.533

6400 Mixed riparian 0.32 69 187 104.193

7300 Rock 1.55 5 30 14.078

7500 Mines, quarries, & gravel pits 0.03 8 23 13.172

7600 Badlands 1.97 30 63 48.223

7604 Missouri breaks 0.18 45 67 54.972

7800 Mixed barren sites 0.52 7 49 17.507

8100 Alpine meadows 0.14 20 50 34.720

9100 Snowfields or ice 0.07 1 18 6.631

9800 Clouds 0.05 0 12 0.633

9900 Cloud shadows 0.03 0 11 0.713

49
Predicted richness by taxonomic group is presented in Figures 3.6 through 3.11. Amphibian

richness ranged from 0 to 9 species per hexagon, out of a maximum of 13 native species modeled. 

Amphibians were the only taxa not to display a bimodal distribution of species richness, probably

at least partly because of their numbers. Although reptile species are also few in number (n = 17),

their distribution was bimodal, with peaks at 9 and 12 species per hexagon; richness values ranged

from 2 to 14 species per hexagon. Avian richness ranged from 6 to 248 species per hexagon, out

of a possible 282. Out of 102 mammals modeled, a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 81 were

predicted per hexagon. Patterns of richness tended to be highest in the mountainous areas of

Montana for all groups except reptiles; however, amphibians appear to be especially concentrated

in ecotonal areas and in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Birds were more evenly

distributed across the state, but a band of the highest values runs along the ranges of the Rocky

Mountains. Mammals exhibited a variation on this same trend, but richness values were especially

high across southwestern Montana, appearing to radiate outward from that region. Reptiles, on the

other hand, tended to be concentrated along the major river corridors in eastern Montana, especially

along the Yellowstone and its tributaries in southeastern Montana.

In addition to richness predictions by hexagon, richness was also calculated for each 90 m cell in

the state. Totals were much lower; for example, the maximum number of terrestrial vertebrates

predicted in any 90 m cell was 195, as compared with 339 for a single hexagon. The mean

number of species per hexagon, when calculated by averaging species counts for every 90 m cell in

a hexagon, was 69±7 SD, as compared with 265±37 SD above. Patterns of richness at this finer

scale highlight the degree of generalization that takes place in summarizing diversity per hexagon

(Fig. 3.12). The influence of riparian areas on predicted species richness values is also highlighted

at the resolution of 90 m cells.

<200 220 240 260 280 300 320 320

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of Hexagons

Number of Species

Figure 3.3. Frequency distribution of species richness for 414 native

terrestrial vertebrates within 656 equal-area hexagons across Montana.

50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

<100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 250

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

<25 35 45 55 65 75 80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Amphibians Reptiles

Birds Mammals

Figure 3.6. Frequency distributions of native species richness for amphibians, reptiles,

birds, and mammals within 656 equal-area hexagons in Montana.

Number of Species

Number of Hexagons

53






Accuracy Assessment

Assessing the accuracy of predicted vertebrate distributions is subject to many of the same

problems as assessing land cover maps, as well as a host of more serious challenges related to both

the behavioral aspects of species and the logistics of detecting them. These are described further in

the Background section of the GAP Handbook on the national GAP home page. Despite these

challenges, it is necessary to provide some measure of confidence in the results of the gap analysis

for each species (comparison to stewardship and management status), and to allow users to judge

the suitability of the distribution maps for their own uses. Thus, we have attempted to provide

users with a statement about the accuracy of our predicted vertebrate distributions within the

limitations of available resources and practicalities of such an endeavor. Distribution maps are

never finished products; instead, they are likely to be constantly updated as new information is

gathered. However, by assessing the accuracy of their current iteration, we can offer potential

users valuable information about map reliability. We especially encourage wildlife biologists and

naturalists to treat the predicted distributions as testable hypotheses and to engage the process of

validation and iterative modeling. Our goal was to produce maps that predict the distribution of

terrestrial vertebrates and from that, total species richness and species content, with an accuracy of

at least 80%. Failure to achieve this accuracy indicates the need to refine the data sets and models

used for predicting distribution, or, in some cases, the need to collect additional data with which to

assess distributional accuracy. The methods for validating and assessing the accuracy of the

vertebrate distribution maps, along with the results, are presented below.

Methods

Long-term, systematic field surveys would be necessary to provide the independent data and

statistical rigor required to properly assess the accuracy of vertebrate distribution maps. Needless

to say, the costs of such an effort would be prohibitive, especially for a state the size of Montana. 

Working within constraints of personnel, time, and money, we opted to evaluate our predicted

distributions in a more practical but limited way by measuring their agreement with species

checklists compiled by biologists and naturalists for parks, refuges, and preserves around the state.

Species occurrence data from 14 of these “validation” areas were assembled for use in this

assessment (Table 3.4, Figure 3.13). These checklists were not used directly to develop any of the

vertebrate distribution models, but they could have been referred to by biologists when reviewing

some of the preliminary results. The validation areas – one Nature Conservancy preserve, one

national park, two wildlife management areas, nine wildlife refuges, and one tribal reservation –

were selected based on the reliability of their species checklists and the similarity with which their

data were compiled. Of these 14 validation areas, seven provided complete checklists for all

taxonomic groups, three had checklists for birds and mammals, and four had checklists only for

birds. 

Only those species whose presence had been documented and confirmed on one or more checklists

were included in the agreement analysis; species listed as “possible” or “suspected” inhabitants of

an area were not included. Furthermore, we dealt only with presence; absence from a checklist

was not considered synonymous with absence from an area (see below). For amphibians, reptiles,

and mammals, all checklists simply listed species as present (or suspected), and thus little

interpretation was necessary. More detailed information, however, was provided for birds: 

checklists from 13 of the 14 validation areas listed species according to the likelihood of their

detection (abundant, common, uncommon, occasional, rare, and accidental) as well as by season

of occurrence. The checklist from the 14th area, Pine Butte Swamp Preserve, listed birds by

presence only. All bird occurrence codes except “accidental” were considered to indicate presence

in the validation area. Birds coded as “rare” were considered to be present for two reasons. First,

60

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 3.4. Size (ha), elevation range (m), and checklist source for 14 validation areas used to

assess the agreement of predicted vertebrate distributions in Montana.

Validation Areaa Sizeb Elevationc Checklist Sourced

Benton Lake NWR 4,773 1080-1165 USFWS (birds 1993, mammals 1996e, amphibians and reptiles

1995); lists compiled from personnel and visitor observations

since 1961. 

BlackfootClearwater WMA16,253 1149-2326 MTFWP (all groups 1995); conducted census to create list in

1991, updated with personnel and visitor observations.

National Bison

Range (NWR)

7,497 770-1480 USFWS (birds and mammals 1990); lists compiled from

personnel and visitor observations.

Bowdoin NWR 6,459 672-701 USFWS (birds 1992, mammals 1985); lists compiled from

personnel and visitor observations.

Charles M.

Russell NWR

395,913 613-1009 USFWS (birds 1992, mammals 1996e, amphibians and reptiles

1979); lists compiled from personnel and visitor observations.

Freezout Lake

WMA

4,031 1130-1219 MTFWP, M. Schwitters (birds 1994); list compiled from 10

years of observations by author. 

Glacier National

Park

402,353 941-3163 National Park Service, Glacier Natural History Association, D.

Shea (birds 1990, mammals 1986); list compiled from personnel

and visitor observations.

Lee Metcalf NWR 1,081 981-1009 USFWS (birds 1989); list compiled from personnel and visitor

observations.

Medicine Lake

NWR

12,577 587-640 USFWS (birds 1988; mammals, amphibians and reptiles 1996e);

bird list compiled from personnel and visitor observations;

assume same for mammal, amphibian and reptile lists.

Ninepipe/Pablo

NWR

1,857 901-1012 USFWS (birds 1983); assume list compiled from personnel and/or

visitor observations.

Red Rock Lakes

NWR

16,897 2004-2866 USFWS (birds 1994; mammals, amphibians and reptiles 1996e);

lists compiled from personnel and visitor observations.

Flathead Indian

Reservation

524,434 727-2965 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (all taxonomic groups

1996e); lists compiled from personnel and visitor observations.

Swan River NWR 509 930-990 USFWS (birds 1982); list compiled from personnel and visitor

observations since 1974.

Pine Butte Swamp

Preserve

5,225 1307-1759 The Nature Conservancy, R. Waldt (birds 1992; mammals,

amphibians, reptiles 1995); assume lists compiled from personnel

and/or visitor observations.

 a NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, WMA = Wildlife Management Area.

 b Hectares; sizes determined from the MT-GAP land stewardship layer. c Meters; elevation ranges determined from a 90 m digital elevation model (DEM).

 d USFWS = U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, MTFWP = Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks.

 e Checklist acquired 1996, but date of records uncertain.

62
we modeled distributions of rare birds in Montana; thus, it made sense to treat rarely occurring

species as present. Second, unlike “accidental”, “rare” suggests fairly regular occurrence in an

area, although rare species might be difficult to detect because of limited activity and/or specific

habitat requirements. Further coding decisions were made based on season of occurrence. If the

modeling focus for a bird species was breeding habitat, and the only checklist occurrence code

listed was “occasional” in the fall season, the species was not considered to be present for that

validation area checklist. Similarly, seasonal considerations for checklist presence were made for

birds whose distribution models focused on migrating or wintering habitat; that is, occurrence

codes for the fall or spring, or winter season, respectively, were used. 

A GIS layer (grid format) of the 14 validation areas was populated with presence/absence data

from the checklists, and then compared to corresponding grids of predicted distributions for each

species. A total of 415 terrestrial vertebrates were included in the assessment. Two amphibians

suspected to occur in the state but never recorded (Idaho giant salamander and wood frog) were

excluded, along with two birds (Cassin’s Kingbird and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher) and six mammals

(spotted bat, pallid bat, eastern cottontail, Uinta chipmunk, white-tailed prairie dog, and hispid

pocket mouse) not recorded or predicted in any validation area.

When validation areas were overlayed with predicted species distributions, four outcomes were

possible:

1. The species was not predicted to occur in an area where it has been recorded (omission error,

where No is the total number of such errors);

2. The species was predicted to occur where it has not been recorded (commission error, Nc);

3. The species was predicted to occur where it has been recorded (1-1 match, Nm); 

and

4. The species was not predicted to occur where it has not been recorded (0-0 match).

Instances of the fourth outcome (0-0 matches) were not used to calculate percent agreement

because we could not discriminate between situations where these might represent correct

predictions of absence, and ones where a checklist might be incomplete or otherwise inaccurate. 

The same is true for the second outcome, of course, but commission error is a vital component of

evaluating predictions (see Limitations and Discussion). 

We calculated percent agreement (%Nm) as the number of correct predictions of presence, divided

by the total number of species either predicted or documented to occur: %Nm = Nm/(No+Nc

+Nm). Agreement and error rates were examined with respect to validation area size; regression

analyses were performed (validation area size log transformed) on agreement rates for each

taxonomic group. For these analyses, mean agreement and error percentages were calculated for

each group within a validation area. For agreement and error percentage within a group, species

from all areas were lumped in their respective taxon, and a mean percentage was calculated for

each; overall mean agreement and error were similarly calculated from the lumped model agreement

percentages of all species, regardless of validation area. This eliminated the weighting biases that

would have occurred had we averaged the averages for each group from each validation area. 

Differences in model agreement between taxonomic groups were evaluated using t-tests after these

mean percentages were arcsin transformed.

63
Results

Agreement and error rates for each taxonomic group in each validation area are presented in Table

3.5. Within taxonomic groups, agreement varied considerably among validation areas for

amphibians (28.6-100%) and reptiles (16.7-100%); ranges were somewhat narrower for birds

(54.4-89.8%) and mammals (44.6-91.3%). Mean agreement and error rates for each taxonomic

group, irrespective of validation area, are presented in Table 3.6. Across all taxa, our mean

agreement (%Nm) was 64.0%, and the means for each taxon were not significantly different from

each other. Commission errors for mammals and reptiles were significantly higher than for birds;

omission error for birds was significantly higher than for amphibians and reptiles; mammal

omission error was significantly higher than that for reptiles (see p-values, Table 3.6). Within

orders or families, agreement, commission, and omission error rates also varied widely among

species (Appendix 3.4). All agreement rates appeared to increase with the size of the validation

area; this relationship was significant for birds and mammals (Figure 3.14, Table 3.7). 

Error rates between validation areas -- The highest omission rate (23.4%; Table 3.5) for any

taxonomic group in a particular validation area was for birds in the National Bison Range. This

error, twice that of any other omission error for a taxon in a particular area, can be attributed to the

lack of predicted distributions for water-related species in the National Bison Range. Of the 49

omission errors in this area, 43 of those occurred for waterfowl, shorebirds, marshbirds, gulls,

and/or terns. Marshes, ponds and streams do occur in this refuge, but apparently most are smaller

than our data resolution (2 ha MMU, 90 m cell size), and therefore were not resolved in our land

cover map. Water, in fact, was absent altogether and riparian types were rarely mapped. Models

for these species relied on the land cover layer for determining presence of these features; the

USGS DLG hydrography, used to define buffer zones, might also have been used to supplement

water mapped in the land cover layer, but in this case may have yielded overestimates of habitat. 

With this in mind, it is not surprising that these species were not predicted to occur in the National

Bison Range, although they were recorded as “present” on the species checklist. 

Commission error rates varied considerably between validation areas for amphibians (0-71.4%)

and reptiles (0-83.3%), and were clearly the main contributors to wide ranges in agreement. 

Reasons for these wide ranges between areas are not entirely clear, but may include differences in

observational efforts to compile species checklists as well as the low probability of detecting these

species without systematic surveys. Furthermore, hexagon distributions for amphibians and

reptiles were constructed more liberally in terms of professional judgment (with many hexagons

coded as “possible” occurrence) because of the relative lack of field surveys and hence species’

locations. As a result, commission errors for these taxa are not surprising. Commission error

rates appeared consistently high for all taxa in the Blackfoot-Clearwater WMA. This management

area consists of several separate tracts of land, which may complicate the logistics of checklist

compilation and may lead to inconsistent inventories in this fragmented wildlife management area. 

Freezout Lake WMA also showed high commission error for birds.

Error rates between taxa -- Omission error rates were relatively low for all taxa, averaging 6.8%

(1.2-8.5%, Table 3.6). However, omission error was significantly higher for birds than for other

groups, indicating that some of our wildlife-habitat relationship models tended to underpredict bird

distributions. Conservative modeling approaches that focused on primary habitat requirements

likely contributed to the underestimation of habitat for many birds. For example, for resident

species, breeding habitat took precedence over wintering habitat in the models. Consequently, we

would expect omission errors to be higher for at least two groups of species -- ones whose ranges

vary markedly between seasons and ones with highly restricted nesting habitat, yet much more

extensive foraging ranges. Fitting the latter pattern are American White Pelicans, White-throated

64
Table 3.5. Number of commission errors (Nc), omission errors (No), matches (Nm), and percent

agreement (Nm/Nt x 100, where Nt = No+Nc+Nm) of predicted species occurrences in 14

validation areas compared to species occurrence checklists compiled for these same areas.

Taxonomic Group/Validation Area Nc %Nc No %No Nm %Nm/Nt

Amphibians Benton Lake NWR 3 50.0 0 0 3 50.0

Blackfoot-Clearwater WMA 3 50.0 0 0 3 50.0

Charles M. Russell NWR 0 0 0 0 6 100.0

Medicine Lake NWR 5 71.4 0 0 2 28.6

Red Rock Lakes NWR 1 20.0 0 0 4 80.0

Flathead Indian Reservation 1 11.1 1 11.1 7 77.8

Pine Butte Swamp Preserve 3 37.5 0 0 5 62.5

Site Mean 34.3 1.6 64.1

Reptiles Benton Lake NWR 3 30.0 0 0 7 70.0

Blackfoot-Clearwater WMA 6 66.7 0 0 3 33.3

Charles M. Russell NWR 3 21.4 0 0 11 78.6

Medicine Lake NWR 4 40.0 0 0 6 60.0

Red Rock Lakes NWR 5 83.3 0 0 1 16.7

Flathead Indian Reservation 0 0 0 0 9 100.0

Pine Butte Swamp Preserve 6 60.0 0 0 4 40.0

Site Mean 43.1 0 56.9

Birds Benton Lake NWR 50 24.4 22 10.7 133 64.9

Blackfoot-Clearwater WMA 103 42.2 3 1.2 138 56.6

National Bison Range (NWR) 31 14.2 51 23.4 136 62.4

Bowdoin NWR 17 8.7 18 9.2 160 82.1

Charles M. Russell NWR 35 14.0 7 3.1 189 82.9

Freezout Lake WMA 100 43.9 4 1.7 124 54.4

Glacier National Park 52 20.5 3 1.2 199 78.4

Lee Metcalf NWR 48 21.8 11 5.0 161 73.2

Medicine Lake NWR 24 12.6 17 8.9 150 78.5

Ninepipe/Pablo NWR 74 32.0 24 10.4 133 57.6

Red Rock Lakes NWR 11 4.5 37 15.2 195 80.2

Flathead Indian Reservation 12 4.5 15 5.7 238 89.8

Swan River NWR 67 30.3 11 5.0 143 64.7

Pine Butte Swamp Preserve 59 25.5 12 5.0 172 70.8

Site Mean 21.3 7.5 71.2

Mammals Benton Lake NWR 22 45.8 2 4.2 24 50.0

Blackfoot-Clearwater WMA 35 53.8 1 1.5 29 44.6

National Bison Range (NWR) 27 41.5 0 0 39 58.5

Bowdoin NWR 17 34.0 5 10.0 28 56.0

Charles M. Russell NWR 18 39.0 1 1.6 43 69.4

Glacier National Park 14 19.2 0 0 59 80.8

Medicine Lake NWR 14 29.8 2 4.3 31 66.0

Red Rock Lakes NWR 26 37.1 2 2.9 42 60.0

Flathead Indian Reservation 4 5.8 2 2.9 63 91.3

Pine Butte Swamp Preserve 29 40.8 0 0 42 59.2

Site Mean 33.7 2.7 63.6

65
__________________________________________________________________________

Table 3.6. Mean commission rate (%Nc), omission rate (%No), and percent agreement (%Nm) for

each taxonomic group (415 species total), regardless of validation area. Significantly different

values (t-test, # .05) are indicated by superscript.

Taxonomic Group # Species %Nc %No %Nm

Amphibians 14 39.8 1.21 59.0 

Reptiles 17 35.92 0.01, 3 64.1

Birds 288 24.31, 2 8.51, 2 67.2

Mammals 96 41.21 3.82, 3 55.0

Group Mean 29.2 6.8 64.0

1p < .001; 2p = .05; 3p = .02

______________________________________________________________________________

Swifts, and Black Swifts; all showed relatively high omission errors (Appendix 3.4). These

species all range widely to forage during the breeding season, and they could be easily recorded on

checklists from areas where they do not actually nest, and where our models would not predict

them to occur. Similarly, models for species whose distributions were predicted based on

breeding habitat requirements, but whose nonbreeding distributions are more wide ranging, may

also exhibit high omission error. Examples include the American Pipit and Wilson’s Warbler.

Conversely, commission error rates were comparatively high for all taxa, averaging 29.2% (24.3-

41.2%); that is, our models tended to overpredict species distributions. Mammal commission error

was significantly higher than that for the other taxa – in part due to incomplete checklists,

particularly for many small mammals like shrews, rodents and bats, which are crepuscular,

nocturnal, and /or fossorial, making detection and/or identification difficult. For example, Benton

Lake NWR recorded ‘Sorex spp.’ and Pine Butte Swamp Preserve recorded ‘Sorex spp. and

Chiroptera’ as being present on their checklists; rather than considering all species in these groups

to be “present” at both sites, we considered them all to be absent. It is not surprising, then, that

mammal commission error was comparatively high in these areas (Table 3.5); commission error

rates for shrews, bats, and mice/voles were 62%, 60%, and 39%, respectively. 

Commission error may arise from errors in model predictions or errors in sampling; we cannot

reliably separate the two sources. Difficulty in species detection, and consequent incorrect

exclusion from checklists, is probably a major contributor to commission error for all taxa

(Appendix 3.4). Commission error for owls was 35%, whereas for waterfowl, a more visible

group, commission errors were much lower, averaging 13%. Detectability may be less a function

of body size than of the openness of the habitat that a species occupies; for example, Tree

Swallows (%Nc = 0), Prairie Falcons (%Nc = 7.1) and long-tailed weasels (%Nc = 0) occupy

more open habitats, whereas similarly sized species such as the White-breasted Nuthatch (%Nc =

41.7), Northern Goshawk (%Nc = 50.0) and American marten (%Nc = 66.7) inhabit dense, more

forested habitats, and have much higher commission error rates. Similarly, carnivores -- generally

more secretive in nature and occurring in lower densities -- had higher commission errors (30.1%)

than did ungulates (9.2%). Commission error rates also vary according to habitat specificity: 

66
●

●

400 600

●

●

400 600

ha * 1000)

●

●

400 600

●

●

●

●

●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

● 0

20406080

0 200 400 600

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

0

102030

0 200 400 600

Area (ha * 1000)

●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

0

20406080

100

0 200 400 600

●●

●●

●

● ●

●

● 0

20406080

0 200 400 600

●

●

●

●

●● ●● ● 0

102030

0 200 400 600

Area (ha * 1000)

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

0

20406080

100

0 200 400 600

●

●

●

●

●

●

0 ●

20406080

0 200 400 600

0 ●●● ●●

102030

0 200 400 600

Area (ha * 1000)

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

0

20406080

100

0 200 400 600

ibians Reptiles Birds Mammals

ement, commission errors, and omission errors for each taxonomic group as a function of validation area size.

Nt x 100; commission error = Nc/Nt x 100; omission error = No/Nt x 100.
Black-billed Magpies (%Nc = 0) and coyotes (%Nc = 0) are generalists, whereas Clark’s

Nutcrackers (%Nc = 41.7) and fishers (%Nc = 60) have more narrow habitat requirements. 

Amphibians and reptiles showed relatively high commission error rates as well, which may be due,

in large part, to the methods used to construct their hexagon distributions. Moreover, relatively

high commission errors would be expected given that many of these species are poorly studied,

cryptic, and/or dependent upon microhabitat features difficult to resolve at a statewide scale. It

should be noted, however, that because error rates for many species were calculated from very

small sample sizes (see Appendix 3.4), any trends or conclusions should be treated with caution.

We found a positive relationship between agreement and validation area size for all taxa (Figure

3.14), but this relationship was only significant for birds and mammals (Table 3.7), perhaps

because of their larger sample sizes. Size of the validation areas ranged widely, from 509 hectares

to 524,434 hectares; 11 areas were smaller than 20,000 hectares, and three were greater than

390,000 hectares. The reason for higher agreement in larger areas is probably straightforward: 

Large validation areas reduce both omission and commission error by increasing the likelihood that

more habitat types will occur within their boundaries. Similar comparisons from UT-GAP

(Edwards et al. 1995) also showed an apparent relationship between refuge size and accuracy,

although WY-GAP (Merrill et al. 1996) found no such relationship.

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 3.7. Selected results from the regression analysis of % agreement on log validation area.

______________________________________________________________________________

Taxonomic Group # Species Slope p-value 

______________________________________________________________________________

Amphibians 14 .687 .09

Reptiles 17 .653 .11

Birds 288 .626 .02

Mammals 96 .829 .003

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Limitations and Discussion

Our assessment relied on a comparison between predicted and observed species’ presence, not

absence, for 415 terrestrial vertebrates at 14 validation areas of variable size in Montana. This was

not a true accuracy assessment because potential sampling errors in the validation data complicated

our interpretation of both commission error and correct prediction of absence. Whereas the former

was included in calculations, the latter was ignored altogether (see below). Within these

constraints, however, we contend that the predictive accuracy of our models lies somewhere

between the conservative measure of overall agreement (e.g., 64.0% for all 415 species), and 1-

No, which averaged 93.2% for all species. To further clarify this point, we break the likely

sources of error into two general groups -- one involving GIS data inputs and our wildlife-habitat

relationship models, and the other dealing with deficiencies and biases associated with the

validation area checklists.

68
Availability, accuracy, and resolution of GIS data layers certainly played a major role in the

agreement of predicted vertebrate distributions, especially the omission errors. Many microhabitat

features important in defining habitat requirements could not be included in wildlife-habitat

relationship models. Such features included soils and climate data for fossorial species, as well as

forest structure, including stand age, understory characteristics, and litter composition for forest

dwelling species. Furthermore, spatial habitat queries, such as patch size or interspersion of cover

type patches for area- or edge-sensitive species, often could not be addressed on a broad, statewide

scale. Also, when developing the wildlife-habitat relationship models, we focused on primary

seasonal habitat requirements, making our approach somewhat conservative. Yet judging by the

high commission errors, we still tended to overpredict many species distributions. More detailed

natural history information, as well as more specific location data for some sensitive and/or habitatrestricted species (e.g., Peregrine Falcon, Mountain Plover, black-footed ferret), particularly in

lieu of microhabitat-scaled GIS layers, would have allowed for improved predictions. Lacking

detailed information as guidance, some of us may have been more generous in model construction

than others. The tendency for many models to overpredict distributions also may have been related

to the generous limits set by liberally populating hexagon and latilong range cells. Overpredictions

were especially likely where these cells spanned a variety of landscapes. For example, a single

latilong along the East Front of the Rocky Mountains could extend from the Continental Divide to

the plains, and a bird typically using riparian habitat within a montane forest matrix could be

predicted to occur within riparian areas out on the plains as well. 

Another GIS-related factor could be our method for determining a species’ predicted presence: if

even a single pixel of predicted habitat fell within a validation area, that species was counted as

present. In the future, we suggest calculating the percentage of each validation area predicted to

provide habitat for each species, rather than simply whether or not any habitat exists. Although

percent agreement would not change in absolute terms, this would allow one to apply thresholds

(>1% habitat, >10% habitat) and explore how agreement measures differ accordingly.

Other major sources of error were related to biases and deficiencies in the checklists used to

validate the predicted distributions. Typically, the validation area checklists were compiled to give

visitors a sense of what they might expect to see in an area. For this reason, and as noted

previously, they really only tell us what species have been recorded at a site. It is well known that

the number of species recorded at a site increases with time and sampling effort (Preston 1960,

Dedon et al. 1986, Block et al. 1994, Krohn 1996). It is also doubtful that the 14 checklists used

for validation were all based on comparable sampling efforts and time periods. Nonetheless, they

were the best information available, and users should bear in mind that additional detections could

alter the results of this assessment, either by increasing the omission error or by decreasing the

commission error, depending on whether or not any newly recorded species were predicted to

occur there.

Because the species checklists are unlikely to be complete, we relied on comparisons between

predicted and observed species’ presence, not absence. Thus, species which had not been

recorded at any validation area were counted in errors of commission if our models predicted them

to occur there. But if our models did not predict them to occur where they had never been recorded

(0-0 match), there could be no corresponding gain in percent agreement. Inevitably, some of these

0-0 matches may represent true conditions, yet we had no reliable way to discriminate between

correctly and incorrectly predicted absences. Hence, 0-0 matches were excluded altogether. 

Commission errors, however, were kept because they highlight discrepancies between predictions

and observations, and thus offer insights on model performance (Edwards et al. 1996, Karl 1998).

Arguably, there is a logical contradiction in treating commission error as truth, but not the 0-0

match. Nonetheless, we took this conservative approach to best meet our goal -- a critical

evaluation of model performance. 

69
Aside from the issue of sampling error in the checklists, our assessment was probably further

biased by the predominance of a few land cover types in the validation areas. For example, the

cover type composition of the 11 validation areas that were smaller than 20,000 hectares averaged

19 different cover types, yet 10 of these areas were composed primarily of grassland, agriculture,

and water cover types. In contrast, the three largest validation areas averaged 34 cover types, and

none of the three was dominated by a single type. Also, the tendency for higher commission

errors to occur in smaller validation areas (Fig. 3.14) suggests that the predictive models could be

improved by incorporating patch size so as to filter out patches of potentially suitable habitat

smaller than a minimum size. Alternatively, species found in smaller, isolated habitats may be

underrepresented on validation area checklists, and could actually be present, predicted or not.

Compared with other assessments, our error rates were higher than those reported for UT-GAP

(Edwards et al. 1995) and WY-GAP (Merrill et al. 1996), but lower than ones reported for

breeding birds in California (Block et al. 1994). These differences are likely related to scale. For

example, the minimum map unit used to predict vertebrate distributions in Utah and Wyoming was

more than 100 times larger than ours in Montana (100 ha vs 0.81 ha), and at least in Wyoming, the

average size of their validation areas was considerably larger as well. Taken together, it is not

surprising that their commission errors were much less than ours; at the same time, it is surprising

that, with the exception of birds in Utah and mammals in Wyoming, our omission errors were

substantially less than theirs. Block et al. (1994) compared point-count records of breeding birds

(mostly passerines) in three California oak woodlands with predictions derived from two different

WHR databases. Their average rates of both omission and commission errors were considerably

higher than ours (%No: 18.3 vs. 8.5; %Nc: 35.0 vs. 24.3), but their observations were restricted

to 100 m radius plots (~3 ha). Although this spatial unit is larger than the 90 m2 cell size that we

used for modeling, it is considerably smaller than the areas that we used for validation. Had we

tested the accuracy of our model predictions with observations from such small areas, no doubt our

error rates would have been higher as well.

Keeping the issue of scale in mind, we believe that our models performed reasonably well over

large geographic areas (>20,000 ha). For smaller areas, however, model performance is likely to

become more uncertain. Despite its limitations, comparing predicted vertebrate distributions with

validation area checklists is obviously the most cost-efficient and straightforward way to measure

the accuracy of predicted distributions. We can speculate about the accuracy of our models based

on their relatively low omission errors, but ultimately, the only way to truly assess the performance

of these or any vertebrate distribution models is by thorough and systematic field surveys. 

Conclusions

Our predicted distributions are based on a current synthesis of information pertaining to 425

terrestrial vertebrates in Montana. The relatively fine scale at which the models were processed (90

m cell size) means that maps generated from the Montana Gap data are the most detailed ever

produced for the entire state. But resolution does not guarantee accuracy; these predicted

distributions are not so easily validated. The accuracy of these predicted distributions is not so

easy to determine. A crude assessment based on comparisons between predicted and observed

species presence at 14 areas around the state indicated relatively low omission error rates (< 10%),

but considerably higher rates of commission errors (24-41%). This means that the models were

more likely to overpredict species distributions than to underpredict them. In the context of most

management decisions, this is desirable for the same reason that Type I statistical errors are more

serious than Type II errors. Failure to predict a species’ presence in an area where it actually

70
occurs may create potential for inadvertent harm if land-use decisions are then made without that

species in mind. If, however, a species is predicted to occur where it has never been recorded, it is

more likely that the species will be targeted in future surveys and also considered in subsequent

land-use decisions -- a safer outcome all around.

The most general limitations of the modeling approach relate to species-habitat relationships. For

some species, habitat associations are not well-defined because they haven’t received much study;

others have been well-studied, but not in geographic regions similar to Montana. Still others have

been well-studied within the state and vicinity, yet even for these species, habitat associations

could not always be well-represented within our GIS. Some habitat features were not included in

the modeling process, either because they were unavailable as GIS layers, or because their scale

was too coarse. These include soils, forest structure and presence of snags/cavities, and

microhabitats such as seeps, springs, caves, and buildings. Stream order was also unavailable, as

were other aquatic attributes and features, including stream flow, waterfalls, and rapids. Although

querying for streams of specific orders would have simplified some models, coding our

hydrography layer with stream order and other attributes was beyond the scope of this project. 

Human disturbance factors were not assessed; their absence may have led to overpredicted

distributions in some instances. Although consideration of human disturbance is not a part of the

GAP approach, which focuses on potential habitat, a number of species are undoubtedly limited by

such factors. For example, a road density layer may have improved the predicted distribution of

grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). 

Another limitation is the imperfect nature of the known range maps used to restrict predicted

distributions for each species. The latilong units used for birds are very large, although they offer

the advantage of uniformity in size, unlike counties. Latilongs span a wide variety of habitats and

sometimes even geographic regions. As is nearly always the case with pre-existing data sets, the

latilong database (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996) was not designed for an application

like ours, which depends on “complete” distributions. It is basically opportunistic in nature; as

observers report bird sightings, they are added to the database, but there has been no organized

effort to assess whether or not species occur in the gaps between observations. Hence, the

latilongs are likely to be better populated in areas inhabited or frequented by birders; similarly,

species that are more easily detected are likely to be documented for more latilongs. As a result,

judgment calls were necessary to fill in distributional gaps for some species. Hexagons are much

smaller units than latilongs, and they were populated with the specific goal of mapping “complete”

species distributions within Montana. However, there still were not enough observations to

completely populate ranges for many species without judicious extrapolation between locations. 

Despite their shortcomings, both hexagons and latilongs offer a distinct improvement over standard

coarse-scale range maps, such as those found in field guides. 

A fundamental limitation of the vertebrate modeling process is the scale-determined need to operate

at 90 m resolution within our GIS environment. Scale is typically discussed in terms of extent

(project area size) and grain (resolution, or in a raster environment, cell size) (Turner 1990). In

practical terms, the former determines the latter. Our project area covers a broad extent; Montana is

the fourth largest state in the union. Thus, from the beginning, the size of the state has presented

one of our greatest challenges. In a digital environment, working with an area this large at fine

resolution (e.g., 30 m) requires enormous -- and infeasible -- amounts of CPU time and disk

storage. We decided to predict vertebrate distributions using a land cover layer with small MMUs

(2 ha for most types) rather than merging land cover polygons to larger MMUs like those

employed by previous GAP projects in nearby states (ID-GAP, UT-GAP, WY-GAP). Grain, or

data resolution, was one cost of maintaining this level of detail. Working at 90 m resolution, 

71
which is still a fairly fine grain, was necessary to limit processing time and output file size to

manageable bounds. 

At 90 m resolution, there were 47,014,689 cells in each raster layer; values for each cell had to be

considered in every habitat query. For our final modeling run, it took roughly 77.25 hours to

process 425 species, averaging slightly under 11 minutes per species. The 425 output grids

occupy just over 1.15 gigabytes of disk space; intermediate grids used for the review process

consumed an additional 2.75 gigabytes of space. Even at 90 m resolution, processing time and

storage remained issues. Furthermore, software constraints sometimes became an issue. Most

importantly, we were unable to define individual patches in the land cover layer, although we tried

in both raster and vector formats and in both ARC/INFO and ERDAS Imagine software. Only

when cover types were extracted into their own layers was it possible to obtain counts of the

number of patches of each type. As a result, patch sizes and related statistics could not be

incorporated into habitat queries. Similarly, we were unable to create a “hypercoverage”

combining all input layers and predicted species distributions into one layer. Nonetheless, we feel

that larger cells and more diversity between cells, rather than uniform expanses of small cells, yield

more useful products overall.

72
4. LAND STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

Introduction

To fulfill the analytical mission of GAP, it is necessary to compare the mapped distribution of

elements of biodiversity with their representation in different categories of land ownership and

management. As will be explained in the Analysis section, these comparisons do not measure

viability, but are a start to assessing the likelihood of future threat to a biotic element through

habitat conversion -- the primary cause of biodiversity decline. We use the term “stewardship” in

place of “ownership” in recognition that legal ownership does not necessarily equate to the entity

charged with management of the resource, and that the mix of ownership and managing entities is a

complex and rapidly changing condition not suitably mapped by GAP. At the same time, it is

necessary to distinguish between stewardship and management status in that a single category of

land stewardship such as a national forest may contain several degrees of management for

biodiversity.

The purpose of comparing biotic distribution with stewardship is to provide a method by which

land stewards can assess their relative amount of responsibility for the management of a species or

plant community, and identify other stewards sharing that responsibility. This information can

reveal opportunities for cooperative management of that resource, which directly supports the

primary mission of GAP to provide objective, scientific information to decision makers and

managers to make informed decisions regarding biodiversity. It also is not unlikely that a steward

that has previously borne the major responsibility for managing a species may, through such

analyses, identify a more equitable distribution of that responsibility. We emphasize, however,

that GAP only identifies private land as a homogenous category and does not differentiate

individual tracts or owners, unless the information was provided voluntarily to recognize a longterm commitment to biodiversity maintenance.

After comparison to stewardship, it is also necessary to compare biotic occurrence to categories of

management status. The purpose of this comparison is to identify the need for change in

management status for the distribution of individual elements or areas containing high degrees of

diversity. Such changes can be accomplished in many ways that do not affect the stewardship

status. Although it will eventually be desirable to identify specific management practices for each

tract, and whether they are beneficial or harmful to each element, GAP currently uses a scale of 1

to 4 to denote relative degree of maintenance of biodiversity for each tract. A status of “1” denotes

the highest, most permanent level of maintenance, and “4” represents the lowest level of

biodiversity management, or unknown status (Table 4.1). Although the source data are imperfect

and nearly all lands are subject to changes in ownership and management, we assigned status

codes based on legal and institutional criteria. General characteristics used to determine status

were:

• Permanence of protection from conversion of natural land cover to unnatural (human-induced

barren, exotic-dominated, arrested succession).

• Relative amount of the tract managed for natural cover.

• Inclusiveness of the management, i.e., single feature or species versus all biota.

• Type of management and degree that it is mandated through legal and institutional arrangements.

73
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4.1. Description of the codes used to designate management status to lands in Montana (after

Scott et al. 1993, Edwards et al. 1995, Crist et al. 1995).

Code Management Status

1 An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a

mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which

disturbance events (of natural type, frequency, intensity, and legacy) are allowed to

proceed without interference or are mimicked through management.

2 An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a

mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which

may receive uses or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural

communities, including suppression of natural disturbances.

3 An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the

majority of the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type

(e.g., logging) or localized intense type (e.g., mining). It also confers protection to

federally listed endangered and threatened species throughout the area.

4 Lack of irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion of natural habitat types

to anthropogenic habitat types. Allows for intensive use throughout the tract. Also

includes those tracts for which the existence of such restrictions or sufficient

information to establish a higher status is unknown.

Three steps were involved in the development of the Montana land stewardship layer: 1) creating a

digital file of the geographic boundaries that delineate tracts of land under different ownership

and/or management; 2) coding each mapped land unit with the proper owner/manager information;

and 3) assigning a biodiversity management status code, ranging from 1 to 4 (Table 4.1), to these

land units. 

Methods

Stewardship Mapping

The digital land stewardship layer used by MT-GAP was created by incorporating boundaries of

administrative units to a base layer of land ownership, provided by the United States Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana State Office. We added some

additional information to this base layer, but only for land units under management designed to

protect some elements of biodiversity. Source and scale of the data added to the BLM base layer

are summarized in Table 4.2.

74
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4.2. Source and scale of the digital data added to the BLM land ownership base.

Data Source Scale

Wilderness Areas Bureau of Land Management 1:100,000

Salish-Kootenai Special

Management Areas

Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes 1:24,000

The Nature Conservancy Preserves Montana Natural Heritage Program 1:24,000

Conservation leases and easements Montana Natural Heritage Program 1:24,000

Research Natural, Special Interest,

and Public Use Natural Areas

Montana Natural Heritage Program 1:24,000

Upper Missouri National Wild &

Scenic River

Montana Natural Heritage Program 1:100,000

Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern, Outstanding Natural Areas

and Primitive Areas

Montana Natural Heritage Program 1:24,000

Ownership within Tribal

Reservations

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Billings Area Office

1:24,000

USFS Proposed, Recommended, and

Study Wilderness Areas

Forest Service, Region 1 1:24,000

C.M. Russell Proposed Wilderness

Areas

C.M. Russell National Wildlife

Refuge

1:24,000

Plum Creek Timber Lands Plum Creek Timberlands Co. Inc. 1:24,000

Montana State Parks Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks

1:24,000 and finer

The BLM base layer was obtained in digital form, consisting of 95 separate tiles, corresponding to

their 30 x 60 minute, 1:100,000 scale, Surface Management Series maps, and in various

projections (Albers, UTM zones 11-13, and State Plane). We acquired tiles that were released on

3/24/96, and users should bear in mind that the BLM continually updates these data. The tiles

were reprojected into a common system (Albers), then appended into one layer. Slivers along the

tile edges were eliminated to the degree practical, using an automated ARC/INFO procedure, as

well as manual deletion whenever a sliver was incidentally encountered. The automated procedure

consisted of two stages. First, polygons with a large perimeter-to-area ratios were found and

removed; water polygons, which often met these selection criteria due to their narrow, linear

nature, were identified beforehand and excluded from this step. The second stage involved several

ARC/INFO operations: 1) “cleaning” the coverage with the fuzzy tolerance set at 3 meters; 2) from

this “cleaned” coverage, extracting all dangling arcs that were created when arcs 3 meters apart

were snapped together (in the first step); and 3) using this “dangle” coverage as a background to

the original, uncleaned coverage as a means to quickly locate slivers. In this manner we were able

to eliminate approximately 600 slivers from the statewide ownership coverage.

75
Because the Montana state boundary does not coincide with the 30 x 60 minute tile boundaries, the

ownership layer had to be completed manually. Along the western border, polygons were

digitized and coded using USGS 7.5’ paper maps (1:24,000 scale) for the Cabinet (published in

1989), Curley Creek (1983), and Leonia (1983) quadrangles. For the following 30 x 60 minute

tiles, missing polygons were added and coded on-screen using the most recently published BLM

hard-copy maps for reference: Headquarters, Bighorn Crags, Borah Peak, Ashton, Yellowstone

National Park North, Burgess Junction, Sheridan, Recluse, and Devil’s Tower. We opted to work

on-screen, rather than digitizing directly from the hard-copy maps, because the band of polygons

to add to reach the state border was very narrow (about 600 m at the broadest point) and we were

concerned about registration errors. 

Private ownership within tribal reservation boundaries was differentiated on the BLM tiles for the

Flathead Indian Reservation only; for other reservations, private ownership was indicated

incompletely, or not at all. Ownership in the other reservations was updated by integrating digital

layers obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Billings Area Office. Two methods were

used. For the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, the ownership pattern from the BIA data was very

similar to that displayed on the BLM tiles, so that only a simple update was required. This was

done by displaying the BIA map in the background and making all necessary changes (addition,

deletion, and recoding of polygons) directly to the BLM coverage. For the Blackfeet, Crow, Fort

Belknap, Fort Peck, and Rocky Boy Reservations, the ownership pattern between the two data

sets was different enough to require a ‘cut-and-paste’ approach: ownership within the reservations

was ‘cut out’ from the BLM tiles, and replaced with BIA data. Reservation boundaries were

always slightly different between BLM and BIA data; BLM boundaries were usually kept to insure

a proper fit with polygons adjacent to the reservations, but some boundary updates also were

integrated. Problems were encountered along the southern border of the Fort Peck Reservation,

where BLM boundaries differed significantly from those obtained from BIA (sometimes by as

much as 1 km). Even though BIA data came from 1:24,000 maps and should have been more

accurate, we were reluctant to abandon the BLM boundaries. The positioning of the Missouri

River, which serves as the boundary along the southern edge of the reservation, was almost

identical between BLM data and 1:100,000 hydrography Digital Line Graph (DLG) data, but it was

quite different in the BIA data. Because the hydrography DLG file was used in other parts of MTGAP (see Predicted Animal Distributions), it was preferable not to alter the location of the Missouri

River. Instead, we combined the BLM and BIA data, labeling as ‘Unknown’ the polygons that fell

between the reservation boundary as obtained from BIA and as obtained from BLM. These

‘Unknown’ polygons were assigned a management status of 4. As a consequence, ownership

patterns within a 1 km buffer along the southern edge of the Fort Peck Reservation should be

treated with caution. In general, because edge-matching was required between BLM and BIA data,

data quality within a 500 m buffer around these reservations is lower.

Even though most water bodies were mapped on the BLM tiles, they were not coded differently

from private lands in the original BLM tiles; both received a code of 0. Because the mix of

ownership, water rights, and managing entities for water bodies is extremely complex, GAP does

not require that owners and managers of lakes and rivers be identified (Scott and Jennings 1994,

Crist et al. 1995). Nonetheless, to be able to distinguish between water bodies and private lands,

the former were manually recoded after displaying the BLM ownership tiles over the

corresponding DLG hydro files to identify the water bodies on screen.

Finally, lands owned by Plum Creek Timberlands Inc. were identified on-screen by displaying, in

the background, a 1:24,000 scale digital file obtained from the company in January, 1996. Arcs

missing from the BLM data were added, and all polygons representing corporate timberlands were

recoded.

76
Management Areas

Administrative units were obtained from a variety of sources at a variety of scales. In some cases,

it was possible to simply recode polygons already present in the land ownership file. This was the

case for Wildlife Management Areas and parts of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers, which

existed as polygons in the BLM files but were labeled as ‘State, county, city, wildlife park &

recreation areas’ or ‘Federal Agency Protective Withdrawal’. National Forest maps and the

Montana Atlas & Gazetteer (DeLorme Mapping 1994) were used as sources for comparison. 

Most often though, new files had to be appended, in which case edge-matching was performed to

ensure the best possible fit between data from different sources.

Wilderness area boundaries (USFS, USFWS, and BLM) were obtained from the BLM as separate

1:100,000 scale digital files. Proposed, recommended, and study wilderness areas on USFS lands

were extracted from digital Management Area files for each National Forest (obtained from the

Northern Regional Office). When this file was compared to proposed wilderness boundaries

based on a bill drafted by Representative Pat Williams for the 1994-95 Congressional session, little

agreement was found. Forest Management Area files were selected over the congressional

proposal as the source of data because 1) they presented a more conservative estimate of the

amount of land that may be afforded wilderness status, and 2) they are subject to existing

management plans, albeit plans that are currently undergoing revision. Proposed wilderness areas

for the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS) were obtained from that refuge as a

1:24,000 scale digital file. Finally, the boundaries of the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness,

the corresponding buffer zone, and the Lozeau and Jocko Tribal Primitive Areas were obtained

from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes at a 1:24,000 scale.

Other special management areas, obtained as digital files and appended to the ownership layer,

included: Research Natural Areas, Special Interest Areas, and Public Use Natural Areas (all at

1:24,000 scale); conservation preserves, easements, and leases (1:24,000 scale); Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, Outstanding Natural Areas, and Primitive Areas (1:24,000 scale); the

Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River (1:100,000 scale); and state parks, including primitive state

parks (1:24,000 scale or finer). The final stewardship map appears as Figure 4.1.

In compiling summary statistics (e.g., Table 4.4, Appendices 5.1 and 5.2), ownership and

stewardship were treated synonymously because, as mapped, there were so few areas in the state

where ownership and management differed (<0.01% of the total area). The four discrepancies in

our layer included tracts of land: 1) owned by BLM and managed by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and

Parks (MTFWP) as a fishing access site (352 ha); 2) owned by Bureau of Reclamation and leased

to MTFWP as a state park/recreation area (180 ha); 3) Pablo and Ninepipe National Wildlife

Refuges, under tribal ownership but managed by USFWS (693 ha); and 4) state-owned lands

under conservation easement managed by The Nature Conservancy (1580 ha). Although these

lands were reported according to their owners, managers were also considered in assigning

management status.

 

Management Status

Using the definitions presented in Table 4.1 and described in the GAP Handbook (Scott and

Jennings 1994) as well as in a dichotomous key developed by NM-GAP (Crist et al. 1995), each

stewardship category was assigned a status code; these are summarized in Table 4.3. Because

these assignments were sometimes subjective, three different people participated in the process,

and all disagreements were resolved by consensus, often after consulting management plans for the 

77

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4.3. Management status by land management entity.

______________________________________________________________________________

Status 1 Status 3

Wilderness Areas Other BLM

National Parks Other Forest Service Lands

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) Other State Lands

Special Interest Areas (SIAs) Other Department of Agriculture Lands

Some Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas

Outstanding Natural Areas Bureau of Reclamation

State Wildlife Preserves Bankhead Jones Land Use Lands

Some National Wildlife Refuges Department of Defense Lands

The Nature Conservancy Preserves Tribal Lands

Salish-Kootenai Tribal Primitive Areas Local Government Lands

Status 2 Status 4

Proposed, Recommended and Other BLM Lands Private Lands (Unprotected)

Wilderness Study Areas Corporate Timberlands

National Wild & Scenic Rivers

National Historic Sites

Proposed RNAs and SIAs

Public Use Natural Areas

Some National Wildlife Refuges

Some ACECs

Proposed ACECs

Wildlife Management Areas

Primitive State Parks

Salish-Kootenai Tribal Wilderness Buffer Zone

______________________________________________________________________________

individual administrative units. In some instances, units in the same stewardship category could

not be assigned to a single management status code because specific management practices varied

from one land unit to the next. This was the case for National Wildlife Refuges; where grazing

was allowed, they were assigned Status 2, where grazing was not allowed, they were assigned

Status 1. A comprehensive listing of administrative units assigned a Status of 1 or 2 is found in

Appendix 4.1.

Results

Public lands comprise 34.73% of Montana, with 28.90% under federal and 5.83% under state or

local governmental jurisdiction (Table 4.4). The federal lands are predominately under USFS

administration, and they are concentrated in the western portion of the state (Figure 4.1). Private

lands, including those administered by Indian tribes, represent 64.19% of Montana; these private

lands are predominate in the eastern part of the state where they are intermixed with lands managed

by the BLM and the state. 

Status 1 and 2 lands account for 7.63% (2,906,200 ha) of Montana (Tables 4.4, 4.5). Most of

these lands are located in the western half of the state (Figure 4.2), which is generally more 

79
Table 4.4. Area and percent (%) of land stewardship categories by management status in Montana. Some categories, generally those assigned Status 3, have been

combined into “other” categories. Miscellaneous includes water (Status 5, not reported, but 1.07% of total area) and unknown (Status 4). 

Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4 Total

Land Stewardship Category ha % ha % ha % ha % ha %

Bureau of Land Management (Total) (13,097) (0.03) (77,104) (0.20) (3,249,591) (8.54) (0) (0.00) (3,339,792) (8.77)

 Area of Critical Environmental Concern 4,541 0.01 22,912 0.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 27,453 0.07

 Proposed ACEC 0 0.00 8,513 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 8,513 0.02

 Wilderness Area 2,466 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,466 0.01

 Primitive Area 0 0.00 12,199 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 12,199 0.03

 Outstanding Natural Area 6,090 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6,090 0.02

 Wild/Scenic/Recreation River 0 0.00 33,479 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 33,479 0.09

 Other BLM 0 0.00 0 0.00 3,249,591 8.54 0 0.00 3,249,591 8.54

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Total) (24,906) (0.07) (314,369) (0.83) (18,439) (0.05) (0) (0.00) (357,714) (0.94)

 National Wildlife Refuge 7,429 0.02 250,828 0.66 0 0.00 0 0.00 258,257 0.68

 Research Natural Area (RNA) 3,866 0.01 380 <0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 4,246 0.01

 Wilderness 13,610 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13,610 0.04

 Proposed Wilderness 0 0.00 62,979 0.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 62,979 0.17

 Public Use Natural Area 0 0.00 182 <0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 182 <0.01

 Other FWS 0 0.00 0 0.00 18,439 0.05 0 0.00 18,439 0.05

National Park Service (Total) (453,342) (1.19) (14,435) (0.04) (67) (<0.01) (0) (0.00) (467,844) (1.23)

 National Historic Site/Monument 585 <0.01 86 <0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 671 <0.01

 National Park 452,757 1.19 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 452,757 1.19

 National Recreation Area 0 0.00 11,581 0.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 11,581 0.03

 Wild/Scenic River 0 0.00 2,768 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 2,768 0.01

 Other NPS 0 0.00 0 0.00 67 <0.01 0 0.00 67 <0.01

U.S. Forest Service (Total) (1,374,329) (3.61) (331,173) (0.87) (5,098,939) (13.39) (0) (0.00) (6,804,442) (17.87)

 Research Natural or Special Interest Area 26,193 0.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 26,193 0.07

 Proposed RNA/SIA 0 0.00 18,142 0.05 0 0.00 0 0.00 18,142 0.05

 Wilderness 1,348,136 3.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1,348,136 3.54

 Wilderness Study Area 0 0.00 304,998 0.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 304,998 0.80

 Wild/Scenic River 0 0.00 8,033 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 8,033 0.02

 Other FS 0 0.00 0 .00 5,098,939 13.39 0 0.00 5,098,939 13.39

USDA Agricultural Research Station 0 0.00 0 0.00 29,147 0.08 0 0.00 29,147 0.08

Department of Defense 0 0.00 0 0.00 3,661 0.01 0 0.00 3,661 0.01

Bureau of Reclamation 0 0.00 0 0.00 180 <0.01 0 0.00 180 <0.01

Total Federal Lands 1,865,674 4.90 737,081 1.94 8,400,024 22.06 0 0.00 11,002,780 28.90

80
Table 4.4 continued. Area and percent (%) of land stewardship categories by management status in Montana. Some categories, generally those assigned Status

3, have been combined into “other” categories. Miscellaneous includes water (Status 5, not reported, but 1.07% of total area) and unknown (Status 4).

Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4 Total

Land Stewardship Category ha % ha % ha % ha % ha %

Native American Lands 

 Tribal Wilderness/Buffer Zone 36,832 0.10 5,220 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 42,052 0.11

 Primitive Area 34,850 0.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 34,850 0.09

 Other Native American 0 0.00 693 <0.01 2,043,235 5.37 0 0.00 2,043,928 5.37

Total Native American Lands 71,683 0.19 5,913 0.02 2,043,235 5.37 0 0.00 2,120,830 5.57

State of Montana (Total) (0) (0.00) (89,835) (0.24) (2,125,975) (5.58) (0) (0.00) (2,215,810) (5.82)

 State Parks and Recreation Area 0 0.00 0 0.00 7,053 0.02 0 0.00 7,053 0.02

 State Wildlife Preserve 0 0.00 0 0.00 227 <0.01 0 0.00 227 <0.01

 Wildlife Management Area/Game Range 0 0.00 80,904 0.21 2 <0.01 0 0.00 80,906 0.21

 Primitive State Park 0 0.00 3,459 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 3,459 0.01

 Wild/Scenic River 0 0.00 3,892 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 3,892 0.01

 Other State 0 0.00 1,580 <0.01 2,118,693 5.57 0 0.00 2,120,273 5.57

Local Government Lands 0 0.00 0 0.00 4,476 0.01 62 <0.01 4,538 0.01

Total State & Local Lands 0 0.00 89,835 0.24 2,130,451 5.59 62 <0.01 2,220,348 5.83

Private

 The Nature Conservancy 6,178 0.02 69,743 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 75,921 0.20 

 Other Land Trust Preserves/Easements 0 0.00 60,094 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 60,094 0.16

 Corporate Timber 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 549,070 1.44 549,070 1.44

 Other Private 0 0.00 0 0.00 16 <0.01 21,639,900 56.82 21,640,006 56.82

Total Private Lands 6,178 0.02 129,837 0.34 16 <0.01 22,188,970 58.27 22,325,001 58.62

Miscellaneous (Water & Unknown) 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4,957 0.01 412,939 1.08

Total 1,943,535 5.10 962,666 2.53 12,573,726 33.02 22,193,989 58.28 38,081,898 100.00

 

81
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 4.5. Area (ha) and percent of seven elevation ranges (m) by management status categories. 

Water, assigned status 5, is not reported but accounts for 1.07% of the total land coverage.

______________________________________________________________________________

Status 1 & 2 Status 3 & 4 Total

Elevation (m) (ha) % (ha) % (ha)

300-815 273,831 0.72 5,434,280 14.27 5,883,309

815-1330 272,301 0.72 18,539,938 48.68 19,000,204

1330-1845 718,989 1.89 6,782,426 17.81 7,524,578

1845-2360 990,715 2.60 3,216,963 8.45 4,224,692

2360-2875 490,810 1.29 761,333 2.00 1,254,899

2875-3390 148,284 0.39 32,776 0.09 182,945

3390-3900 11,267 0.03 NA NA 11,271

Total 2,906,200 7.63 34,767,717 91.30 37,673,916

mountainous and forested compared to the plains of eastern Montana. The Charles M. Russell

National Wildlife Refuge, a large area along the Missouri River in the east-central part of the state,

is a noteworthy exception. In general, Status 1 and 2 lands are comprised of Wilderness Areas, 

National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and other areas under federal, state, or private

management, such as The Nature Conservancy (Table 4.4). Most Status 1 and 2 lands occur

above elevations of 1330 meters in the state; conversely, nearly 80% of Status 3 and 4 lands occur

below 1330 meters (Table 4.5). 

Approximately 33% of the land area in Montana (12,573,726 ha) is in the Status 3 management

class. These lands are administered by federal and state agencies, as well as by seven reservations

representing 11 American Indian tribes (Table 4.4; Figure 4.2). The remaining 58% of the state

(22,193,989 ha) is under private ownership with no legally designated management status (Table

4.4). Though widely distributed, these private lands are more prevalent in the central and eastern

portions of the state (Figure 4.1) where the terrain is flatter and better suited to agricultural land

uses, including ranching.

82

Limitations and Discussion

The stewardship layer is a compilation of ownership maps provided by a variety of sources. It

was created solely for the purpose of conducting the analyses described in this report, and it is not

suitable for locating boundaries on the ground or determining precise area measurements of

individual tracts. Our ability to check for errors was limited to overlaying the land cover with the

stewardship layer and looking for anomalies (e.g., urban or agricultural cover types associated

with Status 1 or 2 lands). We made several drafts of the statewide stewardship layer available to

people willing to review it and provide feedback. All errors and inconsistencies were resolved and

corrected at the University of Montana.

Patterns of land ownership and management are by nature highly dynamic; land tracts are regularly

changing from one owner to another, and management plans are undergoing periodic revision. 

Thus, the land stewardship layer developed by MT-GAP should be regarded as a snapshot in time,

only as accurate as the information used to create it. If some piece of digital information entering

the layer was based on a map that has not been updated for several years, any change that occurred

between the production of that map and the present time will not appear. This is the case with the

BLM base layer: tiles date from various years, with some of the maps prepared in the 1970s and

possibly not revised since then. 

In addition to inaccuracies resulting from temporal changes, the layer may not be free of coding or

labeling errors. These already may have been present in the source data, or they may have

occurred during the process of appending files. We corrected all labeling errors in the source files

that we were aware of (for example, by recoding water in the BLM tiles), and we tried hard to

avoid introducing any new errors; nonetheless, there still may be a few mislabeled polygons not

attributable to temporal changes in ownership or management.

Combining data at different scales and from various origins is another potential source of error. 

The match between the BLM base layer and the digital data added to it was seldom perfect, which

sometimes resulted in boundary conflicts. These were resolved as accurately as possible, but some

errors undoubtedly resulted from appending additional data sources, such as the creation of

additional land tracts (slivers). Also, adding a Conservation Easement or a Research Natural Area

in the middle of a larger ownership polygon could have introduced error, because the absence of a

shared border made it impossible to check the positional accuracy of the newly added polygon. 

Most data that were added to the BLM base map were at a scale equal to or finer than the 1:100,000

source scale, but some polygons (e.g., Proposed Wilderness Areas from the Forest Service

Management Plans) were mapped at a coarser scale (1:126,720 scale), lowering the overall map

accuracy. Nonetheless, these polygons were relatively few, and their value to the final

stewardship layer made their inclusion necessary.

Finally, some information about land management is simply missing from the stewardship layer in

its current form. For example, BLM would not release the location of nine cultural and

archeological ACECs in the Big Dry Resource Area (2-8,000 ha) because of their sensitive nature. 

Other data do not exist in a digital form (e.g., BLM Proposed Wilderness Areas). We also chose

not to include National Forest Management Areas in the coverage for the following reasons: 1) the

source scale and quality of the digital files varied considerably among the 10 National Forests in

the state (e.g., raster data that had been vectorized and generalized); 2) Management Area

definitions varied widely among the forests, making it difficult to maintain objectivity and

consistency when determining management status; and 3) all the Forest Plans are currently

undergoing 10-year revisions, such that both management area boundaries and definitions are

likely to change soon. An exception was made for Proposed, Recommended and Study

84
Wilderness Areas because their definition was consistent from one forest to another, their

boundaries are not likely to undergo important modifications, and they represent a substantial

amount of land area.

It is not the intent of MT-GAP to produce a land stewardship map that can be used as a legal

document, or that is sufficiently detailed and accurate to permit fine-scaled analyses of land

ownership patterns. The land stewardship layer is designed to be used at the landscape scale, to

identify general trends and highlight areas where land management may not be best for the

preservation of important pockets of biodiversity (the “gaps” in the protection network). Once

such areas are identified, finer scale analyses can be conducted.

Conclusions

Public lands consisting of federal and state ownership comprise approximately 35% of Montana. 

Most federal lands in the western half of the state are owned and managed by the Forest Service

and the National Park Service, whereas most federal lands in the eastern portion of the state are

owned and managed by the BLM. Status 1 and 2 lands occupy less than 10% of the state and are

generally found at higher elevations. Status 3 and 4 lands occur over greater than 90% of the state;

well over half are in private holdings.

85
5. ANALYSIS BASED ON STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT STATUS

Introduction

As described in the general introduction to this report (Chapter 1), the primary objective of GAP is

to provide information about the distribution and status of several elements of biological diversity. 

This is accomplished by producing three general map layers: 1) land cover (see Chapter 2), 2)

predicted distributions for selected animal species (see Chapter 3), and 3) land stewardship and

management status (see Chapter 4). Intersecting the land stewardship and management map layer

with the distribution of land cover and animal species elements allows one to determine the total

area (and proportion) of each element in the different land stewardship and management categories.

The data are provided below in tables and figures which illustrate the representation of each

element in different land stewardship and management categories. The accompanying digital data

allow users to make additional queries to suit their own interests or objectives. This forms the

basis of GAP’s mission to provide land owners and managers with the information necessary to

conduct informed policy development, planning, and management for the long-term maintenance

of biodiversity.

Although GAP "seeks to identify habitat types and species not adequately represented in the current

network of biodiversity management areas" (Scott and Jennings 1994), it is unrealistic to create a

standard definition of "adequate representation" for either land cover types or individual plant or

animal species (Noss et al. 1995). A practical solution to this problem is to report both percentages

and absolute areas of each land cover type in managed areas (as described above) and allow the

user to determine which types are adequately represented in areas under active management. 

Clearly, opinions will differ among users, but this is an issue of policy, not scientific analysis. 

Thus said, we provide a breakdown along three levels of representation (10%, 20%, and 50%) that

have been recommended in the literature (Odum and Odum 1972, Specht et al. 1974, Ride 1975,

Noss 1991, Miller 1994, Noss and Cooperrider 1994). 

The network of Conservation Data Centers (CDCs) and Natural Heritage Programs (NHPs)

established cooperatively by The Nature Conservancy and various state agencies maintain detailed

databases on the locations of rare elements of biodiversity. GAP may use these data to develop

predicted distributions of potentially suitable habitat for these elements, which in turn may be

valuable for identifying future research needs and preliminary considerations for restoration or

reintroduction. Conservation of such rare elements, however, is best accomplished through the

fine-filter approach of the above organizations. It is not the role of GAP to duplicate or

disseminate Heritage Program or CDC Element Occurrence Records. Users interested in more

specific information about the location, status, and ecology of populations of such species are

directed to their state Heritage Program or CDC. 

Currently, land cover types and terrestrial vertebrates are the primary mapping focus of GAP;

however, other components of biodiversity, such as aquatic organisms, or selected groups of

invertebrates, may be incorporated into future distributional data sets. Where appropriate, GAP

data also may be analyzed to identify the location of a set of areas in which most or all land cover

types or species are predicted to be represented. The use of “complementarity” analysis, that is, an

approach that additively identifies a selection of locations that may represent biodiversity rather

than “hot spots of species richness” may prove most effective for guiding biodiversity maintenance

efforts. Several quantitative techniques have been developed recently that facilitate this process

(see Pressey et al. 1993, Williams et al. 1996, Csuti et al. 1997, for details). These areas become

86
candidates for field validation and may be incorporated into a system of areas managed for the

long-term maintenance of biological diversity. 

For MT-GAP, information on the current management status of 50 land cover types and 425

terrestrial vertebrates was derived by intersecting GIS layers of land cover type (see Chapter 2) and

predicted vertebrate distributions (see Chapter 3) with land stewardship and management (see

Chapter 4). Highlights, along with summary tables of these results, are discussed below, and

more detailed summaries are presented in Appendices 5.1 and 5.2. Management implications of

these findings are discussed in Chapter 6. 

Analysis of Land Cover

Land Cover and Land Stewardship

Forest Types 

Forest cover types comprise nearly 25% (9,466,397 ha) of the state; 64% of these lands

(6,018,566 ha) are managed by federal agencies, 27% (2,570,294 ha) are privately held, and the

remaining 9% are managed by Indian tribes (5.3%; 504,295 ha) and state agencies (3.7%; 351,133

ha) (Table 5.1). Given the general pattern of land ownership and stewardship in Montana (Figure

4.1), substantial portions of the lower elevation forest cover types are found on private lands; in

fact, more than half of the following four forest types in the state occur on private lands: Mixed

Broadleaf, Ponderosa Pine, Rocky Mountain Juniper, and Broadleaf Riparian (Figure 5.1 and

Table 5.1). Indian tribes also tend to manage relatively high proportions of lower elevation forest

types, such as Utah Juniper, Very Low Cover Forest, and Broadleaf Riparian Forest (Table 5.1). 

Management authority for higher elevation forest types usually resides with federal agencies (Table

5.1).

Shrub and Grass Types 

More than half of each shrub type, with the exception of Salt-desert Shrub/Dry Salt Flats, occurs

on private lands (Table 5.1). Salt-desert Shrub/Dry Salt Flats are restricted to the eastern portion

of the state, where they tend to occur on lands administered by the BLM. Grass types also are

found predominately on private land, except for both the Montane Parkland and Alpine Meadow

types. Montane Parklands and especially Alpine Meadows occur at higher elevations which tend to

be managed by federal agencies (Table 5.1). 

Unvegetated Types 

Rock and Snow, again cover types typically found at high elevations, are mostly under the

jurisdiction of federal agencies. Badlands are evenly divided among federal and private

ownership. The Missouri Breaks type, however, was defined to distinguish an unusual cover type

(separate from Rock) along the Missouri River. This area is mostly under the federal jurisdiction

of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the BLM (Figure 4.1). A very small

percentage (0.08%) of the land cover layer was classified as cloud and cloud shadow (Table 5.1),

meaning that land cover data were not available for those areas.

87
Table 5.1. Area and percent land cover within major land stewardship categories. The ‘Other’ category includes

water which is not under any specific jurisdictions and ‘Unknown’ which is discussed in Chapter 4. 

Federal Native State Private Other Total

Cover Types ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % ha

Forest Types (Total) (6,018,566) (504,295) (351,133) (2,570,294) (22,109) (9,466,397)

Very Low Cover Forest 70,495 24.63 67,765 23.68 11,801 4.12 135,828 47.46 298 0.11 286,188

Mixed Broadleaf Forest 68,201 19.08 47,723 13.35 15,541 4.35 222,524 62.24 3,550 0.99 357,540

Lodgepole Pine 1,085,645 84.41 30,415 2.36 24,423 1.90 144,955 11.27 718 0.06 1,286,157

Limber Pine 54,123 44.96 8,795 7.31 9,283 7.71 47,951 39.84 220 0.18 120,372

Ponderosa Pine 293,733 27.55 89,566 8.40 55,000 5.16 625,680 58.69 2,152 0.20 1,066,130

Grand Fir 14,761 67.04 1,733 7.87 1,533 6.96 3,983 18.09 9 0.04 22,017

Western Red Cedar 29,874 82.21 518 1.42 1,708 4.70 4,210 11.58 30 0.08 36,339

Western Hemlock 19,459 92.92 28 0.13 235 1.12 1,159 5.54 61 0.29 20,941

Douglas-fir 843,104 63.39 52,488 3.95 60,192 4.53 372,005 27.97 2,206 0.17 1,329,994

Rocky Mtn Juniper 30,027 37.36 1,405 1.75 4,751 5.91 44,037 54.79 160 0.20 80,380

Western Larch 73,211 80.95 3,711 4.10 2,501 2.77 10,962 12.12 53 0.06 90,437

Utah Juniper 6,356 42.82 4,785 32.24 388 2.61 3,296 22.20 18 0.12 14,843

Douglas-fir/Lodgepole 351,415 77.86 8,930 1.98 14,154 3.14 76,645 16.98 187 0.04 451,332

Mixed Whitebark Pine 373,201 94.64 6,300 1.60 4,086 1.04 10,161 2.58 592 0.15 394,340

Mixed Subalpine Forest 1,421,254 89.81 43,233 2.73 29,665 1.87 87,841 5.55 618 0.04 1,582,611

Mixed Mesic Forest 812,087 66.17 74,511 6.07 63,046 5.14 276,669 22.54 995 0.08 1,227,310

Mixed Xeric Forest 236,577 43.64 26,405 4.87 29,098 5.37 248,522 45.85 1,447 0.27 542,050

Broadleaf/Conifer Mix 44,743 44.81 10,682 10.70 4,233 4.24 39,930 39.99 256 0.26 99,844

Standing Burnt Forest 124,258 89.23 770 0.55 4,624 3.32 9,569 6.87 41 0.03 139,262

Conifer Riparian 35,966 42.31 3,385 3.98 4,112 4.84 39,500 46.47 2,042 2.40 85,005

Broadleaf Riparian 16,143 8.14 18,330 9.24 9,104 4.59 148,775 75.00 6,020 3.04 198,372

Mixed Tree Riparian 13,933 39.89 2,817 8.06 1,655 4.74 16,092 46.07 436 1.25 34,933

Shrub Types (Total) (1,595,181) (295,857) (386,633) (3,519,624) (20,879) (5,818,172)

Mesic Shrub 267,223 28.13 85,314 8.98 39,424 4.15 556,217 58.56 1,695 0.18 949,873

Xeric Shrub 279,442 22.76 47,100 3.84 77,432 6.31 820,968 66.86 2,910 0.24 1,227,852

Silver Sage 27,143 37.01 1,670 2.28 4,393 5.99 39,628 54.04 501 0.68 73,335

Salt Shrub/Flats 72,113 54.99 1,381 1.05 6,840 5.22 49,813 37.98 995 0.76 131,141

Sagebrush 725,208 33.80 68,740 3.20 183,730 8.56 1,161,387 54.13 6,510 0.30 2,145,574

Mesic Shrub/Grassland 30,878 11.03 42,382 15.13 15,778 5.63 190,863 68.15 175 0.06 280,075

Xeric Shrub/Grassland 139,967 26.71 7,053 1.35 36,095 6.89 340,110 64.90 837 0.16 524,062

Riparian Shrublands 38,442 10.57 32,578 8.96 16,921 4.65 269,817 74.21 5,838 1.61 363,596

Shrub/Herb Riparian 14,765 12.04 9,639 7.86 6,020 4.91 90,821 74.04 1,418 1.16 122,662

Grass Types (Total) (2,428,082) (1,033,630) (1,177,924) (10,392,865) (36,372) (15,068,872)

Altered Herbaceous 82,014 8.08 52,148 5.14 70,367 6.93 806,728 79.49 3,690 0.36 1,014,946

Very Low-Low Cover 216,984 19.65 45,332 4.10 96,776 8.76 743,222 67.30 2,048 0.18 1,104,361

Low-Moderate Cover 1,493,902 14.33 736,757 7.07 875,133 8.39 7,305,777 70.06 15,895 0.15 10,427,465

Moderate-High Cover 145,559 11.77 126,227 10.21 73,439 5.94 887,675 71.78 3,759 0.30 1,236,660

Montane Parkland 386,135 73.11 10,110 1.91 23,447 4.44 108,350 20.51 160 0.03 528,201

Alpine Meadow 52,997 96.95 43 0.08 113 0.21 1,462 2.68 49 0.09 54,664

Herbaceous Riparian 50,491 7.19 63,013 8.97 38,649 5.50 539,651 76.81 10,771 1.53 702,575

Unvegetated (Total) (895,686) (33,023) (72,139) (620,009) (13,117) (1,633,974)

Rock 445,590 75.39 12,409 2.10 11,164 1.89 117,355 19.86 4,549 0.77 591,068

Snow 24,984 92.27 1,656 6.12 0 0.00 204 0.75 233 0.86 27,077

Badlands 279,894 37.34 11,973 1.60 48,589 6.48 404,160 53.92 4,986 0.67 749,602

Missouri Breaks 57,739 83.47 30 0.04 3,478 5.03 6,329 9.15 1,600 2.31 69,176

Mixed Barren 87,479 44.40 6,955 3.53 8,908 4.52 91,961 46.67 1,749 0.89 197,051

Anthropogenic/Water (65,268) (254,025) (232,517) (5,222,210) (320,462) (6,094,484)

Dry Agriculture 23,415 0.65 160,909 4.43 159,299 4.39 3,284,755 90.42 4,233 0.12 3,632,612

Irrigated Agriculture 6,248 0.32 85,211 4.35 63,448 3.24 1,797,030 91.81 5,357 0.27 1,957,295

Water 17,792 4.47 7,001 1.76 5,941 1.49 57,320 14.39 310,351 77.90 398,406

Mines 2,142 17.96 16 0.14 881 7.39 8,857 74.30 25 0.21 11,922

Urban 1,672 2.62 888 1.39 1,452 2.28 59,297 93.04 424 0.67 63,733

Cloud 7,487 41.20 0 0.00 1,013 5.58 9,611 52.89 61 0.33 18,172

Cloud Shadow 6,512 52.75 0 0.00 483 3.91 5,340 43.25 11 0.09 12,345

Total 11,002,783 2,120,830 2,220,346 22,325,002 412,939 38,081,898

88
Land Cover and Management Status

Figures 5.1 and 5.2 graphically illustrate the proportions of each forest, grass, and shrub cover

type assigned each management status code, and Table 5.2 provides summary amounts for all

cover types by management status. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 present elevation ranges for cover types in

relation to management status 1 and 2. Along with the following summary, these highlight

observed trends and offer insight on general conditions throughout the state.

Land Cover with <10% Representation in Status 1 and 2 

A majority of the land cover types mapped for Montana (29 of 50 types) have less than 10% of

their areas managed under Status 1 or 2 (Table 5.2). 

Forest Types -- Three forest types, Very Low Cover Forest (typically ponderosa pine, juniper, and

limber pine savannahs), Ponderosa Pine, and Rocky Mountain Juniper are low-elevation, xeric

forest cover types that often come under heavy pressure from human developments. Ponderosa

Pine in particular, which has been reduced due to harvest and fire suppression practices (Habeck

1988, 1990; Gruell et al. 1982), could be a target for additional conservation. Mixed Broadleaf is

a combination of aspen, green ash, and other deciduous trees or shrubs that typically occurs in

small patches that were sometimes difficult to map. This cover type also may represent riparian

species that fall outside of our riparian buffer zone. Nonetheless, wildlife biologists are often

concerned about species associated with plants comprising this cover type; consequently, the cover

type could be considered for additional management and protection.

Finally, three mesic forest types (Grand Fir, Western Red Cedar, and Western Hemlock) each

comprise very small portions of the state (< 1%) and have less than 10% of their area managed as

Status 1 or 2. These are mid-elevation cover types found in northwestern Montana where maritime

climatic conditions prevail (Pfister et al. 1977). Between 67% and 93% of these types are federally

owned and mostly under Status 3. Due to their moderate elevation, they are subject to forest

management practices which may compromise their future conservation status. 

Shrub and Grass Types -- With the exception of Silver Sage, less than 10% of the area of the

remaining eight shrub types are managed under Status 1 and 2 in Montana. The large areal

distribution of most of these types somewhat mitigates their priority for conservation (Table 5.2). 

Sagebrush, other xeric shrub species and shrub/grass complexes are well distributed across the

mid-to-eastern portion of the state. Nonetheless, sod-busting constitutes an ongoing threat to

native rangeland vegetation on both public and private lands, as does overgrazing, albeit to a lesser

extent. Riparian shrub types, also widely distributed but in much smaller amounts in the eastern

drainages and woody draws, are often subject to heavy grazing and abuse. As mentioned above,

riparian cover types are of ecological importance due to the richness of species often present

therein. Like the shrub types, most grass types, with the exception of high elevation ones

previously mentioned, fall into Status 3 or 4 management; but they are generally so well distributed

and abundant that special conservational concern may not be warranted. 

Unvegetated Types -- Badlands is the only nonvegetated cover type with less than 10%

representation in Status 1 and 2 (Table 5.2). This type is a unique geologic type found almost

exclusively on private land in eastern Montana (Table 5.1). A regional assessment, however,

might indicate that this type is better protected in the western Dakotas than in Montana.

More details about the total area of each cover type mapped, as well as the amount of each type’s

total distribution in each management status category can be found in Appendix 5.1.

89
Mixed Tree Riparian

Broadleaf Riparian

Conifer Riparian

Standing Burnt

Broadleaf/Conifer Mix

Mixed Xeric 

Mixed Mesic

Mixed Subalpine

Mixed Whitebark 

Douglas-fir/Lodgepole

Utah Juniper

Western Larch

Rocky Mountain Juniper

Douglas-fir

Western Hemlock

Western Red Cedar

Grand Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Limber Pine

Lodgepole Pine

Mixed Broadleaf

Very Low Cover

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Management Status

Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

Figure 5.1. Percentage of each forest cover type in management

status 1, 2, 3, and 4. Some types do not sum to 100% because they

overlap with water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, which

were not assigned one of these status codes.

90
 

Herbaceous Riparian

Alpine Meadows

Montane Parkland

Medium - High Cover

Low - Medium Cover

Very Low - Low Cover

Altered Herbaceous

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Management Status

Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

Mesic Shrub

Xeric Shrub

Silver Sage

Salt Flats

Sagebrush

Mesic Shrub/Grassland

Xeric Shrub/Grassland

Riparian Shrublands

Mixed Shrub/Herb Riparian

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Management Status

Figure 5.2. Percentage of each grass (A) and shrub (B) cover type in management

status 1, 2, 3, and 4. Some types do not sum to 100% because they overlap with

water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, which were not assigned one of these

status codes.

A.

B.

91
Table 5.2. Area (ha) and percent of each land cover type by management status. Management status definitions and accuracy of these

numbers are discussed in chapter 4. *Discrepancies in row totals exist because Status 5, water, is counted in totals but not reported in its own

column. Cloud and cloud shadow also are not reported. See Appendix 5.1 for more detailed information.

Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4 Status 1& 2 Total*

Cover Types ha % ha % ha % ha % ha % ha

Forest Types

Very Low Cover Forest 722 0.25 4,781 1.67 145,192 50.73 135,207 47.25 5,503 1.92 286,188

Mixed Broadleaf Forest 15,103 4.22 8,486 2.37 110,593 30.93 220,078 61.55 23,590 6.60 357,540

Lodgepole Pineb 239,615 18.63 62,432 4.86 841,230 65.41 142,161 11.05 302,047 23.49 1,286,157

Limber Pine 14,527 12.07 6,430 5.34 53,342 44.31 45,877 38.11 20,956 17.41 120,372

Ponderosa Pineb 5,962 0.56 37,341 3.50 399,635 37.48 621,050 58.25 43,303 4.06 1,066,130

Grand Fir c 1,235 5.61 470 2.13 16,330 74.17 3,974 18.05 1,705 7.74 22,017

Western Red Cedarc 535 1.47 793 2.18 30,772 84.68 4,210 11.58 1,328 3.65 36,339

Western Hemlockc 1,034 4.94 642 3.07 18,045 86.17 1,159 5.54 1,676 8.00 20,941

Douglas-firb 112,518 8.46 48,883 3.68 802,212 60.32 364,206 27.38 161,401 12.14 1,329,994

Rocky Mtn Juniper 279 0.35 5,251 6.53 30,807 38.33 43,883 54.59 5,531 6.88 80,380

Western Larch 12,971 14.34 1,755 1.94 64,736 71.58 10,922 12.08 14,727 16.28 90,437

Utah Juniper c 11 0.08 2,603 17.53 8,954 60.32 3,258 21.95 2,614 17.61 14,843

Douglas-fir/Lodgepole 65,369 14.48 21,315 4.72 289,025 64.04 75,436 16.71 86,684 19.21 451,332

Mixed Whitebark Pinea 173,835 44.08 27,362 6.94 182,490 46.28 10,062 2.55 201,197 51.02 394,340

Mixed Subalpine Forestb 421,509 26.64 83,306 5.26 991,523 62.65 85,656 5.41 504,815 31.90 1,582,611

Mixed Mesic Forestb 156,441 12.75 36,185 2.95 758,430 61.80 275,258 22.43 192,626 15.69 1,227,310

Mixed Xeric Forest 18,819 3.47 29,786 5.50 248,319 45.81 243,693 44.96 48,605 8.97 542,050

Broadleaf/Conifer Mix 4,409 4.42 1,999 2.00 53,627 53.71 39,560 39.62 6,408 6.42 99,844

Standing Burnt Foresta 80,725 57.97 9,988 7.17 38,941 27.96 9,567 6.87 90,714 65.14 139,262

Conifer Riparian 7,394 8.70 3,759 4.42 32,922 38.73 38,919 45.78 11,153 13.12 85,005

Broadleaf Riparian 1,752 0.89 4,014 2.02 39,083 19.70 148,407 74.81 5,766 2.91 198,372

Mixed Tree Riparianc 3,015 8.63 1,046 2.99 14,560 41.68 15,881 45.46 4,061 11.62 34,933

Shrub Types

Mesic Shrubb 62,545 6.59 23,306 2.45 310,072 32.64 552,379 58.15 85,851 9.04 949,873

Xeric Shrub 2,643 0.22 54,891 4.47 347,310 28.29 820,115 66.79 57,534 4.69 1,227,852

Silver Sage 218 0.30 7,640 10.42 25,364 34.59 39,615 54.02 7,858 10.72 73,335

Salt Shrub/Flats 111 0.09 4,981 3.80 75,332 57.44 49,723 37.92 5,092 3.88 131,141

Sagebrushb 18,023 0.84 62,100 2.89 905,847 42.22 1,153,093 53.74 80,124 3.73 2,145,574

Mesic Shrub/Grassland 67 0.02 1,711 0.61 88,466 31.59 189,668 67.72 1,778 0.64 280,075

Xeric Shrub/Grassland 447 0.09 16,675 3.18 166,806 31.83 339,297 64.74 17,123 3.27 524,062

Riparian Shrublands 6,669 1.83 5,620 1.54 77,893 21.42 267,958 73.70 12,289 3.38 363,596

Shrub/Herb Riparian 3,389 2.76 2,385 1.94 25,874 21.09 89,605 73.05 5,774 4.71 122,662

Grass Types

Altered Herbaceousb 1,967 0.19 15,367 1.51 188,990 18.62 805,234 79.34 17,335 1.71 1,014,946

Very Low-Low Coverb 768 0.07 22,688 2.05 340,330 30.82 738,527 66.87 23,456 2.12 1,104,361

Low-Medium Coverb 34,520 0.33 148,696 1.43 2,980,214 28.58 7,248,326 69.51 183,216 1.76 10,427,465

Medium-High Coverb 4,217 0.34 29,618 2.40 317,739 25.69 881,389 71.27 33,835 2.74 1,236,660

Montane Parkland 104,204 19.73 27,232 5.16 291,378 55.16 105,227 19.92 131,436 24.89 528,201

Alpine Meadowa 34,036 62.26 6,565 12.01 12,552 22.96 1,462 2.68 40,601 74.27 54,664

Herbaceous Riparian 3,512 0.50 7,160 1.02 144,787 20.61 536,615 76.38 10,672 1.52 702,575

Unvegetated

Rocka 277,427 46.94 37,566 6.36 154,584 26.15 116,941 19.78 314,993 53.29 591,068

Snowac 24,741 91.38 181 0.67 1,717 6.34 204 0.75 24,922 92.04 27,077

Badlands 2,570 0.34 29,997 4.00 307,951 41.08 404,104 53.91 32,567 4.35 749,602

Missouri Breaksa 198 0.29 37,118 53.66 23,931 34.60 6,329 9.15 37,316 53.94 69,176

Mixed Barren 17,302 8.78 6,370 3.23 80,061 40.63 91,570 46.47 23,671 12.01 197,051

Anthropogenic/Water

Dry Agricultureb 1,187 0.03 3,885 0.11 341,008 9.39 3,282,901 90.37 5,071 0.14 3,632,612

Irrigated Agricultureb 207 0.01 5,109 0.26 153,144 7.82 1,794,723 91.69 5,317 0.27 1,957,295

Water 3,807 0.96 3,698 0.93 23,492 5.90 57,423 14.41 7,505 1.88 398,406

Mines 4 0.03 90 0.76 2,945 24.70 8,857 74.30 94 0.79 11,922

Urban 50 0.08 803 1.26 3,140 4.93 59,380 93.17 853 1.34 63,733

Total 1,942,609 960,079 12,561,695 22,179,088 2,902,693 38,051,381

a Land Cover Types with 50% of their land assigned Status 1 & 2.

b Land Cover Types with greater than 1,000,000 hectares (> 3% of the state).

c Land Cover Types with less than 50,000 hectares (< 0.1% of the state).

92
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percent in Status 1 and 2

Mean Elevation of Cover Type (m)

Figure 5.3. For 50 land cover types mapped across Montana,

percent of type in management status 1 and 2 in relation to mean

elevation (m) of the area occupied by that type.

Snow

Alpine Standing Meadows

Burnt

Mixed

Whitebark

Pine

Mixed Subalpine

Forest

Rock

Missouri

Breaks

Land Cover with 10% - 20% Representation in Status 1 and 2 

Between 10% and 20% of 10 different land cover types fall under Status 1 or 2 management (Table

5.2). The total land area for most of these types is relatively small (< 1% of the state), but for three

forest types (Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir/Lodgepole, and Mixed Mesic Forest), the proportion

exceeds 1%. These three forest types are well represented and widespread throughout the state;

they tend to be managed by federal agencies under Status 3 conditions. For this reason, their

continued viability is likely to depend on their commercial value. Douglas-fir has the highest

timber production value in the state (Green et al. 1985). Closed-canopy, coniferous forests have

declined by as much as 45% on public, non-wilderness lands in Oregon as a result of timber

harvesting practices (Spies et al. 1994). Similar findings have been reported for southeastern

Wyoming (Reed et al. 1996), and the same is probably true in Montana.

The other seven cover types, which each comprise less than 1% of the state’s total land cover, are:

Western Larch, Limber Pine, Utah Juniper, Conifer Riparian, Mixed Tree Riparian, Silver Sage,

and Mixed Barren. Western larch is a relatively uncommon forest type in the United States, and

according to Green et al. (1985), 44% of this forest is found in western Montana. Three other

forest types constitute very small portions of the state’s land cover (<1%): Utah Juniper, Limber

Pine, and Mixed Tree Riparian. Utah juniper and low elevation limber pine stands appear sparsely

throughout the eastern portion of Montana. Because these types are more common in the Great

Basin to the south, the need for greater management attention also may reside outside Montana. 

93
▲▲▲▲▲▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲ ▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000

Percent in Status 1 and 2

Area in Management Status 1 and 2 (ha)

Figure 5.4. For 50 land cover types mapped across Montana,

percent of type in management status 1 and 2 versus area of type in

management status 1 and 2.

Snow

Alpine Meadow

Standing Burnt Forest

Rock

Mixed Subalpine

Forest

Mixed

Whitebark

Missouri Breaks

Lodgepole Pine

Low-Medium Cover Grass

Mixed Mesic Forest

Douglas-fir

Montane Parkland

Douglas-fir/Lodgepole

In contrast to these more common types with limited distribution in Montana, riparian cover types

are relatively rare throughout the western U.S. The Mixed Tree and Conifer Riparian types both

fall within the 10% to 20% representation in Status 1 and 2 lands. Silver Sage, which has 10-20%

representation in Status 1 and 2 as well, could also be considered a riparian or intermittent draw

cover type found in eastern Montana. These particular cover types are moderately protected due to

their association with other forest types that also are moderately protected. Other riparian cover

types are less protected and will be discussed later. In general, riparian cover types are of great

importance for maintaining biological diversity, especially in arid environments, and their

conservation throughout the state should be a high priority (Minshall 1993). The popularity of

human settlements along riverine systems is demonstrated by the large proportion of riparian cover

types in private land ownership (Table 5.1). 

94
Land Cover with 20-50% Representation in Status 1 and 2 

Three land cover types have between 20% and 50% of their area under Status 1 or 2 management. 

These types, Lodgepole Pine, Mixed Subalpine Forest, and Montane Parkland, are found at middle

to high elevations, and they are managed primarily by federal agencies (Table 5.1). Lodgepole

Pine is one of the most abundant forest types in the state (Green et al. 1985) and spans a wide

elevational range. At higher elevations, lodgepole pine tends to mix with subalpine fir and spruce

into the Mixed Subalpine Forest type. Overall, these three cover types appear to be relatively well

protected in the state. Figure 5.4 shows that these cover types are not only relatively well protected

but also have a large percentage of their overall area within Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Land Cover with >50% Representation in Status 1 and 2 

Six land cover types have more than half of their land area under Status 1 or 2 management (Table

5.2): Rock, Snow, Alpine Meadow, Mixed Whitebark Pine, Standing Burnt Forest, and Missouri

Breaks. The first four types all occur at high elevations (Fig 5.3) which tend to be well protected

due to their inaccessibility and lack of potential for commercial or private development. In

addition, the overall area represented by these cover types is relatively small (Figure 5.4). The

Missouri Breaks type, as noted above, is a small yet unique feature of the landscape along the

Missouri River in central Montana. Standing Burnt Forest has a high proportion of area in the

Status 1 class (58%; Table 5.2), no doubt because wildfires are more likely to be allowed to burn

in designated Wilderness Areas than anywhere else in the state. Also, if ecosystem management

policies adopted by federal agencies call for increased burning, it remains to be seen whether Status

1 and 2 lands will bear a disproportionate burden, such that other land cover types begin to decline

within these reserves. Although these six land cover types appear to be well protected under

current management regimes in Montana, continued study may be justified for existing areas of

Standing Burnt Forest to determine whether different successional types develop (Arno 1980). 

Also, the Mixed Whitebark Pine cover type may warrant additional protection not only because of

its importance to grizzly bears and other wildlife dependent on its seed crop, but also because it is

highly susceptible to infection to white pine blister rust (Keane and Arno 1993).

Analysis of Predicted Distributions for Terrestrial Vertebrates

Appendix 5.2 provides the area (in hectares) of each species’ mapped distribution by land steward

and management status, and the amount of the species’ total distribution in each category. For

example, the entry for the Coeur d’Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) indicates that 61,575

ha of its predicted distribution (87,617 ha) occur on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. 

The entry also shows that 5.34% of its predicted distribution occurs on Status 1 and 2 lands. In

all, tables are provided for 425 terrestrial vertebrates; however, only the 414 native terrestrial

vertebrates are included in most discussions below.

Land Stewardship

In general, when trends were summarized by taxonomic group and major land steward, the

average percentage of species’ distributions occurring within a stewardship category corresponded

reasonably well with the total area managed by that steward (Table 5.3). However, averages

across all species suggested that slightly less habitat occurred on private lands than might be

expected based on the percentage of the state that is privately owned. On the other hand, more

habitat was captured by the miscellaneous category than might be expected; water bodies, which

were not assigned to stewardship categories, provide habitat for a number of birds. As a result,

95
stewardship and management status of these birds has not been well-assessed by this technique. 

Further examination of stewardship and management around these water bodies is warranted. 

Over half of the predicted habitat for amphibians and reptiles occurred on privately owned lands

(54.4% and 60.95% respectively). Reptiles especially tended to be concentrated in the eastern half

of the state, where a high proportion of land is under private ownership. Habitats for birds were

fairly equally distributed across the state and among stewards, except for the disproportionate

importance of water, as noted above. For mammals, habitats tended to be concentrated under

federal stewardship (40.55%). 

Interestingly, the nine exotic species that were modeled averaged 76.77% predicted habitat on

private lands (see Appendix 5.2). By far the majority of predicted habitat for the Idaho giant

salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica) occurred on federal lands,

mostly those under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. These amphibians have been

reported but not confirmed in the state; habitat predictions suggest that Forest Service lands would

be the best place to begin the search for these species.

Land Management Status

On average, a smaller percent of predicted habitat for amphibians (7.9%) and reptiles (4.4%)

occurs on Status 1 and 2 lands than that for either birds (10.3%) or mammals (12.6%). Of 414

native terrestrial vertebrates, 62.6% had 10% of their predicted distributions within lands

assigned management status 1 or 2 (Table 5.4, Figure 5.5). As a group, reptiles exhibited this

trend most sharply; only the rubber boa (Charina bottae) had more than 10% of its predicted

distribution within Status 1 and 2 lands (Table 5.5). Mammals, on the other hand, tended toward

the other end of the spectrum, with 44.1% having more than 10% of their predicted distribution in

Status 1 and 2 lands. One trend was consistent among taxonomic groups: species predicted to

occur at higher elevations appeared to be better protected (Figures 5.6, 5.7). 

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 5.3. For native terrestrial vertebrates in Montana, average percent of the total predicted

distribution (ha) of species within taxonomic groups by major categories of land stewardship. The

miscellaneous category is mostly comprised of water, but also includes a small area designated

“unknown” because of boundary conflicts. Percent state by land steward indicated in parentheses.

Taxonomic

Group

Average Percent Distribution by Land Stewardship

Number of

Species Federal 

(28.89)

Tribal 

(5.57)

State

(5.83)

Private

(58.60)

Miscellaneous

(1.08)

Amphibians 32.98 5.99 5.54 54.41 1.07 13

Reptiles 22.90 6.41 5.96 60.88 3.85 17

Birds 29.84 5.60 4.57 46.81 13.18 282

Mammals 40.55 4.91 5.81 48.09 0.63 102

All Species 32.29 5.47 4.96 47.95 9.32 414

96
<10 10-20 20-50 >50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% Taxonomic Group

% Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2 Lands

Amphibians (n = 13)

Reptiles (n = 17)

Birds (n = 282)

Mammals (n = 102)

Figure 5.5. Percent of predicted distribution in lands assigned

to management status 1 and 2 for native amphibians, reptiles,

birds, and mammals in Montana (n = 414).

______________________________________________________________________________

Table 5.4. Number and percent of native terrestrial vertebrate species according to the percentage

of their predicted distribution within lands assigned management status 1 and 2.

Taxonomic

Group

Percent Distribution in Status 1 and 2

Total

Number of

Species

 <1% 1-10% 10-20% 20-50% >50%

# % # % # % # % # %

Amphibians 0 0.0 9 69.2 3 23.1 1 7.7 0 0.0 13

Reptiles 2 11.8 14 82.4 1 5.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 17

Birds 8 2.8 169 59.9 65 23.0 36 12.8 4 1.4 282

Mammals 4 3.9 53 52.0 21 20.6 21 20.6 3 2.9 102

All Species 14 3.4 245 59.2 90 21.7 58 14.0 7 1.7 414

97
●

●●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●● ●● ●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●●

●

●

● ●●●

●

●

●

● ● ●

● ●

● ● ●●

● ●

●●●●

●

●

●●●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●● ●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●● ●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●●

●●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●●

● ●●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

●● ●●●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●●

●

●●● ● ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percent Habitat Protected (Status 1 & 2)

Mean Elevation of Habitat (m)

Figure 5.6. For native terrestrial vertebrates in Montana

(n = 414), percent of each species' habitat in management

status 1 and 2 in relation to its mean elevation (m).

Species with <10% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2

Out of 414 species, 259 (62.6%) had 10% of their predicted distributions within lands assigned

management status 1 and 2 (Table 5.4, Figure 5.5), including 9 amphibians, 16 reptiles, 177

birds, and 57 mammals (Table 5.5). Species using a wide range of habitats throughout the state

were found within this category, but some trends are evident. Many grassland species or species

restricted to eastern Montana had <10% of their distributions in Status 1 and 2 lands, such as the

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis), Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), Baird’s Sparrow

(Ammodramus bairdii), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), swift fox (Vulpes velox),

and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Reptiles in particular are concentrated in eastern

Montana (see Chapter 3); 16 of 17 reptiles had <10% in Status 1 and 2 lands.

Many species associated with water and riparian features also fell into this category, most notably

waterfowl and shorebirds associated with the prairie potholes in eastern Montana or with large

lakes and reservoirs. Note that protection of species associated with water is underestimated;

because jurisdiction of water bodies is complicated, water features in the stewardship layer were

not assigned one of the four status codes. Species that rely on water for a major part of their

habitat will be especially underestimated, and will need additional, individual consideration.

98
●

●●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

● ●

●

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percent Habitat Protected (Status 1 & 2)

Mean Elevation of Habitat (m)

● ● ●

●

●●

●

●

● ●●●

●

●

●

● ●

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percent Habitat Protected (Status 1 & 2)

Mean Elevation of Habitat (m)

A. Amphibians

B. Reptiles

Figure 5.7. Percent of species' habitat in management

status 1 and 2 in relation to its mean elevation (m) for: A.

amphibians, B. reptiles, C. birds, and D. mammals.

tailed frog

rubber boa

99
●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●● ●●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percent Habitat Protected (Status 1 & 2)

Mean Elevation of Habitat (m)

D. Mammals

●

● ●

● ● ●●

● ●

●●●●

●

●

●●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●● ●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●●

●●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ● ●

●

● ●

●●

● ●

●●

● ●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●●●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

● ● ●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

● ●

●

●

●●● ●●●● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●●●

●

●●● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Percent Habitat Protected (Status 1 & 2)

Mean Elevation of Habitat (m)

C. Birds

Figure 5.7 continued.

American bison

mountain goat

Uinta chipmunk

hoary marmot American

pika

Uinta ground

squirrel

mountain sheep

water vole

dwarf shrew

white-tailed ptarmigan

gray-crowned

rosy-finch

black rosy-finch

black-backed

woodpecker

boreal chickadee

American

pipit

white-crowned

alder flycatcher sparrow

black swift

100
Ten species had 1000 ha of their predicted distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands: spiny softshell

(Apalone spinifera), Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii), Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus

mexicanus), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus

colubris), Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammodramus nelsoni), Orchard Oriole (Icterus

spurius), northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and

hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus). For the most part, these species are restricted to the

eastern edges of the state, exceptions being the spiny softshell (major rivers in eastern Montana),

Clark’s Grebe (very large lakes and reservoirs throughout the state), and Black-necked Stilt

(wetland habitats in north-central and northeastern Montana). In Montana, all but the swift,

hummingbird, and oriole are species of special concern or watch species (Reichel 1997).

For six species, predicted distributions totaled <50,000 ha, including the aforementioned spiny

softshell, Black-necked Stilt, and Nelson’s Sharp-Tailed Sparrow, as well as the Horned Grebe

(Podiceps auritus), American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), and Yellow Rail

(Coturnicops noveboracensis). Not only do these species have <10% of their predicted

distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands, but their overall distributions are restricted. These species, as

well as those with <1000 ha in Status 1 and 2 lands, merit special attention. 

Species with 10-20% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2

Ninety species had 10-20% of their predicted distributions within Status 1 and 2 lands; most of

these were birds (65) and mammals (21) (Tables 5.4, 5.5). The three amphibians and lone reptile

in this category all are found in western Montana: long-toed salamander (Ambystoma

macrodactylum), western toad (Bufo boreas), Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), and

rubber boa (Charina bottae). Many of the species in this category are fairly common in the state,

such as the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Northern Saw-whet

Owl (Aegolius acadicus), Common Raven (Corvus corax), American Robin (Turdus

migratorius), common porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), black bear (Ursus americanus), and elk

(Cervus elaphus). Others, however, are more restricted in distribution, and may warrant more

attention than otherwise might be accorded to species with >10% of their predicted habitat in Status

1 and 2 management. Those with predicted distributions <50,000 ha include: Black-crowned

Night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi), Common Snipe

(Gallinago gallinago), Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri), and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila

caerulea). All except the Common Snipe are species of special concern in Montana (Reichel

1997). 

Species with 20-50% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2

Fifty-eight species had 20-50% of their predicted distributions in Status 1 and 2 lands, including a

single amphibian, 36 birds, and 21 mammals (Tables 5.4, 5.5). Of these, most were forest

dwellers, like the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis),

Townsend’s Warbler (Dendroica townsendi), and southern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys

gapperi). Some occurred at higher elevations, such as the Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus),

American pika (Ochotona princeps), and hoary marmot (Marmota caligata). Many of the

carnivores and ungulates that typically receive a great deal of management attention fell into this

category as well, including the gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), American

marten (Martes americana), fisher (Martes pennanti), wolverine (Gulo gulo), lynx (Lynx

canadensis), moose (Alces alces), and mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis). 

101
Three species had predicted distributions totaling <50,000 ha: Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus

buccinator), Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), and northern bog lemming (Synaptomys

borealis). Although the percentage of their distributions in Status 1 and 2 lands was relatively

high, their restricted nature warrants additional attention. All three are species of special concern

for Montana (Reichel 1997).

Species with >50% of Predicted Distribution in Status 1 and 2

Only 7 species were predicted to have more than 50% of their distributions within Status 1 and 2

lands (Tables 5.4, 5.5): White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus), Black-backed Woodpecker

(Picoides arcticus), Black Rosy-finch (Leucosticte atrata), Gray-crowned Rosy-finch (Leucosticte

tephrocotis), Uinta chipmunk (Tamias umbrinus), American bison (Bos bison), and mountain

goat (Oreamnos americanus). The ptarmigan, rosy-finches, chipmunk, and mountain goat all

occur at relatively high elevations, which explains in large part their high degree of protection

(Figure 5.7). Similarly, in Montana the Black-backed Woodpecker is closely associated with

recently-burned areas (Hutto 1995), which were largely mapped on Status 1 and 2 lands (about

65%, see Table 5.2). The bison is a special case. Because of the species’ closely monitored and

highly restricted distribution within the state (see review in Keiter 1997 and Bison Management

Plan EIS Team 1998), we limited its predicted distribution to the National Bison Range and

Yellowstone National Park. Thus, the tiny fraction of the bison’s distribution which is not on

Status 1 and 2 lands should be attributed only to mapping error in the overlay process.

Limitations and Discussion

When applying the results of our analyses, consideration of the following limitations is critical: 1)

the limitations described for each of the components of the analyses -- land cover, vertebrate

distributions, and stewardship; 2) spatial and thematic map accuracy of the components; and 3)

suitability of the results for the intended application (see Appropriate and Inappropriate Use in

Chapter 7). Problems with the input layers could lead to erroneous conclusions; however, the

quality of these layers should be more than adequate to assess general trends and highlight future

management opportunities. These are outlined in Chapter 6.

102
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals according

to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Great Plains Toad S3S4 watch list -- 251,277 17,566,226 1.43

Woodhouse's Toad S4 -- -- 353,729 16,748,262 2.11

Canadian Toad S1 special concern -- 6,489 293,396 2.21

Plains Spadefoot S4? -- -- 688,272 26,537,934 2.59

Northern Leopard Frog S3S4 special concern -- 245,151 6,208,384 3.95

Tiger Salamander S5 -- -- 1,352,019 28,708,594 4.71

Western Chorus Frog S5 -- -- 1,350,297 28,305,114 4.77

Coeur D'alene Salamander S2 special concern -- 4,676 87,617 5.34

Pacific Chorus Frog S4 -- -- 235,546 2,747,542 8.57

Columbia Spotted Frog S4 -- -- 459,214 3,220,802 14.26

Long-toed Salamander S5 -- -- 157,411 1,058,998 14.86

Western Toad S3S4 watch list -- 2,149,756 14,383,499 14.95

Tailed Frog S4 watch list -- 111,368 492,122 22.63

Spiny Softshell S3 special concern -- 428 45,450 0.94

Smooth Green Snake S2S3 special concern -- 2,351 237,290 0.99

Western Hognose Snake S3? special concern -- 355,447 19,836,672 1.79

Plains Garter Snake S5 -- -- 437,458 19,925,684 2.20

Short-horned Lizard S4 -- -- 422,518 17,966,952 2.35

Milk Snake S2 special concern -- 314,097 13,193,266 2.38

Racer S5 -- -- 675,713 25,938,428 2.61

Western Rattlesnake S4 -- -- 753,430 26,853,586 2.81

Pine Or Gopher Snake S5 -- -- 809,272 28,320,450 2.86

Sagebrush Lizard S3S4 watch list -- 358,244 12,434,258 2.88

Snapping Turtle S3 special concern -- 37,625 1,269,866 2.96

Painted Turtle S5 -- -- 101,273 3,277,610 3.09

Common Garter Snake S4 -- -- 1,365,654 20,600,474 6.63

Western Skink S3S4 watch list -- 93,684 1,373,427 6.82

Northern Alligator Lizard S3 -- -- 139,982 1,703,022 8.22

Western Terrestrial Garter Snake S5 -- -- 2,709,452 30,300,028 8.94

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

103
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Rubber Boa S4 -- -- 1,730,584 10,133,396 17.08

Rusty Blackbird SZN -- -- 9,599 3,643,830 0.26

Chimney Swift S4B,SUN -- -- 862 235,481 0.37

Cassin's Kingbird S1S3B,SZN special concern -- 5,161 1,220,336 0.42

Eastern Bluebird S4B,SZN -- -- 2,786 565,395 0.49

Black-and-white Warbler S2S3B,SZN watch list -- 1,076 175,444 0.61

Common Grackle S5B,SZN -- -- 45,370 6,455,150 0.70

Common Tern S3B,SZN special concern -- 1,314 181,650 0.72

Clark's Grebe S2S4B,SZN special concern -- 666 76,120 0.88

Baird's Sparrow S3S4B,SZN special concern -- 45,230 4,381,104 1.03

Caspian Tern S2B,SZN special concern -- 1,723 160,750 1.07

Orchard Oriole S2S4B,SZN -- -- 1,000 91,214 1.10

Mountain Plover S2B,SZN special concern C 11,097 875,932 1.27

Ruby-throated Hummingbird SAB,SAN -- -- 755 59,083 1.28

Swainson's Hawk S4B,SZN -- -- 283,631 22,010,240 1.29

Mccown's Longspur S4B,SZN -- -- 202,620 15,487,478 1.31

Chestnut-collared Longspur S5B,SZN -- -- 202,620 15,487,478 1.31

Lapland Longspur SZN -- -- 258,066 18,333,730 1.41

Snow Bunting S5N -- -- 289,331 19,036,324 1.52

Bobolink S4B,SZN -- -- 240,338 15,180,700 1.58

Gyrfalcon SZN -- -- 317,770 20,000,098 1.59

Grasshopper Sparrow S4B,SZN -- -- 251,285 15,598,712 1.61

Western Meadowlark S5B,SZN -- -- 366,114 22,261,588 1.64

Lark Bunting S4B,SZN -- -- 341,040 20,437,530 1.67

Ferruginous Hawk S3B,SZN special concern -- 257,351 15,365,144 1.68

Sprague's Pipit S4B,SZN -- -- 161,175 9,454,480 1.71

Short-eared Owl S4 -- -- 386,118 21,285,156 1.81

Red-necked Grebe S4B,SZN -- -- 2,696 148,500 1.82

Brewer's Blackbird S5B,SZN -- -- 176,444 9,632,509 1.83

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

104
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Red-winged Blackbird S5B,SZN -- -- 73,183 3,981,276 1.84

Barn Swallow S5B,SZN -- -- 370,385 20,078,894 1.85

Snowy Owl SZN -- -- 437,051 23,163,184 1.89

Brown Thrasher S5B,SZN -- -- 203,113 10,757,508 1.89

Barn Owl SAB,SAN watch list -- 22,108 1,119,782 1.97

Bullock’s Oriole S5B,SZN -- -- 37,299 1,885,589 1.98

Sharp-tailed Grouse S4 -- -- 459,089 23,180,070 1.98

Burrowing Owl S3B,SZN special concern -- 464,979 23,445,126 1.98

Vesper Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 418,805 20,733,112 2.02

Long-billed Curlew S4B,SZN -- -- 45,507 2,247,573 2.02

Hoary Redpoll SZN -- -- 136,816 6,581,250 2.08

Lark Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 520,743 24,658,534 2.11

Western Kingbird S5B,SZN -- -- 238,002 11,142,633 2.14

Red-breasted Merganser SZN -- -- 7,844 363,292 2.16

Western Grebe S4B,SZN -- -- 5,690 258,686 2.20

Rough-legged Hawk S5N -- -- 609,246 26,988,422 2.26

Whooping Crane SZN special concern LE 4,719 208,247 2.27

Eastern Kingbird S5B,SZN -- -- 155,417 6,715,343 2.31

American Crow S5B,SZN -- -- 595,363 25,722,576 2.31

Common Loon S1S2B,SZN special concern -- 4,763 204,369 2.33

Gray-cheeked Thrush SAN -- -- 5,604 239,352 2.34

Savannah Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 380,642 16,130,242 2.36

Common Redpoll S5N -- -- 251,744 10,492,070 2.40

Northern Pintail S5B,SZN -- -- 178,536 6,955,860 2.57

Northern Harrier S4B,SZN -- -- 684,171 26,577,332 2.57

Dickcissel S1S2B,SZN special concern -- 26,997 1,045,905 2.58

Merlin S4 -- -- 705,913 27,303,208 2.58

Least Tern S1B,SZN special concern LENL 2,680 103,742 2.58

American Tree Sparrow SZN -- -- 445,413 16,886,334 2.64

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

105
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow S1B,SZN special concern -- 974 36,545 2.66

American Goldfinch S5B,SZN -- -- 147,571 5,538,041 2.67

Loggerhead Shrike S4B,SZN watch list -- 292,360 10,795,456 2.71

Common Nighthawk S5B,SZN -- -- 744,293 27,241,728 2.73

Upland Sandpiper S4B,SZN -- -- 33,521 1,224,907 2.74

Black-billed Magpie S5 -- -- 325,367 11,830,856 2.75

Tundra Swan SZN -- -- 42,955 1,541,392 2.79

Clay-colored Sparrow S4B,SZN -- -- 523,531 18,574,880 2.82

Greater White-fronted Goose SZN -- -- 83,349 2,948,167 2.83

Black-necked Stilt S2B,SZN special concern -- 769 26,596 2.89

Eastern Screech-owl S3S4 watch list -- 15,230 514,275 2.96

Yellow-billed Cuckoo S3B,SZN special concern -- 15,414 503,819 3.06

Mourning Dove S5B,SZN -- -- 864,805 27,618,504 3.13

Red-tailed Hawk S5B,SZN -- -- 970,547 30,800,128 3.15

Marsh Wren S5B,SZN -- -- 18,066 548,268 3.29

Greater Scaup SAN -- -- 6,555 197,310 3.32

Northern Shrike S5N -- -- 383,946 11,439,243 3.36

Yellow-breasted Chat S5B,SZN -- -- 27,947 822,687 3.40

Blue Jay SAB,SZN -- -- 13,533 395,480 3.42

Marbled Godwit S4B,SZN -- -- 10,185 294,499 3.46

Brown-headed Cowbird S5B,SZN -- -- 1,165,668 33,224,056 3.51

Prairie Falcon S4 -- -- 782,221 22,220,534 3.52

House Finch S5 -- -- 293,618 8,327,064 3.53

Blackpoll Warbler SZN -- -- 20,201 540,787 3.74

Ovenbird S5B,SZN -- -- 24,439 651,345 3.75

Ross's Goose S4N -- -- 115,386 3,071,919 3.76

Bank Swallow S5B,SZN -- -- 38,022 1,007,969 3.77

Snow Goose S4N -- -- 116,993 3,097,657 3.78

Mallard S5B,S5N -- -- 71,518 1,893,305 3.78

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

106
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Double-crested Cormorant S5B,SZN -- -- 16,858 442,019 3.81

Sage Thrasher S5B,SZN -- -- 77,066 2,003,840 3.84

Ring-billed Gull S5B,SZN -- -- 7,761 199,495 3.89

Common Yellowthroat S5B,SZN -- -- 71,992 1,842,960 3.90

Indigo Bunting S2S4B,SZN -- -- 63,344 1,600,610 3.96

Field Sparrow S4B,SZN -- -- 149,199 3,769,823 3.96

Turkey Vulture S4B,SZN -- -- 846,316 21,351,170 3.96

American Kestrel S5B,SZN -- -- 1,200,692 30,216,780 3.97

Northern Rough-winged Swallow S5B,SZN -- -- 43,368 1,082,658 4.01

Eared Grebe S5B,SZN -- -- 4,131 103,074 4.01

Ring-necked Duck S5B,SZN -- -- 8,568 211,393 4.05

Brewer's Sparrow S4B,SZN -- -- 167,221 4,082,159 4.10

Say's Phoebe S5B,SZN -- -- 295,478 7,210,112 4.10

Ruddy Duck S5B,SZN -- -- 16,350 397,414 4.11

Killdeer S5B,SZN -- -- 89,117 2,149,169 4.15

Cliff Swallow S5B,SZN -- -- 289,765 6,983,431 4.15

Canvasback S5B,SZN -- -- 16,394 394,191 4.16

Sage Grouse S5 -- -- 190,415 4,534,810 4.20

Least Flycatcher S5B,SZN -- -- 36,103 842,523 4.29

Horned Lark S5B,S5N -- -- 374,080 8,709,608 4.30

American White Pelican S2B,SZN special concern -- 1,408 32,451 4.34

Lazuli Bunting S5B,SZN -- -- 361,535 8,012,091 4.51

Gadwall S5B,SZN -- -- 66,934 1,453,847 4.60

Mountain Bluebird S5B,SZN -- -- 607,711 13,159,052 4.62

Greater Yellowlegs SZN -- -- 13,383 287,339 4.66

Lesser Yellowlegs SZN -- -- 13,383 287,339 4.66

Willet S5B,SZN -- -- 18,728 401,945 4.66

Black-billed Cuckoo S4B,SZN -- -- 111,425 2,368,202 4.71

Long-eared Owl S5 -- -- 427,678 9,081,553 4.71

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

107
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

White-breasted Nuthatch S4 -- -- 82,046 1,694,570 4.84

Harris's Sparrow SZN -- -- 138,955 2,851,462 4.87

Veery S4B,SZN -- -- 35,833 726,234 4.93

Gray Catbird S5B,SZN -- -- 48,956 990,493 4.94

Yellow Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 50,344 1,009,928 4.98

Violet-green Swallow S5B,SZN -- -- 90,249 1,803,317 5.01

Pygmy Nuthatch S4 -- -- 15,899 305,123 5.21

Redhead S5B,SZN -- -- 56,529 1,083,488 5.22

Canada Goose S5B,SZN -- -- 161,654 3,071,622 5.26

Cedar Waxwing S5B,SZN -- -- 40,764 770,909 5.29

Golden Eagle S4 -- -- 1,044,777 19,746,216 5.29

Pinyon Jay S4 -- -- 21,349 397,997 5.37

Common Poorwill S4B,SZN -- -- 331,544 6,161,076 5.38

Semipalmated Plover SZN -- -- 20,376 370,124 5.51

Black-headed Grosbeak S5B,SZN -- -- 63,266 1,139,289 5.55

Yellow-headed Blackbird S5B,SZN -- -- 56,818 1,010,098 5.62

Red-eyed Vireo S5B,SZN -- -- 33,417 590,845 5.66

Spotted Towhee S5B,SZN -- -- 265,256 4,679,436 5.67

Short-billed Dowitcher SAN -- -- 1,474 25,269 5.84

American Wigeon S5B,SZN -- -- 91,951 1,567,423 5.87

Pectoral Sandpiper SZN -- -- 5,486 92,591 5.93

Stilt Sandpiper SZN -- -- 5,486 92,591 5.93

Least Sandpiper SZN -- -- 22,674 379,558 5.97

Green-tailed Towhee S4B,SZN -- -- 155,701 2,597,454 5.99

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse S1 special concern -- 70,182 1,165,422 6.02

Blue-winged Teal S5B,SZN -- -- 66,903 1,109,453 6.03

Cinnamon Teal S5B,SZN -- -- 66,903 1,109,453 6.03

Broad-winged Hawk SZN -- -- 22,712 369,231 6.15

American Coot S5B,SZN -- -- 7,168 113,040 6.34

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

108
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Song Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 105,615 1,665,788 6.34

Black Tern S3B,SZN special concern -- 3,412 53,550 6.37

White-throated Sparrow SZN -- -- 96,075 1,504,198 6.39

Warbling Vireo S5B,SZN -- -- 102,933 1,598,732 6.44

Bonaparte's Gull SZN -- -- 49,638 755,823 6.57

Downy Woodpecker S5 -- -- 50,977 775,693 6.57

American Redstart S5B,SZN -- -- 41,273 626,791 6.59

Great Horned Owl S5 -- -- 2,514,575 36,968,244 6.80

Solitary Sandpiper SZN -- -- 11,217 160,163 7.00

Spotted Sandpiper S5B,SZN -- -- 29,750 419,604 7.09

Green-winged Teal S5B,SZN -- -- 85,560 1,200,165 7.13

Horned Grebe S4B,SZN -- -- 3,165 44,192 7.16

Northern Shoveler S5B,SZN -- -- 100,999 1,396,411 7.23

Wood Duck S5B,SZN -- -- 68,630 915,898 7.49

Pied-billed Grebe S5B,SZN -- -- 6,054 78,969 7.67

Semipalmated Sandpiper SZN -- -- 18,074 228,392 7.91

Western Sandpiper SZN -- -- 18,074 228,392 7.91

Baird's Sandpiper SZN -- -- 18,074 228,392 7.91

Long-billed Dowitcher SZN -- -- 18,074 228,392 7.91

Black-bellied Plover SZN -- -- 18,460 229,433 8.05

Red-necked Phalarope SZN -- -- 17,992 223,343 8.06

Yellow Rail S1B,SZN special concern -- 1,777 22,004 8.08

Flammulated Owl S2S3B,SZN special concern -- 168,051 2,046,150 8.21

Wilson's Phalarope S4B,SZN -- -- 16,743 203,292 8.24

Lesser Scaup S5B,SZN -- -- 48,124 559,435 8.60

Le Conte's Sparrow S1S2B,SZN special concern -- 29,993 332,661 9.02

Franklin's Gull S3B,SZN special concern -- 20,334 225,414 9.02

American Avocet S5B,SZN -- -- 7,345 81,234 9.04

California Gull S5B,SZN -- -- 24,072 257,638 9.34

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

109
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Lewis's Woodpecker S4B,SZN -- -- 175,177 1,859,070 9.42

White-rumped Sandpiper SAN -- -- 9,343 97,448 9.59

House Wren S5B,SZN -- -- 166,430 1,716,343 9.70

Solitary Vireo S5B,SZN -- -- 417,417 4,209,718 9.92

Sandhill Crane S2N,S5B -- -- 5,547 55,087 10.07

Common Snipe S5B,SZN -- -- 3,972 39,351 10.10

Bald Eagle S3B,S3N special concern LTLE 91,263 880,559 10.37

Peregrine Falcon S1S2B,SZN special concern E/SA 468,343 4,484,385 10.44

Bohemian Waxwing SHB,S5N -- -- 318,244 2,995,186 10.63

Black-capped Chickadee S5 -- -- 607,707 5,629,317 10.80

Sora S5B,SZN -- -- 22,407 198,453 11.29

Orange-crowned Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 124,729 1,098,072 11.36

White-faced Ibis S1B,SZN special concern -- 4,711 41,419 11.38

Purple Finch SAN -- -- 137,045 1,204,463 11.38

Cooper's Hawk S4B,SZN -- -- 652,120 5,649,314 11.55

Virginia Rail S5B,SZN -- -- 6,171 53,376 11.56

Dusky Flycatcher S5B,SZN -- -- 300,895 2,572,802 11.69

Tree Swallow S5B,SZN -- -- 227,818 1,930,095 11.81

Ruffed Grouse S5 -- -- 745,532 6,151,654 12.12

Black-crowned Night-heron S2S3B,SZN special concern -- 4,816 39,731 12.12

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher S1B,SAN special concern -- 3,199 26,336 12.15

Willow Flycatcher S5B,SZN -- -- 288,128 2,366,173 12.18

Canyon Wren S4 -- -- 29,142 238,629 12.21

Piping Plover S2B,SZN special concern LTLE 7,186 56,912 12.63

Osprey S5B,SZN -- -- 117,891 933,369 12.63

Great Blue Heron S4B,SZN watch list -- 58,537 461,676 12.68

American Bittern S4B,SZN -- -- 15,321 119,241 12.85

Western Screech-owl S3S4 watch list -- 41,367 317,674 13.02

Pileated Woodpecker S4 -- -- 373,915 2,817,527 13.27

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

110
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Vaux's Swift S4B,SZN -- -- 313,486 2,342,368 13.38

Forster's Tern S2B,SZN special concern -- 2,975 21,653 13.74

Belted Kingfisher S5B,SZN -- -- 370,994 2,651,508 13.99

American Robin S5B,SZN -- -- 1,303,808 9,280,971 14.05

Common Goldeneye S5B,S5N -- -- 130,587 926,765 14.09

Chipping Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 884,875 6,082,896 14.55

Red Crossbill S5 -- -- 943,622 6,426,385 14.68

Dark-eyed Junco S5B,SZN -- -- 1,424,611 9,599,093 14.84

Common Raven S5 -- -- 1,482,950 9,937,312 14.92

Common Merganser S5B,SZN -- -- 114,458 759,269 15.08

Northern Waterthrush S5B,SZN -- -- 94,165 623,913 15.09

Northern Saw-whet Owl S4 -- -- 1,185,663 7,851,196 15.10

Chestnut-backed Chickadee S4 -- -- 189,821 1,248,102 15.21

Macgillivray's Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 256,089 1,663,841 15.39

Northern Flicker S5 -- -- 1,047,539 6,600,156 15.87

Evening Grosbeak S5 -- -- 867,391 5,463,931 15.87

Hammond's Flycatcher S4B,SZN -- -- 672,353 4,094,495 16.42

Bufflehead S5B,SZN -- -- 96,500 580,411 16.62

Northern Hawk Owl SAB,SAN watch list -- 85,206 503,817 16.91

Western Tanager S5B,SZN -- -- 1,007,137 5,867,760 17.17

Harlequin Duck S2B,SZN special concern -- 57,192 325,557 17.57

Williamson's Sapsucker S4B,SZN -- -- 736,151 4,169,250 17.66

Nashville Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 50,190 283,060 17.73

Hairy Woodpecker S5 -- -- 1,220,499 6,878,007 17.74

Pine Siskin S5 -- -- 1,201,542 6,697,871 17.94

Western Bluebird S4B,SZN -- -- 120,719 671,936 17.97

Barrow's Goldeneye S5B,SZN -- -- 60,029 333,090 18.02

Swainson's Thrush S5B,SZN -- -- 1,146,753 6,204,281 18.48

American Dipper S5 -- -- 139,192 752,576 18.50

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

111
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Blue Grouse S5 -- -- 663,136 3,573,233 18.56

Red-headed Woodpecker S4B,SZN -- -- 97,042 514,440 18.86

Cordilleran Flycatcher S5 -- -- 523,676 2,760,164 18.97

Sharp-shinned Hawk S4B,SZN -- -- 1,123,287 5,918,042 18.98

Yellow-rumped Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 1,602,249 8,379,847 19.12

Northern Pygmy-owl S4 -- -- 1,653,644 8,614,200 19.20

Hermit Thrush S5B,SZN -- -- 1,122,843 5,844,201 19.22

Red-breasted Nuthatch S5 -- -- 1,725,349 8,974,527 19.22

Mountain Chickadee S5 -- -- 1,602,923 8,325,893 19.25

Pine Grosbeak S5 -- -- 1,305,511 6,578,089 19.85

Ruby-crowned Kinglet S5B,SZN -- -- 1,219,967 6,131,298 19.90

Townsend's Solitaire S5 -- -- 451,303 2,243,358 20.12

Calliope Hummingbird S5B,SZN -- -- 1,155,573 5,727,225 20.18

Rock Wren S5B,SZN -- -- 333,351 1,618,770 20.59

Townsend's Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 862,056 4,147,977 20.78

Northern Goshawk S3S4 special concern -- 294,988 1,412,727 20.88

Barred Owl S4 -- -- 903,961 4,289,065 21.08

Great Gray Owl S3 special concern -- 1,615,683 7,495,960 21.56

Red-naped Sapsucker S5B,SZN -- -- 1,244,665 5,723,301 21.75

Three-toed Woodpecker S5 -- -- 1,158,622 5,311,485 21.81

Rufous Hummingbird S5B,SZN -- -- 540,460 2,456,068 22.01

Western Wood-pewee S5B,SZN -- -- 573,974 2,577,377 22.27

Steller's Jay S5 -- -- 1,157,569 5,149,095 22.48

Cassin's Finch S5 -- -- 274,839 1,216,502 22.59

Lincoln's Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 251,328 1,106,192 22.72

Golden-crowned Kinglet S5 -- -- 353,863 1,546,359 22.89

Spruce Grouse S4 -- -- 540,753 2,337,100 23.14

Varied Thrush S5B,SZN -- -- 234,670 1,006,124 23.32

White-winged Crossbill S4 -- -- 717,482 2,989,884 24.00

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

112
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Boreal Owl S3S4 special concern -- 1,187,797 4,932,842 24.08

Winter Wren S4 -- -- 61,055 252,882 24.14

Gray Jay S5 -- -- 782,426 3,238,799 24.16

Brown Creeper S4 -- -- 425,771 1,730,036 24.61

Black-chinned Hummingbird S4B,SZN -- -- 67,159 270,533 24.82

Trumpeter Swan S2B,S2N special concern -- 8,805 35,011 25.15

Hooded Merganser S4B,SZN -- -- 236,236 937,462 25.20

Clark's Nutcracker S5 -- -- 387,106 1,422,142 27.22

Tennessee Warbler S3S4B,SZN watch list -- 111,914 398,394 28.09

Fox Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 518,690 1,821,957 28.47

Olive-sided Flycatcher S4B,SZN -- -- 401,549 1,363,039 29.46

White-throated Swift S5B,SZN -- -- 1,228,073 4,074,708 30.14

Wilson's Warbler S5B,SZN -- -- 139,438 456,654 30.54

American Pipit S5B,SZN -- -- 150,540 456,316 32.99

Black Swift S3B,SZN special concern -- 223,172 666,280 33.50

White-crowned Sparrow S5B,SZN -- -- 355,804 1,017,411 34.97

Alder Flycatcher S1B,SZN special concern -- 18,253 49,697 36.73

Boreal Chickadee S3S4 -- -- 307,878 733,726 41.96

Black-backed Woodpecker S3 special concern -- 214,802 362,776 59.21

Black Rosy-finch S3B,S3N -- -- 151,097 211,789 71.34

Gray-crowned Rosy-finch S3B,S5N -- -- 178,973 237,088 75.49

White-tailed Ptarmigan S2S3 watch list -- 63,537 83,867 75.76

Hispid Pocket Mouse S1 special concern -- 92 418,187 0.02

Eastern Cottontail S2? watch list -- 288 272,945 0.11

Meadow Jumping Mouse S2S3 special concern -- 2,796 2,134,775 0.13

Northern Myotis S2 special concern -- 723 129,005 0.56

Idaho Pocket Gopher S3 -- -- 7,699 766,635 1.00

Black-tailed Prairie Dog S3S4 special concern -- 107,470 10,318,759 1.04

Swift Fox S1 special concern C 209,843 18,696,136 1.12

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

113
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Spotted Bat S1 special concern -- 18,287 1,624,262 1.13

White-footed Mouse S4 -- -- 20,445 1,717,141 1.19

Hayden's Shrew S4 -- -- 135,708 11,347,449 1.20

Pallid Bat S1 special concern -- 10,380 824,565 1.26

Great Basin Pocket Mouse S2S4 special concern -- 7,310 554,785 1.32

Merriam's Shrew S3 special concern -- 99,009 7,093,489 1.40

Ord's Kangaroo Rat S4 -- -- 153,291 9,472,749 1.62

Prairie Vole S5 -- -- 304,618 18,739,812 1.63

Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel S5 -- -- 290,703 17,829,084 1.63

Muskrat S5 -- -- 26,668 1,617,998 1.65

Western Harvest Mouse S5 -- -- 238,875 14,427,850 1.66

Olive-backed Pocket Mouse S4 -- -- 189,927 11,425,085 1.66

Pronghorn S5 -- -- 422,134 24,803,872 1.70

Black-tailed Jackrabbit S2S3 special concern -- 14,591 836,033 1.74

Richardson's Ground Squirrel S5 -- -- 152,133 8,157,820 1.87

Northern Grasshopper Mouse S5 -- -- 285,632 14,822,812 1.93

Least Weasel S4 -- -- 348,633 16,634,760 2.10

Sagebrush Vole S4 -- -- 394,505 17,123,978 2.30

Red Fox S5 -- -- 582,616 25,260,480 2.31

Pygmy Rabbit S2S3 special concern -- 13,477 565,847 2.38

White-tailed Jackrabbit S4S5 -- -- 519,781 21,619,376 2.40

Desert Cottontail S5 -- -- 334,664 13,873,791 2.41

Black-footed Ferret SH# special concern XNLE 23,307 948,276 2.46

American Badger S4 -- -- 681,442 23,728,920 2.87

Western Small-footed Myotis S4 -- -- 503,647 17,222,362 2.93

Mink S5 -- -- 43,670 1,259,842 3.47

California Myotis S4 -- -- 73,576 1,932,468 3.81

Striped Skunk S5 -- -- 1,124,521 27,570,056 4.08

Common Raccoon S5 -- -- 161,214 3,559,087 4.53

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

114
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Northern Pocket Gopher S5 -- -- 1,020,329 22,485,680 4.54

Mountain Cottontail S4 -- -- 466,413 9,258,887 5.04

White-tailed Prairie Dog S2 special concern -- 14,944 288,014 5.19

Least Chipmunk S5 -- -- 301,290 5,501,772 5.48

Little Brown Myotis S5 -- -- 1,447,204 26,033,542 5.56

Coyote S5 -- -- 2,003,628 34,488,324 5.81

Big Brown Bat S4 -- -- 1,244,100 21,015,716 5.92

Wyoming Ground Squirrel S3 -- -- 96,601 1,562,425 6.18

Western Spotted Skunk SU watch list -- 86,965 1,370,006 6.35

Preble's Shrew S3 special concern -- 32,656 502,464 6.50

Mule Deer S5 -- -- 1,998,122 30,466,384 6.56

American Beaver S5 -- -- 270,754 4,127,012 6.56

Bobcat S5 -- -- 755,754 11,162,847 6.77

Long-tailed Weasel S5 -- -- 1,938,589 27,814,298 6.97

Columbian Ground Squirrel S5 -- -- 171,261 2,258,177 7.58

Long-tailed Vole S5 -- -- 1,936,452 24,840,330 7.79

Fringed Myotis S3 special concern -- 369,131 4,661,200 7.92

Meadow Vole S5 -- -- 267,190 3,275,640 8.16

Deer Mouse S5 -- -- 2,091,036 25,013,364 8.36

White-tailed Deer S5 -- -- 707,172 7,744,864 9.13

Yuma Myotis S3 watch list -- 69,021 692,742 9.96

Montane Vole S5 -- -- 768,543 7,643,749 10.06

Western Jumping Mouse S5 -- -- 447,660 4,393,129 10.19

Long-eared Myotis S4 -- -- 1,931,946 18,435,752 10.48

Wapiti Or Elk S5 -- -- 2,285,997 20,298,284 11.26

Northern River Otter S4 -- -- 227,487 1,949,443 11.67

Masked Shrew S5 -- -- 1,319,167 10,981,895 12.01

Water Shrew S5 -- -- 219,180 1,818,455 12.05

Hoary Bat S4 -- -- 1,642,262 13,232,779 12.41

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

115
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Vagrant Shrew S4 -- -- 369,040 2,887,467 12.78

Townsend's Big-eared Bat S2S3 special concern -- 1,844,833 14,300,158 12.90

Bushy-tailed Woodrat S5 -- -- 1,128,066 8,673,722 13.01

Common Porcupine S5 -- -- 1,882,783 13,946,154 13.50

Uinta Ground Squirrel S4 -- -- 51,783 371,362 13.95

Silver-haired Bat S4 -- -- 1,544,400 10,853,587 14.23

Ermine S5 -- -- 1,601,027 11,148,174 14.36

Long-legged Myotis S4 -- -- 1,774,891 12,247,939 14.49

Yellow-pine Chipmunk S5 -- -- 968,489 6,038,135 16.04

Mountain Lion S4 -- -- 2,004,418 12,449,033 16.10

Red Squirrel S5 -- -- 1,355,678 7,586,618 17.87

Black Bear S5 -- -- 1,952,605 10,781,597 18.11

Pygmy Shrew S4 -- -- 134,616 729,460 18.46

Gray Wolf S1 special concern LEXNLT 1,968,523 9,602,843 20.50

Northern Flying Squirrel S4 -- -- 1,248,554 6,050,723 20.63

Moose S5 -- -- 1,290,440 6,196,028 20.83

Snowshoe Hare S5 -- -- 1,582,760 7,556,324 20.95

Red-tailed Chipmunk S5 -- -- 1,104,222 5,136,957 21.50

Southern Red-backed Vole S5 -- -- 1,583,766 7,346,212 21.56

American Marten S4 -- -- 1,261,219 5,843,622 21.58

Fisher S2 special concern -- 1,172,549 5,035,902 23.29

Yellow-bellied Marmot S5 -- -- 904,678 3,857,820 23.45

Lynx S2 special concern -- 1,470,126 6,045,562 24.32

Heather Vole S5 -- -- 1,385,251 5,586,586 24.79

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel S5 -- -- 672,316 2,678,480 25.10

Dusky Or Montane Shrew S5 -- -- 979,968 3,900,002 25.13

Wolverine S2 special concern -- 2,026,047 7,902,365 25.64

Northern Bog Lemming S2 special concern -- 3,006 10,676 28.16

Grizzly Or Brown Bear S1S2 special concern LTLENL 1,965,538 6,923,086 28.39

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

116
Common Name

DISTRIBUTION (ha)

Status

1 & 2 Total

%

Status

 1 & 2

Table 5.5 continued. For Montana, 414 native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

according to the percent of their predicted distributions in management status 1 and 2 lands.

TNC

State

Rank

Federal

State List Status

Water Vole S4 -- -- 167,940 539,573 31.12

Dwarf Shrew S3 special concern -- 55,376 162,534 34.07

Mountain Sheep S4 -- -- 118,748 325,952 36.43

American Pika S5 -- -- 1,079,668 2,562,153 42.14

Hoary Marmot S4 -- -- 787,421 1,661,062 47.41

Uinta Chipmunk S3? special concern -- 239,715 420,428 57.02

Mountain Goat S5 -- -- 535,152 816,273 65.56

American Bison S3? -- -- 70,781 70,848 99.91

TNC State Rank: S1 (critically imperiled, 5 occurrences), S2 (imperiled, 6-20 occurrences), S3 (rare and local, 21-100 occurrences),

S4 (apparently secure), S5 (demonstrably secure). SU = status uncertain, SA = accidental in Montana; Z indicates ranking not

applicable, B refers to breeding status, and N to non-breeding status (Reichel 1997).

State List: species of special concern, or species on the watch list (Reichel 1997).

Federal Status: LE is listed as endangered, LT is listed as threatened, C is candidate for listing, XN is non-essential experimental

population, NL is not listed (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listings). Multiple listings (e.g., LENL) if status varies within species’ range,

in which case Montana status listed first.

117
6. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Generally, our results indicate that high elevation cover types and associated vertebrate species

appear to be relatively well protected under Status 1 and 2 management. But even in these areas,

elements of biodiversity could be threatened by disease (e.g., white pine blister rust) and the

introduction of exotic weeds. Two areas in the state appear to be rich in vertebrate diversity and

perhaps in need of a finer filter analysis -- the East Front of the Rocky Mountains and the

Bighorn/Powder River basins in southeast Montana. The former, a very scenic area, is rich in

birds and mammals. Much of the non-forest portion of this area is privately owned, and although

relatively large areas have been protected by various conservation measures during the past 20

years, more efforts likely will be required to maintain the ecological integrity of the East Front. 

The second area, encompassing the Bighorn and Powder River basins, is rich in mammals and

reptiles. Underlying these lands, however, are massive coal deposits which threaten the long-term

viability of this area for wildlife habitat. We also note with some surprise that the longest freeflowing river in the Lower 48 states, the Yellowstone, has no formal protection anywhere along its

banks. This may be more important for an aquatic gap analysis, but we thought it worthy of

mention here.

Results are only as good as the data on which they rely, and the data inputs could always be

improved. Two cases in point would be the DEMs and hydrography. Our mapping of riparian

areas and woody draws was particularly dependent on the quality of these input data. In eastern

Montana, where topographic relief is more subtle, we had to rely for the most part on coarser, 1

degree DEMs, from which it was difficult to detect and delineate low-lying areas along intermittent

and many perennial stream courses. Moreover, the 1:100,000 scale DLGs exhibited considerable

inconsistency from quad to quad in terms of stream density. Newer, higher quality data, both for

hydrography and topography, should be available soon for the state which would enable more

precise land cover mapping and habitat modeling. Ideally, the new hydrography would provide

stream order attributes, along with some information about stream flow. Once new hydrography

data are available, we recommend that they be combined with water features classified from the TM

imagery to ensure the most complete and detailed coverage for the state. Soils and climate data

would be other important layers that could substantially improve future mapping and modeling

efforts. These could be completed if interested agencies agreed to make them priorities for future

funding.

With the methodologies and reference data in place, remapping or updating land cover would be a

relatively straightforward process. Although 23,351 ground-truth plots sound adequate, we

believe that higher accuracies would result from additional data, especially from certain areas in

central and eastern Montana. We do not advocate expensive field surveys, however, but rather

consideration by a consortium of state and federal agencies to fund airborne video sampling, at

least across areas like the Bighorn and Powder River basins where it may be important to improve

land cover mapping for monitoring future changes in land use.

The relatively fine scale at which we mapped the state’s land cover will be useful for considerably

more than predicting wildlife distributions. We have already extended this work to the dasymetric

mapping of human population density (Holloway et al. 1998) and median age of housing units (by

decade) across 35 counties in Montana. By mapping human population densities more precisely,

these results could become useful inputs for improving vertebrate distribution models.

Validation of predicted vertebrate distributions also could be expanded by using more extensive

datasets, such as those from the Forest Service, Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program

118
(Hutto 1995). Additional sites in eastern Montana might have to be targeted for future field

surveys as well.

Regarding improvements to the vertebrate distribution models, it would be interesting to compare

model predictions based on the 90 m2 land cover versus the original 30 m2 data, at least for a few

selected species and areas in the state. Incorporating interspecific relationships into the models

could be yet another refinement. Although competitors, predators, and brood parasites may not

actually limit the distribution of other species, they certainly affect habitat quality. Greene et al. (in

press) examined the predicted breeding distribution of Lazuli Buntings in relation to that of Brownheaded Cowbirds in the state; their results indicated that more than 90% of nesting buntings in

Montana may be vulnerable to cowbird parasitism. Similar analyses could be carried out for many

other host or prey species.

Finally, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, managers of public lands in Montana have more

ready opportunities to manage for biodiversity in some landscapes than they do in others. For

example, more than 90% of several cover types, including Missouri Breaks and Mixed Whitebark

Pine Forest, is managed by federal agencies. Consequently, these types, and any associated

wildlife species, ought to be easier to manage than several of the riparian cover types, the vast

majority of which occur on privately owned lands. Thus, it should come as no surprise that

conservation of riparian areas, and their associated species, will depend on participation from the

private sector. Elected officials at all levels of government can certainly help encourage this

participation through enactment of laws which make conservation more economically appealing

than development.

119
7. PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILITY

How To Obtain the Products

It is the goal of the Gap Analysis Program and the USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD) to

make the data and associated information as widely available as possible. Use of the data requires

specialized software called geographic information systems (GIS) and substantial computing

power. Additional information on how to use the data or obtain GIS services is provided below

and on the GAP homepage (URL below). Although the most convenient way to obtain and store

the data may be on CD-ROM, they also can be downloaded via the Internet from the national GAP

home page (http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap). See also the Natural Resource Information System

(NRIS) at the Montana State Library (http://www.nris.mt.gov/).

Over the long term, the national GAP home page will provide information about the status of MTGAP, future updates, data availability, and contacts (follow the links to “project information” and

then to Montana). Within a few months of completion, CD-ROMs of this final report and the

accompanying GIS data should be available for a nominal cost; details about how to obtain copies

of these CD-ROMs will be posted at both of the home pages referenced above. 

Minimum GIS Required For Data Use

The datasets comprising MT-GAP were created with the ARC/INFO Grid module running on IBM

RS/6000 workstation computers (under AIX 4.1) with 128 megabytes of RAM and 4 gigabytes

of local disk. Although the total dataset is large, most of the individual files are relatively small; the

largest single file is the land cover layer (<50 megabytes), and most files are closer to 5 megabytes

in size. Despite the size of the overall dataset, its availability on CD-ROM minimizes the need for

large amounts of free disk space. Powerful computers should not be required to process MT-GAP

data, but they could only help: queries and analyses should run faster with more memory and faster

processors, and when restricted to portions of the state. For users without access to ARC/INFO,

display and query should be feasible using the ARC/VIEW Spatial Analyst software. 

Disclaimer

Following is the official Biological Resources Division (BRD) disclaimer as of 29 January, 1996,

followed by additional disclaimers from GAP. Prior to using the data, you should consult the

GAP home page (see How to Obtain the Products, above) for the current disclaimer.

Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no

warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other

system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such

warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other

data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server [see

above for approved data providers] and not indirectly through other sources which may have

changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the

content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources Division shall not

be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein.

These data were compiled with regard to the following standards. Please be aware of the

limitations of the data. These data are intended to be used at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller (such

as 1:250,000 or 1:500,000) for the purpose of assessing the conservation status of vertebrate

120
species and vegetation types over large geographic regions. The data may or may not have been

assessed for statistical accuracy. Data evaluation and improvement may be ongoing. The

Biological Resources Division makes no claim as to the suitability of the data for other purposes. 

These are writable data which may have been altered from the original product if not obtained from

a designated distributor identified above.

Metadata

Proper documentation of all information sources used to assemble GAP data layers is central to the

scientific defensibility of GAP. The information used to describe GAP data is called metadata. 

Metadata are information about data. Metadata contain information about the source(s), lineage,

content, structure, and availability of a data set. Metadata also describe intentions, limitations, and

potential uses, allowing for the informed and appropriate application of the data. Descriptions of

metadata function have recently been published by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC

1994, 1995).

The GAP metadata standards have been closely matched to the FGDC standards to ensure current

and future compatibility. As the FGDC standards evolve beyond the current publication, we

anticipate corresponding refinements in GAP documentation. The format of the GAP metadata

consists of eight major documentation sections (Table 7.1) containing one or more metadata

elements. Each element is named (e.g. Map Projection Name), and the "Type" of entry (text,

integer, date, time) and "Domain" of the entry (i.e. x > 0) are also defined. 

Table 7.1. Metadata element categories.

I. Identification Information What the dataset is called, file format description.

II. Data Quality Information Accuracy, consistency, and data sources.

III. Spatial Data Organization Information Data structure—raster, vector, point, etc.

IV. Spatial Reference Information Coordinate units, map projection, spatial resolution.

V. Entity and Attribute Information Attribute codes and reference citations.

VI. Distribution Information How to order the data, on-line access, transfer size.

VII. Metadata Reference Information Date of the metadata, contact for metadata updates.

XIII. Contact Information General data contact, mail, voice, fax, web, e-mail.

Demands for metadata will increase as electronic networks expand across the national and

international scene, and more requests are made for distribution of information. As the number of

users and the diversity of disciplines and programs sharing the data expand, the information carried

by metadata will become increasingly important. One of the goals in defining today's metadata

standards is to anticipate these future needs. 

For additional information via Internet, see the national GAP home page:

http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap

Cogan, C.B. and T.C. Edwards. 1994. Metadata standards for GAP. Gap Analysis Technical

Bulletin 3. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho,

Moscow, Idaho. 28 pp. (A postscript file is available from the GAP web page listed above.)

121
For a postscript version of the current FGDC Metadata Standards (8 June 1994):

waisqvarsa.er.usgs.gov (anonymous ftp, cd to wais/docs, get FGDCmeta6894.ps)

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1995. Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata

workbook (March 24). FGDC. Washington D.C. (Describes the FGDC metadata

standards.) http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/metadata/standard/metadata.html 

Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of These Data 

All information is created with a specific end use or uses in mind. This is especially true for GIS

data, which is expensive to produce and must be directed to meet the immediate program needs. 

For GAP, minimum standards were set to meet program objectives (Scott and Jennings 1994). 

These standards include: scale or resolution (1:100,000 or 100 hectare minimum mapping unit),

accuracy (80% accurate at 95% confidence), and format (ARC/INFO coverage tiled to the 30’ x

60’ USGS quadrangle). 

Recognizing, however, that GAP would be the first, and for many years likely the only, source of

statewide biological GIS maps, the data were created with the expectation that they would be used

for other applications. Therefore, we list below both appropriate and inappropriate uses. This list

is in no way exhaustive but should serve as a guide to assess whether a proposed use can or cannot

be supported by GAP data. For most uses, it is unlikely that GAP will provide the only data

needed, and for uses with a regulatory outcome, field surveys should verify the result. In the end,

it will be the responsibility of each data user to determine if GAP data can answer the question

being asked, and if they are the best tools to answer that question.

Scale

MT-GAP data were produced with the intent that they be analyzed and applied at the ecoregional

level, that is, across geographic areas extending from several hundred thousand to millions of

hectares in size. Because not every occurrence of every plant community or animal habitat was

mapped in the state, the data are best suited for coarse-filter types of analyses that emphasize

context over precise content. For example, if one needed to know precisely how much riparian

vegetation occurred in a given county, one might be better off mapping these types from aerial

photography. But this could be a costly and time-consuming option. To provide context, and to

help justify additional expenses, one could use the land cover data from MT-GAP to compare the

estimated abundance of riparian types in the county versus the entire state (or ecoregion). 

Appropriate Uses

The above example illustrates two appropriate uses of the data -- as a coarse-scale map for a large

area such as a county, and to help justify the future investment in finer-scale spatial data. Specific

case-study examples are provided in Appendix 1.1, but following is a general list of applications:

• Statewide biodiversity planning.

• Regional (Councils of Government) planning.

• Regional habitat conservation planning.

• County comprehensive planning.

• Large-area resource management planning.

• Coarse-filter evaluation of potential impacts or benefits of major projects or plan initiatives on

biodiversity, such as utility or transportation corridors, wilderness proposals, regional open

space and recreation proposals, etc.

122
• Determining relative amounts of management responsibility for specific biological resources

among land stewards to facilitate cooperative management and planning.

• Basic research on regional distributions of plants and animals and to help target both specific

species and geographic areas for needed research.

• Environmental impact assessment for large projects or military activities.

• Estimation of potential economic impacts from loss of biological resource based activities.

• Education at all levels and for both students and citizens.

Inappropriate Uses

It is far easier to identify appropriate uses than inappropriate ones. However, there is a “fuzzy

line” that is eventually crossed when the differences in resolution of the data, size of geographic

area being analyzed, and precision of the answer required for the question are no longer

compatible. Examples include:

• Use of the data to map small areas (less than thousands of hectares), typically requiring

mapping resolution at 1:24,000 scale and using aerial photographs or ground surveys.

• Combining GAP data with other data finer than 1:100,000 scale to produce new hybrid maps

or answer queries.

• Generating specific areal measurements from the data finer than the nearest thousand hectares

(minimum mapping unit size and accuracy affect this precision).

• Establishing exact boundaries for regulation or acquisition.

• Establishing definite occurrence or non-occurrence of any feature for an exact geographic area

(for land cover, the percent accuracy will provide a measure of probability).

• Determining abundance, health, or condition of any feature.

• Establishing a measure of accuracy of any other data by comparison with GAP data.

• Altering the data in any way and redistributing them as a GAP data product.

• Using the data without acquiring and reviewing the metadata and this report.

123
LITERATURE CITED

Alt, D.D. and D.W. Hyndman. 1986. Roadside Geology of Montana. Mountain Press,

Missoula, Montana.

Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1975. A land use and land cover

classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper

964. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern rockies. Journal of Forestry, 8:460-465.

Austin, M.P. 1991. Vegetation: Data collection and analysis. Pages 37-41 in: C.R. Margules

and M.P. Austin, eds., Nature conservation: Cost effective biological surveys and data

analysis. Australia CSIRO, East Melborne.

Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Univ. Toronto Press. 438 pp.

Bison Management Plan EIS Team. 1998. Draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the

interagency bison management plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National Park. 

June 1, 1998. USDI, National Park Service, Denver, Colo. 395 pp.

Block, W.M., Morrison, M.L., Verner, J., and P.N. Manley. 1994. Assessing wildlife-habitatrelationships models: a case study with California oak woodlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin

22:549-561.

Bourgeron, P.S., H.C. Humphries, R.L. DeVelice, and M.E. Jensen. 1994. Ecological theory in

relation to landscape and ecosystem characterization. Pages 58-72 in: M.E. Jensen and P.S. 

Bourgeron, eds., Ecosystem management: Principles and applications, Volume II. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 376 pp.

Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. 1994. Martens, sables,

and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. 501 pp.

Caicco, S.L., J.M. Scott, B. Butterfield, and B. Csuti. 1995. A gap analysis of the management

status of the vegetation of Idaho (U.S.A). Conservation Biology 9:498-511.

Caprio, J.M., and G.A. Nielsen. 1992. Climatic atlas of Montana. Montana State University

Extension Service, Bozeman.

Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist.

Publ. Educ. Serv.; No. 10. 314 pp.

Cogan, C., and T.C. Edwards, 1994. Metadata standards for Gap Analysis. Gap Analysis

Technical Bulletin 3. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho,

Moscow.

Congalton, R.G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed

data. Remote Sens. Environ. 37: 35-46.

Congalton, R.G., and K. Green. 1993. A practical look at the sources of confusion in error

matrix generation. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 59: 641-644.

Crist, P., B. Thompson, and J. Prior-Magee. 1995. A dichotomous key of land management

categorization, unpublished. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Las

Cruces, New Mexico.

Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P. H. Williams, R. L. Pressey, J. D. Camm, M. Kershaw, A. R. Kiester,

B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso, and K. Sahr. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection

algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biological Conservation 80:83-97. .Csuti, B. 1994. Methods for developing terrestrial vertebrate distribution maps for Gap Analysis

(version 1). In: J.M. Scott and M.D. Jennings, eds. A handbook for Gap Analysis. Idaho

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Davis, F.W., P.A. Stine, D.M. Stoms, M.I. Borchert, and A.D. Hollander. 1995. Gap Analysis

of the actual vegetation of California - 1. The southwestern region. Madroño 42:40-78.

Dedon, M.F., Laymon, S.A., and R.H. Barrett. 1986. Evaluating models of wildlife-habitat

124
relationships of birds in black oak and mixed conifer habitats. Pp. 115-120 in Verner, J.,

Morrison, M.L., and C.J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: modeling habitat relationships of

terrestrial vertebrates. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

DeLorme Mapping. 1994. Montana Atlas & Gazetteer. Freeport, Maine. 96 pp. 

Diamond, J.M. 1986. The design of a nature reserve system for Indonesian New Guinea. Pp.

485-503 in: M.E. Soulé, ed. Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. 

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Driscoll, R.S., D.L. Merkel, J.S. Hagihara, and D.L. Radloff. 1983. A component land

classification for the United States: Status report. Technical Note 360. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver.

Driscoll, R.S., D.L. Merkel, D.L. Radloff, D.E. Snyder, and J.S. Hagihara. 1984. An

ecological land classification framework for the United States. Miscellaneous Publication

1439. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., C.H. Homer, S.D. Bassett, A. Falconer, R.D. Ramsey, and D.W. Wight. 

1995. Utah Gap Analysis: An environmental information system. Technical Report 95-1,

Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Edwards, T.C., Jr., E.T. Deshler, D. Foster, and G.G. Moisen. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife

habitat relation models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. 

Conservation Biology 10:263-270.

Efron, B. 1982. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. CBMS-NSF

Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 38, SIAM, Philadelphia.

Efron, B., and R.J. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall,

New York.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1994. Content standards for digital geospatial

metadata. 8 June 1994. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Washington, D.C.

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1995. Content standards for digital geospatial

metadata workbook, FGDC, Washington, D.C.

Fisher, F.B., J.C. Winne, M.M. Thornton, T.P. Tady, Z. Ma, M.M. Hart, and R.L. Redmond. 

1998. Montana land cover atlas. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife

Research Unit, The University of Montana, Missoula. viii + 50 pp.

Ford, R, Z. Ma, S. Barsness, and R.L. Redmond. 1997. Rule-Based Aggregation of Classified

Imagery. Pp 115-123 in: Proceedings of the 1997 ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention,

Technical Papers Volume 3, Remote Sensing & Photogrammetry. American Society for

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD.

Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York,

NY.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological

Applications 3(2):202-205.

Gopal, S., and C. Woodcock. 1994. Theory and methods for accuracy assessment of thematic

maps using fuzzy sets. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 60: 181-188.

Green, A., R.A. O’Brien, and J.C. Schaefer. 1985. Montana’s forests. Resource Bulletin INT38. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station. 70 pp.

Greene, E., J. Jolivette, and R.L. Redmond. In press. Lazuli buntings and brown-headed

cowbirds in Montana: a state-wide landscape analysis of potential sources and sinks. In: M.

Morrison, and J. Rotenberry, eds. Research and Management of Cowbirds in Western

Landscapes. Studies in Avian Biology, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.

Grossman, D.H., D. Faber-Langendoen, A.S. Weakley, M. Anderson, P. Bourgeron, R.

Crawford, K Goodin, S. Landaal, K. Metzler, K.D. Patterson, M. Pyne, M. Reid, and L.

Sneddon. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation

125
of the United States. Volume I. The National Vegetation Classification System: Development,

status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Groves, C.R., B.Butterfield, A. Lippincott, B. Csuti, and J.M. Scott. 1997. Atlas of Idaho’s

Wildlife. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 372 pp.

Gruell, G.E., W.C. Schmidt, S.F. Arno, and W.J. Reich. 1982. Seventy years of change in a

managed ponderosa pine forest in Western Montana - implications for resource

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-130. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 42 pp.

Habeck, J.R. 1990. Old-growth ponderosa pine - western larch forests in western Montana: 

Ecology and management. The Northwest Environmental Journal . 6:271-292.

Habeck, J.R. 1988. Old-growth forests in the northern rocky mountains. Natural Areas

Journal. 8(3):202-211.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America, 2d ed. (2 vols.). John Wiley and Sons, New

York. 

Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell,

D.P Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial

vertebrates. Unpublished report. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, The

University of Montana, Missoula. vii + 1302 pp.

Hoffmann, R.S., and D.L. Pattie. 1968. A guide to Montana mammals: identification, habitat,

distribution, and abundance. University of Montana, Missoula. 133 pp.

Holloway, S.R., J.V. Schumacher, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Dasymetric mapping of human

population density using ARC/INFO. Pp. 283-291 in S. Morain, ed. GIS Solutions in

Natural Resources Management: Balancing the Technical-Political Equation. High Mountain

Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Huberty, C.J. 1994. Applied Discriminant Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Hutto, R.L. 1995. USFS Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program - Distribution and

Habitat Relationships. Second Rept., USFS Region 1 Contract #57-0343-5-00012. 

Missoula, Montana. 120 pp.

Jenkins, R.E. 1985. Information methods: Why the Heritage Programs work. The Nature

Conservancy News 35(6):21-23.

Jennings, M.D. 1993. Natural terrestrial cover classification: Assumptions and definitions. Gap

Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University

of Idaho, Moscow.

Karl, J.W. 1998. Assessment of wildlife habitat relationship models: theory and application. 

Unpubl M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 137 pp. 

Keane, R.E., and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in western Montana:

Evidence from 20-year remeasurements. Western Journal of Forestry 8(2):44-47

Keiter, R.B. 1997. Greater Yellowstone’s bison: unraveling of an early American wildlife

conservation achievement. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(1):1-11.

Kiester, A.R., J.M. Scott, B. Csuti, R.F. Noss, and B. Butterfield. In press. Conservation

prioritization using GAP data. Conservation Biology.

Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature

reserves: An example from Tasmania. Biological Conservation 25:127-134.

Krohn, W.B. 1996. Predicted vertebrate distributions from gap analysis: considerations in the

designs of statewide accuracy assessments. Pp. 147-262 in Scott, J.M., Tear, T.H., and F.W.

Davis, eds. Gap anaylsis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD.

Küchler, A.W., and I.S. Zonneveld, eds. 1988. Vegetation mapping. Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 635 pp.

Lachowski, H., P. Maus, M. Golden, J. Johnson, B. Landrum, J. Powell, V. Varner, T. Wirth,

126
J. Gonzales, and S. Bain. 1995. Guidelines for the use of digital imagery for vegetation

mapping. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report EM-7140-25. Washington, DC.

Levin, S.A. 1981. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology, 73:1942-1968.

Lins, K.S., and R.L. Kleckner. 1996. Land cover mapping: An overview and history of the

concepts. Pp. 57-66 in: J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear, and F.W. Davis, eds., Gap Analysis: A

landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and

Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland.

Loveland, T.R., and D.M. Shaw. 1996. Multi-resolution land characterization: Building

collaborative partnerships. Pp. 79-85 in: Scott, J.M., Tear, T.H., and F.W. Davis, eds. Gap

Analysis: A landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland.

Ma, Z., M.M. Hart, and R.L. Redmond. Ms1. Using a color palette to drive unsupervised

classifications of remotely-sensed images: What you see is what you get. Unpublished

manuscript. Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, University of Montana, Missoula.

Ma, Z., M.M. Hart, R.L. Redmond, J.C. Winne, and T.P. Tady. Ms2. Mapping vegetation

across large geographic areas: Integration of remote sensing and GIS to classify multisource

data. Unpublished manuscript. Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, University of Montana,

Missoula.

Margules, C.R., and A.O. Nicholls. 1987. Assessing the conservation value of remnant habitat

‘islands’ mallee patches on the western Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. Pp. 89-102 in:

Saunders, D.A., G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge, and A.J.M. Hopkins, eds. Nature

Conservation, the role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sidney.

Margules, C.R., A.O. Nicholls, and R.L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to

maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63-76.

Master, L., N. Clupper, E. Gaines, C. Boget, R. Solomon, and M. Ormes. 1994. Biodiversity

Research Consortium species database manual (12/23/94 edition). The Nature Conservancy,

Boston, Mass.

McLachlan, G.J. 1992. Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition. John Wiley &

Sons, New York.

Merrill, A., and J. Jacobson. 1997. Montana Almanac. Falcon Press, Helena, Montana.

Merrill, E.H., T.W. Kohley, M.E. Herdendorf, W.A. Reiners, K.L. Driese, R.W. Marrs, and S.

H. Anderson. 1996. The Wyoming Gap Analysis Project final report. 1 December 1996. 

Unpublished report. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of

Wyoming, Laramie.

Miller, K.R. 1994. In: J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller, eds. National parks conservation and

development. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Minshall, G.W. 1993. Stream-riparian ecosystems: Rational and methods for basin-level

assessments of management effects. In: M.E. Jensen and P.S. Bourgeron, eds. Eastside

Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment. Volume II: Ecosystem Management: Principals

and Applications. U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,

Oregon.

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P.D. Skaar’s Montana bird distribution, fifth

edition. Special Publication No. 3. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 130 pp.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John

Wiley & Sons, New York. 547 pp.

.Nemani, R., L. Pierce, S. Running, and L. Band. 1993. Forest ecosystem processes at the

watershed scale: sensitivity to remotely-sensed leaf-area index estimates. Int. J. Remote

Sensing 14: 2519-2534.

Nicholls, A.O., and C.R. Margules. 1993. An upgraded reserve selection algorithm. Biological

Conservation 64:165-169.

127
Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at

The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11-37

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation

Biology 4:355-364.

Noss, R.F. 1991. Report to the Fund for Animals in Washington, D.C.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy. Island Press, Washington,

D.C.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States:

A preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28, National Biological

Service, Washington, D.C. 

Odum, E.D., and H.T. Odum. 1972. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural

Resources Conference 39:178.

Pattie, D.L., and R.S. Hoffmann. 1992. Mammals of the North American Parks and Prairies, 2d

ed. Privately published, Edmonton, Alberta. 579 pp.

Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of

Montana. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-34, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 174 pp.

Pressey, R.L., and A.O. Nicholls. 1989. Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of

reserves in semi-arid New South Wales. Biological Conservation 50:263-278. .Pressey, R.L., C.J. Humphries, C.R. Margules, R I. Vane-Wright, and P.H. Williams. 1993. 

Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 8:124-128.

Preston, F.W. 1960. Time and space and the variation of species. Ecology 41: 611-627.

.Redmond, R.L., T.P. Tady, F.B. Fisher, M.M. Thornton, and J.C. Winne. 1997. Landsat

vegetation mapping of the southwest and central Idaho Ecogroups. Unpublished Final Report,

Contract #53-0343-4-000012. USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest, Boise, Idaho.

Reed, R.A., J. Johnson-Barnard, and W.L. Baker. 1996. Fragmentation of a forested rocky

mountain landscape, 1950-1993. Biological Conservation 75:267-277.

Reichel, J.D. 1997. Montana animal species of special concern. [Unpublished list.] Montana

Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 9 pp.

Ride, W.L.D. 1975. In: F. Fenner, ed. A national system of ecological reserves in Australia. 

64 pp.

Scott, J.M., and M.D. Jennings, eds. 1994. A handbook for Gap Analysis. National Gap

Analysis Program, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843

(http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/).

Scott, J.M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco, F.

D'Erchia, T.C. Edwards, Jr., J. Ulliman, and G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographic

approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123.

Smith, H.C. 1989. Checklist of the mammals of Alberta, revised ed. Provincial Museum of

Alberta, Edmonton. 14 pp.

Specht, R.L. 1975. The report and its recommendations. Pages 11-16 in: F.Fenner, ed., A

national system of ecological reserves in Australia. Australian Academy of Sciences Report

No. 19. Canberra, Australia.

Specht, R.L., E.M. Roe, and V.H. Boughlon. 1974. Australian Journal of Botany Supplement

Series. Supplement No. 7.

Spies, T.A., W.J. Ripple, and G.A. Bradshaw. 1994. Dynamics and pattern of a managed

coniferous forest landscape in Oregon. Ecological Applications 4(3):555-568.

Steele, B.M., and R.L. Redmond. Ms. A method of exploiting spatial information for improviing

classification rules: Application to the construction of polygon-based land cover maps. 

Unpublished manuscript. Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab, University of Montana, Missoula.

128
Steele, B.M., Winne, J.C., and R.L. Redmond. In press. Estimation and mapping of

misclassification probabilities for thematic land cover maps. Remote Sens. Environ.

Stoms, D., and J. Estes. 1993. A remote sensing research agenda for mapping and monitoring

biodiversity. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14:1839-1860.

Stoms, D.M. 1994. Actual vegetation layer. In J.M. Scott and M.D. Jennings, eds. A handbook

for Gap Analysis. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho,

Moscow.

Turner, M.G. 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology

4:21-30.

Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. Univ. Kans.

Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ.; No. 60. 178 pp.

UNESCO. 1973. International classification and mapping of vegetation. Paris.

USGS. 1989. Digital Line Graphs from 1:100,000 scale maps -- Data Users Guide 2. U.S.

Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 88 pp.

USGS. 1993. Digital elevation models -- Data Users Guide 5. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,

Virginia, 48 pp.

White, D., J. Kimerling, and W.S. Overton. 1992. Cartographic and geometric components of a

global sampling design for environmental monitoring. Cartographic and Geographic

Information Systems 19:5-22.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological

Monographs 30(3):279-338.

Whittaker, R.H. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science 147: 250-

259.

Whittaker, R.H. 1977. Species diversity in land communities. Evolutionary Biology 10:1-67.

Williams, P.H., D. Gibbons, C. Margules, A. Rebelo, C. Humphries, and R. Pressey. 1996. A

comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving

diversity of British birds. Conservation Biology 10:155-174.

Wright, P.L. 1996. Status of rare birds in Montana, with comments on known hybrids. 

Northwestern Naturalist 77:57-85.

129
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

aerial videography – video images of the land surface taken from an airplane

algorithm – a procedure to solve a problem or model a solution (in GAP, typically refers to a GIS

procedure used to model animal distributions)

alliance level – a land unit made up of an "alliance" of natural communities that have the same

dominant or co-dominant plant species or, in the absence of vegetation, by the dominant land cover

typically described according to the Ander son land cover classification (see "Natural Community

Alliance" in Grossman et al. 1995) 

alpha diversity – a single within-habitat measure of species diversity regardless of internal pattern,

generally over an area of 0.1 to 1,000 hectares (see Whittaker 1960, 1977) 

Anderson Level II – the second hierarchical level in the Anderson land cover classification system

(see Anderson et al. 1976) 

anthropogenic – caused by man

assemblages – a group of ecologically interrelated plant and animal species

band, spectral – a segment of the electromagnetic spectrum defined by a range of wavelengths

(e.g., blue, green, red, near infrared, far infrared) that comprise the Landsat TM imagery

beta diversity – the change in species diversity among different natural communities of a landscape;

an index of between-habitat diversity (see Whittaker 1960, 1977) 

biodiversity or biological diversity – generally, the variety of life and its interrelated processes

biogeographic – relating to the geographical distribution of plants and animals

cartographic – pertaining to the art or technique of making maps or charts

classification, digital – a computer-assisted approach to developing land cover maps from digital

imagery, in which image pixels are classified based on statistical differences in spectral

characteristics (see supervised and unsupervised classification)

classification, visual or visual interpretation – classification of imagery based on human

interpretation, as opposed to digital or computer-assisted classification

classify or classification – to assign objects, features, or areas on an image to spectral classes based

upon their appearance, as opposed to classification referring to a scheme for describing the

hierarchies of vegetation or animal species for an area

coarse filter – the general conservation activities that conserve the common elements of the

landscape matrix, as opposed to the fine filter conservation activities that are aimed at special cases

such as rare elements (see Jenkins 1985) 

130
community – a group of interacting plants and animals

cover type – a non-technical, higher-level floristic and structural description of vegetation cover

cross-walking – matching equivalent land cover categories between two or more classification

systems

delineate – identifying the boundaries between more or less homogeneous areas on remotely

sensed images as visible from differences in tone and texture

delta diversity – the change in species diversity between landscapes along major climatic or

physiographic gradients (see Whittaker 1977) 

digitization – entering spatial data digitally into a GIS

distribution, species – in a GAP context, refers to a computer-modeled map of a species’ potential

distribution for a given area, baesd on parameters such as range and habitat associations (see

habitat and wildlife habitat relationship model)

ecoregion – a large region, usually spanning several million hectares, characterized by having

similar biota, climate, and physiography (topography, hydrology, etc.)

ecosystem – a biological community (ranging in scale from a single cave to millions of hectares),

its physical environment, and the processes through which matter and energy are transferred

among the components

edge-matching – the process of connecting polygons at the boundary between two independently

created maps, either between TM scenes or between state GAP data sets

element – a plant community or animal species mapped by GAP; may also be referred to as element

of biodiversity

error of commission – the occurrence of a species (or other map category) is erroneously predicted

in an area where it is in fact absent

error of omission – when a model fails to predict the occurrence of a species that is actually present

in an area

exact set coverage – a basic optimization problem to determine the best method for identifying

general areas that, when selected sequentially, would have the greatest positive cumulative impact

on attaining adequate representation of any or all biotic elements of interest 

extinction – disappearance of a species throughout its entire range

extirpation – disappearance of a species from part of its range 

fine filter – see coarse filter

floristic – pertaining to the plant species that make up the vegetation of a given area

131
formation level – the level of land cover categorization between Group and Alliance describing the

structural attributes of a land unit, for example, "Evergreen Coniferous Woodlands with Rounded

Crowns" (see Jennings 1993b)

gamma diversity – the species diversity of a landscape, generally covering 1,000 to 1,000,000

hectares, made up of more than one kind of natural community (see Whittaker 1977) 

gap analysis – a comparison of the distribution of elements of biodiversity with that of areas

managed for their long-term viability to identify elements with inadequate representation

geographic information systems (GIS) – computer hardware and software for storing, retrieving,

manipulating, and analyzing spatial data

global positioning system (GPS) – an instrument that utilizes satellite signals to pinpoint its

location on the earth's surface

greedy heuristic – an algorithm for exact set cover analysis (see Kiester et al., in press)

ground truthing – verifying maps by checking the actual occurrence of plant and animal species in

the field at representative sample locations

habitat – the physical structure, vegetational composition, and physiognomy of an area, the

characteristics of which determine its suitability for particular animal or plant species

hectare – a metric unit of area of 10,000 square meters and equal to 2.47 acres

hexagon – typically refers to the EPA’s EMAP hexagonal grid of 635 square kilometer units

hyperclustering – a efficient, interactive method for accurately analyzing and classifying

remotely-sensed data that reduces data size and computational requirements while retaining the

integrity of the original data

latilong – a geographic unit, one degree latitude by one degree longitude

merge – refers to the process of aggregating TM pixels (or other units) to larger, user-specified

minimum map units

metadata – information about data, e.g., their source, lineage, content, structure, and availability

minimum mapping unit (MMU) – the smallest area that is depicted on a map

neotropics – the zoogeographic region stretching southward from the tropic of Cancer and

including southern Mexico, Central and South America, and the West Indies

phenology – the study of periodic biological phenomena, such as flowering, breeding, and

migration, especially as related to climate

132
phenotype – the environmentally and genetically determined observable appearance of an organism,

especially as considered with respect to all possible genetically influenced expressions of one

specific character 

physiognomic – based on physical features

physiographic province – a region having a pattern of relief features or land forms that differ

significantly from that of adjacent regions

pixel – the smallest spatial unit in a raster data structure; also may be referred to as a grid cell

polygon – an area enclosed by lines in a vector-based GIS data layer, or a region of contiguous

homogeneous pixels in a raster system

preprocessing – those operations that prepare data for subsequent analysis, usually by attempts to

correct or compensate for systematic, radiometric, and geometric errors

range – the geographic limit of a species

range unit – a spatial, geographic unit to record and display species geographic range (such as

hexagons or latilongs)

raster format – data stored as rows and columns of cell (pixel) values, where the cell is the

fundamental unit for analysis and manipulation in a GIS ; e.g., ARC/INFO GRIDs 

registration, spatial – matching different images to each other by finding points on the images that

can be matched to known points on the ground

remote sensing – deriving information about the earth's surface from images acquired at a distance,

usually relying on measurement of electromagnetic radiation reflected or emitted from the feature of

interest

resolution – the ability of a remote sensing system to record and display fine detail in a

distinguishable manner, or the smallest feature that can be distinguished or resolved on a map or

image, such as a TM pixel

scale, map – the ratio of distance on a map to distance in the real word, expressed as a fraction; the

smaller the denominator, the larger the scale, e.g., 1:24,000 is larger than 1:100,000 

sensitivity analysis – the consideration of a number of factors involved in the mathematical

modeling of an ecosystem and its components, including feedback and control, and the stability

and sensitivity of the system as a whole to changes in some part of the system; predictions can be

made from the analysis

simulated annealing – an algorithm used for set coverage analysis (see Kiester et al., in press)

species richness – the number of species of a particular interest group found in a given area

spectral cluster – a group of adjacent pixels that are uniform with respect to their brightness values

133
supervised classification – the digital process of classifying TM pixels of unknown identity by

using samples of known identity (i.e., pixels already assigned to informational classes by ground

truthing or registration with known land cover) as training data 

tessellation – the division of a map into areas of equal and uniform shape, such as the EPA-EMAP

hexagon

Thematic Mapper – a sensor on LANDSAT 4 and 5 satellites that records information in seven

spectral bands, has a spatial resolution of about 30 m x 30 m, and represents digital values in 256

levels of brightness per band

transect – a transversely cut line along which physical and biological observations are made

trophic structure – the various levels in a food chain, such as producers (plants), primary

consumers (herbivores), and secondary consumers (carnivores)

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) – one of several map projections or systems of

transformations that enables locations on the spherical earth to be represented systematically on a

flat map 

Universal Transverse Mercator grid – a geographic reference system used as the basis for

worldwide locational coding of information in a GIS or on a map

unsupervised classification – the digital process of defining, identifying, labeling, and mapping of

natural groups, or classes, of spectral values within a scene; these spectral classes are reasonably

uniform in brightness in several spectral channels 

vector format – a data structure that uses polygons, arcs (lines), and points as fundamental units

for analysis and manipulation in a GIS

wildlife habitat relationship model – a method of linking patterns of known habitat use by animal

species with maps of existing vegetation, thereby identifying the spatial extent of important habitat

features for use in conservation and management.

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ACSM American Congress on Surveying and Mapping

ADAMAS Aquatic Database Management System

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

AML ARC/INFO Macro Language

ASPRS American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing

AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (satellite system)

BCD Biological Conservation Database (TNC)

BEST Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CAFF Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna

C-CAP Coastwatch Change Analysis Program (NOAA)

CDC Conservation Data Center

CEC Council on Environmental Cooperation

134
CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

CERES California Environmental Resources Evaluation System

CIESIN Consortium for Internat'l Earth Science Information Network

CODA Conservation Options and Decision Analysis (software)

CRMP Coordinated Resource Management Plan

CRT Cathode ray tube

CRUC Cooperative Research Unit Center

DEM Digital Elevation Model (USGS)

DLG Digital line graph (USGS)

DOI Department of the Interior

ED Euclidean distance

EDC EROS Data Center

ECOMAP National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units mapping project, USDA

Forest Service

EMAP Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program (EPA)

EMAP-LC EMAP-Landscape Characterization (EPA)

EMSL Environmental Monitoring & Systems Laboratory (EPA)

EMTC Environmental Management Technical Center (NBS)

EOS Earth Observing System

EOSAT Earth Observation Satellite Company (commercial operator of the Landsat satellite

system)

EOSDIS EOS Data & Information System

EPA US Environmental Protection Agency

ERL Environmental Research Laboratory (USEPA; Corvallis, OR)

EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems (USGS)

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute (Redlands, CA)

ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FTP File transfer protocol

FY Fiscal Year

GAO General Accounting Office (Congress)

GAP Gap Analysis Program

GCDIS Global Change Data and Information System

GIS Geographic Information System

GLIS Global Land Information System (USGS)

GLOBE Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment

GPS Global Positioning System

GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support System

GRIS Geographic Resource Information Systems

HRMSI High Resolution Multispectral Stereo Imager

IALE International Association of Landscape Ecology

ID-GAP Idaho Gap Analysis Project

IDRISI A GIS developed by Clark University

LAPS Land Acquisition Priority System

LC/LU Land Cover/Land Use (USGS)

MIPS Map and Image Processing System

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MMU Minimum mapping unit

MNDVI Modified normalized difference vegetation index

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 

MSS Multi–Spectral Scanner

135
MTFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks

MT-GAP Montana Gap Analysis Project

MTNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program (Helena, MT)

MTPE Mission to Planet Earth

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NALC North American Landscape Characterization (USEPA, USGS)

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment (USGS)

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure

NBS National Biological Service

NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Planning program (in CA)

NDCDB National Digital Cartographic Data Base

NDVI Normalized difference vegetation index

NERC National Ecology Research Center (Ft. Collins, CO)

NMD National Mapping Division

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRIS Natural Resource Information System (Montana State Library, Helena, MT)

NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

NWI National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS)

OMB Office of Management and Budget (Administration)

OSIS Oregon Species Information System

PARC Public Access Resource Center

PI Principal Investigator

PLSS Public Land Survey System

POD Point Observation Database (MT Natural Heritage Program)

SAB Science Advisory Board (EPA)

SCICOLL Scientific Collections Permit Database

SDTS Spatial Data Transfer Standard

SGID State Geographic Information Database

SNEP Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project

SOFIA Southern Forest Inventory and Analysis

SPOT Système Pour l'Observation de la Terre

RMSE Root mean square error

TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system (US

Census)

TM Landsat Thematic Mapper

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

URISA Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

URL Universal Resource Locator

USFS US Forest Service

USGS US Geological Service

USFWS US Fish & Wildlife Service

UT-GAP Utah Gap Analysis Project

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

WHR Wildlife-habitat relationships

WSAL Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab (The University of Montana)

WWW World Wide Web

WY-GAP Wyoming Gap Analysis Project

136
Appendix 1.1. List of example GAP applications.

Businesses and Non-government Organizations:

The following are some examples of applications of GAP data by the private sector:

• The Wyoming Natural Heritage Program (a private non-government organization) transformed

the endangered and sensitive species database into a spatially referenced digital geographic

information system using the GAP digital base map and other GAP spatial data.

• Hughes Corp. is experimenting with the Utah and Nevada GAP digital base maps, simulating

images to aid the development of new space-based remote sensing devices.

• The Nature Conservancy used the Wyoming GAP data to develop a map of ecoregions of

Wyoming.

• Weyerhaeuser Corp. is using the Arkansas GAP data in managing their lands in Arkansas.

• IBM Corp. is funding a project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, that, in part,

uses GAP data in the development of visualization software.

• NM-GAP vegetation data is being used for an environmental assessment of a proposed

spaceport, a state/private venture.

County and City Planning:

Some other examples of the use of GAP by local governments are:

• CA-GAP biological data were combined with the Southern California Association of

Governments (SCAG) land ownership data to show which ownerships and jurisdictions were

needed for joint conservation planning and management of a particular natural community or

species, maximizing efficiency and minimizing the potential for yet another conservation crisis.

• In California, county and city planners of several jurisdictions, wildlife agencies, developers of

the 4S Ranch property, and the state Natural Communities Conservation Planning program

used the GAP regional data, as well as more detailed information, to conserve 1,640 acres of

habitat within a 2,900-acre planned development.

• Day-to-day county planning operations in Piute, Grande, and Washington counties, Utah.

• County planners in Piute County, Utah used GAP data to optimize the siting of a proposed

sawmill for aspen with respect to the distribution of aspen stands. • Missoula County, Montana, used the GAP land cover map of the area as a base map for its

comprehensive long-range plan.

• Snohomish County, Washington, used the GAP land cover map in meeting state requirements

for a growth management plan. • The City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, used GAP data to assist them in development of a

watershed planning project.

State Uses:

The following are some examples of uses of GAP data by state agencies.

• The GAP database of species habitats was used by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

(TWRA) to update its book “Species in Need of Management.” • Images of land cover derived from GAP TM data are used by TWRA for locating particular

habitat types. Information on the locations of these habitat types is provided by TWRA to the

public for a wide variety of public service functions, from education to cooperative resource

management.

• Early GAP data developed by TWRA were used to help identify an extremely important area of

the state with high biodiversity that was subsequently purchased by the state for conservation.

• Preliminary findings from GAP were used by TWRA to develop three resource management

initiatives.

• The Tennessee GAP project, which is being carried out primarily by TWRA, is the foundation

of a multi-agency, long-term biodiversity program for Tennessee.

1.1.1
Appendix 1.1 List of example GAP applications

• GAP data have been used by the Tennessee Forestry Stewardship Program to help develop a

district program for nine conservation planning districts, outlining Best Management Practices

(BMPs) for biological conservation on private lands.

• GAP data are being used extensively by TWRA in the preparation of project proposals to the

North American Waterfowl Conservation Program. These proposals require that biodiversity

issues are addressed in specific detail. The use of GAP data on occurrence of land cover types

and terrestrial vertebrates has made this possible.

• The Wyoming Department of Fish and Game (WYF&G) used GAP data to assist them in

transforming the Wildlife Observation System database into a spatially referenced geographic

information system.

• The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Bear River Water Conservancy District used

the Utah GAP land cover map in a resource management assessment for mitigating conflicts

between a proposed groundwater withdrawal project and the maintenance of an elk calving area

in the Uinta Mountains.

• The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and Sheik

Safari International used the Utah GAP land cover map to identify critical elk habitat. The

environmental profile of these areas was then used to identify other similar areas for elk habitat

enhancement.

• The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources used the Utah GAP land cover map for a rapid

ecological assessment of the Echo Henefer Wildlife Management Area.

• The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife used GAP data to develop a breeding bird

atlas and an atlas of mammals of Washington State.

• The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife uses GAP data to operate an integrated

landscape management program.

• The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife uses GAP data from Eastern Washington to

assist with an innovative program that brings the forest products industry, state agency

biologists, non-government organizations, and tribal biologists together in the field to jointly

determine the appropriate management practices for any particular site of concern (Timber, Fish

& Wildlife Program).

• The Idaho Department of Fish and Game used GAP data to evaluate the impact from expanded

military training activities on public lands in Southern Idaho.

• The Idaho Department of Fish and Game uses GAP data for regional planning efforts on a

regular basis.

Statewide Planning:

Biodiversity planning programs or projects are now under way in Arizona, California,

Colorado, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee. It is likely that similar efforts will

develop in other states. These activities were the subject of the State Biodiversity Programs

meeting discussed on page ? in this report. In some cases, these efforts grew out of the state GAP

project, however, in most cases, the GAP data are being used to meet a previously defined need. 

In all cases, GAP data are central to their development and operations. The goals of each of these

programs or projects are presented briefly below.

Federal Agency Applications:

Some examples of applications of GAP data by federal agencies follow:

• GAP data are being supplied to all military installations in the Great Basin ecoregion for

integrated management of the natural resources. These installations constitute a very large

amount of land area. Much of it is of high value for native species.

1.1.2
Appendix 1.1 List of example GAP applications

• The Ouachita National Forest used the Arkansas GAP data to help them develop an ecosystem

management plan.

• The Wyoming GAP data were used by NASA to calibrate a model that predicts vegetation

types based on climate and soil variables.

• The potential contributions to biodiversity conservation of four different options proposed for

new wilderness designation in Idaho were quantified by the Idaho Cooperative Fish and

Wildlife Research Unit in cooperation with the Park Studies Unit.

• The potential contributions to biodiversity conservation of four different options proposed for

new national park designation in Idaho were quantified by the Idaho Cooperative Park Studies

Unit.

• The U.S. Forest Service in Booneville, Arkansas, used the Arkansas GAP data land cover

maps in a 3-dimensional presentation to provide the public with a visual representation of the

region and to enhance the public’s involvement with the National Forest planning process.

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regularly uses the GAP data for Southern California for

habitat evaluation and management.

• The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service are using

the GAP data for a wide variety of natural resource management operations in Utah. For

example, the entire Utah GAP database is directly linked with existing National Park Service

databases for use by National Parks.

• The Bureau of Land Management uses the Wyoming GAP data for managing the Buffalo

Resource Area.

• The U.S. Forest Service used the Utah GAP data to help assist them in evaluating humaninduced impacts to forested lands surrounding ski resorts in central Utah.

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Delaware used GAP data to help identify potential

habitat for the federally endangered Delmarva fox squirrel. These maps were displayed and

served as a catalyst for bringing together people with a stake in the issue.

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used the Indiana GAP data as part of a biological

assessment for the base closure of the Jefferson Proving Grounds and its conversion to a

National Wildlife Refuge. This 58,000-acre installation has restricted human access due to

unexploded ordinance and contains some of the highest quality natural habitat in Indiana.

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Louisiana used GAP data to avoid conflict over the

designation of critical habitat of the federally endangered Louisiana black bear.

• The NOAA Coastal Marine Sanctuary in Washington State uses GAP data for an educational

display.

• In Washington and New Mexico, digital land cover maps have been distributed to all National

Forests.

• The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in New Mexico is using a

GAP clustered imagery as a base for their land cover mapping activities.

• The Department of Defense is funding the development of an electronic environmental

information system for the Mojave ecoregion, which would use GAP data as a foundation or

base layer of information. The system will link 29 DoD installations to a common source of

environmental information.

1.1.3
Montana Land Cover Atlas

Appendix 2.1. Example of the information presented for each of 50 land cover types in the Montana

Land Cover Atlas(Fisher et al. 1998).

3150 Low / Moderate Cover Grasslands

Arrowleaf Balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata)

Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Agropyron spictatum)

Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis)

Bluestem (Andropogon spp.)

Carex species (Carex spp.)

Green Needlegrass (Stipa viridula)

Idaho Fescue (Festuca Idahoensis)

Lupine (Lupinus spp.)

Needle & Thread grass (Stipa comata)

Rough Fescue (Festuca scabrella)

Timothy (Poa pratensis)

Western Wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii)

DOMINANT SPECIES

Low to moderate cover grasslands with total grass

cover from 20-70%. Dominated by short to medium

height grasses and forbs. Grasslands with production

ranges from 300-1800 lb/ac. Includes rangelands and

non-irrigated pastures.

DESCRIPTION

Occurs across the state in valleys and foothills. Occurs on middle to high elevation mountain slopes on south aspects.

10,427,464

432,016

27.38

1100

311 3266

STATE RANGE % of state

m

- m

TOTAL AREA ELEVATION

hectares

patches mean

range

2.1.1
Appendix 3.1. Remarks on the Construction of Gap Analysis Models for Amphibians and

Reptiles. Prepared by Bryce A. Maxell, 5/6/98.

Overview of models

The primary goal in developing gap analysis models for amphibians and reptiles was to indicate

potential suitable habitats within the ranges of the various species in Montana at an intermediate

spatial scale (1-2 hectares). Although satellite imagery collected information on land cover at a 30

meter spatial resolution, models were limited to 1-2 hectare resolution because 1 hectare minimum

mapping units (the minimum unit used for map features) were used for mapping riparian vegetation

and 2 hectare minimum mapping units were used for all other vegetation types. It was necessary to

use these minimum mapping units because of the data storage and processing time required for

statewide models. Therefore, given the minimum mapping unit limitations, the maps are intended

to reflect patterns of distribution across the state, not to indicate whether a species can be found at

any given location.

Although a number of different layers/coverages were considered for inclusion in the models

several layers/coverages had problems with low resolution or uneven accuracy (e.g. coverages for

springs and STATSGO soil cover types). When possible these layers were avoided in the final

models. Unfortunately, the hydrography layer was one of the layers that was mapped

inconsistently (more detailed mapping of hydrography was done in some areas). However, the

hydrography layer was extremely important to the modeling of many amphibians and reptiles so it

was used despite its inconsistencies; this often shows up as areas of darker shaded squares on the

predicted distributions in eastern Montana. Exclusion of the low resolution and low accuracy

layers/coverages resulted in fairly simple models that include a maximum of four data layers

(digital elevation models (DEMs), hydrography, land cover types and riparian cover types. Thus,

models included elevations, land cover types, riparian cover types, and various hydrography

(lakes, major rivers, and tributaries) that were appropriate for each species. 

Amphibian models are mostly based on the taxa’s ties to watery breeding habitats. Therefore,

models typically consist of buffering hydrographic features into appropriate cover types (at

appropriate elevations) by distances typical of the maximum migration the species is known to

undergo between watery breeding habitats and terrestrial feeding, aestivation and hibernation sites.

The only exceptions to this were the Plains Spadefoot which breeds in ephemeral rainwater pools,

three toad species (Boreal, Woodhouse’s and Great Plains toads), and the tiger salamander. We

felt that a 2 km buffer around all hydrographic features, should be used for all of these species but

the Plains Spadefoot. However, preliminary review of these models revealed that a 2 km buffer

around all hydrographic features covered almost the entire state and, where the buffer ended, it left

rather artificial boundaries in the predicted species distributions. In order to eliminate these

artificial boundary artifacts and decrease computer-processing time, appropriate cover types were

simply turned on for these species. 

Construction of reptile models was based largely on turning on appropriate habitat types. 

Buffering hydrography was used for the Painted Turtle, Rubber Boa, Smooth Green Snake and

Common Garter Snake. It was felt that a 2 km buffer around all hydrographic features should be

used for the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake and Plains Garter Snake as well. However, as with

the toad models this created artificial boundaries to predicted species distributions. In order to

eliminate these artificial boundary artifacts and decrease computer-processing time, appropriate

cover types were simply turned on for these species as well.

In order to avoid inclusion of large water bodies (e.g. Flathead Lake) in predicted species’

distributions, water, as a cover type, was excluded in all models if it was larger than 5 hectares. 

However, water bodies larger than 5 hectares were buffered into, when a buffer was applied, in

order to include shallow water breeding habitats.

3.1.1
Appendix 3.1 Remarks on amphibian and reptile models

Initial review of amphibian models was fairly satisfying in regards to model accuracy (i.e. known

species locations were mostly within the model’s predicted distributions). Model limitations were

mostly limited to (1) the inadequacy and, therefore, exclusion of a spring layer, (2) the inability to

detect fine scale habitat features for the Coeur d’Alene Salamander, (3) the inadequacy and,

therefore, exclusion of a soils layer to model the Plains Spadefoot, and (4) overestimation of

several species distributions (in some cases crossing the continental divide) due to propagation of

their distribution across continuous habitat outside its likely range during computer-processing.

Initial review of reptile models was not as satisfying as the amphibian models in regards to both

model construction and model accuracy. Models constructed on the basis of buffering

hydrography were the most satisfying. Lack of knowledge of a species’ exact habitat uses in

Montana was often a problem in model construction. Other model limitations included (1) the

inability to adequately identify forest edges for the Northern Alligator Lizard, (2) the inability to

exclude lower order streams for the Snapping Turtle because statewide stream order data are

unavailable, (3) the inadequacy of a soils layer for the Short-horned Lizard, Sagebrush Lizard, and

Western Hognose Snake, (4) the inability to adequately detect south facing slopes and hogback

ridges for most snakes, but especially for the Milk Snake, and (5) overestimation of several species

distributions due to propagation of their distribution across continuous habitat outside its likely

range during computer-processing.

The modeling process served to identify several areas in Montana that currently lack sufficient

surveys for amphibians and reptiles. These areas include: (1) the southwest corner of the state

between Butte, the Big Hole Valley and the northeastern edge of the Beartooth Plateau, (2) the area

between the Missouri River and a line due east of Billings, (3) the northeast corner of the state

(north of the Missouri River and east of Malta), (4) the island mountain ranges in the central part of

the state, (5) the north-central part of the state between Havre and the Front Range, (6) the

southeastern corner of the state between the Bighorn River and the Custer National Forest and

between the Custer National Forest and the state borders with South Dakota and Wyoming, (7) the

region around the Upper Clark Fork River upstream of Missoula.

In all cases, models should be tested with new independent data for both omission (predicting a

species does not occur in an area when it actually does) and commission (predicting a species

occurs in an area when it actually does not) errors. Models should only be tested with data points

that are both highly accurate in their collection and in the precision of their mapping. High

accuracy spatial data collection should be made with a differentially correctable GPS receiver. 

However, if a differentially correctable GPS receiver is unavailable then either a non-differentially

correctable GPS receiver or best estimates of Universal Trans Mercator (UTM) coordinates should

be used. It is preferable to report UTM coordinates over Township, Range and Section (TRS)

locations in order to ensure high mapping precision (i.e. field personnel have a better idea of their

exact location as compared to a person digitizing a reported TRS description who is forced to

digitize a point in the center of section or quarter section).

Development of Models

Development of amphibian and reptile gap models generally involved the following steps:

1. A database spreadsheet was constructed that contains information from field guides, other

published accounts and personal knowledge of a species’ distribution, elevational limits,

habitat use dispersal distances for feeding, breeding, rearing, aestivating and hibernating in

Montana and the surrounding states and provinces. This was used as a primary reference

during the construction of all models.

3.1.2
Appendix 3.1 Remarks on amphibian and reptile models

2. The extent of a species’ range in the state was determined in order to decide the spatial extent to

which the models should be applied. To do this a coverage containing hexagons from the

EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) were “draped” over the

state; each of these hexagons covers an area of 635 square kilometers (the distance between any

two vertices of a hexagon being 27 kilometers). Hexagons were then coded as confirmed (for

hexagons containing a reliable documented occurrence of the species after 1950), probable (for

hexagons without documented records, but felt to have an 80% or greater probability of the

species occurrence), possible (for hexagons without reliable documented records, but felt to

have a 10-80% probability of the species occurrence), historic (for hexagons containing a

reliable documented occurrence of the species prior to 1950) and not possible (for hexagons

without a reliable documented occurrence and felt to have less than 10% probability of the

species occurrence). Models were applied to all confirmed, probable, possible and historic

hexagons. The following principles or factors guided decisions of whether to include a

hexagon based on professional judgement.

A. Extensions of a species’ range beyond locations documented by the Montana Natural

Heritage Program’s database were made conservatively with the following exceptions: (1)

when published records in adjacent states and territories suggested a continuous range to

the state border; (2) when published articles and/or theses/dissertations with reliable records

suggested a range extension; (3) as a function of computer processing, hexagons adjacent

to a confirmed hexagon were included for modeling when a modeled habitat type was

continuous across the confirmed and adjacent hexagon; in some cases this resulted in the

inclusion of two or three hexagons past the known range of a species. This may prove

informative on the actual range of some species, but may falsely propagate the range for

others.

B. Hexagons within the known range of a species were included liberally even without a

species documented presence. It was felt that the models should be able to exclude unlikely

habitat within the range (e.g., exclusion of a mountain range). 

3. Individual species’ models were constructed within two database spreadsheets; one containing

information on general modeling strategies and data layers to be included in the model and

another containing all land cover types to be included in the model. Within the spreadsheet,

data layers/coverages (land cover type, riparian cover type, hydrography, and elevation, were

the only data layers used) and modeling strategies (buffering, turning on habitat types, or a

combination of the two) were simply checked for inclusion or not. Similarly, land cover types

in the land cover type spreadsheet were simply checked for inclusion or not. Maximum

elevation levels included in a model were based on records for a species in Montana or a nearby

state; elevation limits were not included if the species is known to inhabit higher elevations in

nearby states or provinces than are present within the species’ range in Montana. With the

exception of the Columbia Spotted Frog, which was given an elevational limit 600 meters

above documented highs based on documented elevations of a garter snake (a predator that

generally relies on the presence of amphibian prey), all elevation limits were 100-270 meters

above documented highs in Montana or nearby states.

4. Models were reviewed by comparing each model’s predicted species distribution with existing

species’ point locations in the Montana Natural Heritage Program’s database; only point

locations having high data and mapping precision (both less than or equal to 600 meters).

5. When the initial models failed to accurately represent a species known distribution models were

adjusted. However, all model adjustments had a biological basis and adjustments were not

made simply to ensure that predicted model distributions matched known point locations for a

species.

3.1.3
Appendix 3.2. Names and affiliations of individuals participating in the 1997 and 1998 review of

vertebrate habitat associations and distributions for Montana Gap Analysis, as well as those who

provided input on mammal hexagon maps during their preparation by Montana Natural Heritage

Program staff. 

Name Affiliation Taxonomic review

Kathy Ake, Nancy Warren,

and other USFS biologists

U.S. Forest Service - Flathead NF Birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians

Eric Atkinson Marmot's Edge Conservation Birds

John Carlson Montana State University Birds

Chuck Carlson Montana Bird Records Committee Birds

Quinn Carver U.S. Forest Service - Helena NF Carnivore hexagons

Dan Casey Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Birds

Jeff Copeland Idaho Fish & Game Department Mammals

Steve Corn U.S. Forest Service - Aldo Leopold

Wilderness Research Institute

Reptiles,

amphibians

Lance Craighead American Wildlands Mammals

Pat Dolan U.S. Forest Service - Lolo NF Birds

Rick Douglass Montana Tech of the University of Montana Rodent hexagons

Kristi DuBois Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians

Mike Enk U.S. Forest Service - Lewis & Clark NF Reptiles,

amphibians

John Ensign Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Glenn Erickson Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Ungulate hexagons

Charlie Eustace Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Pat Farmer WESTECH Rodent, small

carnivore hexagons

John Firebaugh Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Dennis Flath Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals, reptiles,

amphibians; rodent,

bat, and carnivore

hexagons

Brian Giddings Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Carnivore hexagons

Steve Gniadek National Park Service Birds, mammals

Don Godtel U.S. Forest Service - Lewis & Clark NF Birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians

John Grensten Bureau of Land Management - Phillips

Resource Area

Mammals

3.2.1
Name Affiliation Taxonomic review

Sallie Hejl U.S. Forest Service - Intermountain Research

Station

Birds

Colin Henderson University of Montana Mammals

Bob Henderson Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Paul Hendricks Montana Natural Heritage Program Birds, mammals

John Hoffland U.S. Forest Service - Northern Region Birds

Denver Holt Owl Research Institute Birds

Richard L. Hutto University of Montana Birds

Jamie Jonkel Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Craig Knowles FaunaWest Prairie dog

hexagons

John Malloy Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Mammals

Harriet Marble Montana Bird Records Committee Birds

Jeff Marks Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Birds

Steve Martin U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds

Randy Matchett U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds, mammals,

reptiles, amphibians

Clint McCarthy U.S. Forest Service - Custer NF Birds

Terry McEneaney National Park Service Birds

Bob Moore Prof. Emeritus, Montana State University Rodent hexagons

Ted Nordhagen Private Birds

Harvey Nyberg Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Birds

Alison Perkins Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Birds

Dwain M. Prellwitz U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds

Mike Rabenberg U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Birds

Sue Reel U.S. Forest Service - Lolo NF Birds

Gregory L. Risdahl Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Andy Sheldon University of Montana Reptiles,

amphibians

Mike Thompson Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Mammals

Kirwin Werner Private Reptiles,

amphibians

Jim Williams Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Carnivore hexagons

Vita Wright U.S. Forest Service - Aldo Leopold

Wilderness Research Institute

Birds

Jock Young University of Montana Birds

3.2.2
Appendix 3.3 Example of information found for each of 425 vertebrate species in the Montana

Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates, Part 1: Habitat Accounts and Predicted Distributions.

Sitta pygmaea

PYGMY NUTHATCH

Element code ABPAZ01030

Global rank G5

State rank S4

Breeding confirmed only for northwestern and west-central Montana, but indirect evidence occurs across

southern Montana. Seen least frequently from central through eastern Montana. Winter records are

primarily for northwestern and west-central Montana (Montana Bird Distribution Committee 1996).

State range

A gregarious resident, the pygmy nuthatch generally is associated with ponderosa pine (Norris 1958,

Manolis 1977, Diem and Zeveloff 1980, Ehrlich et al. 1988, Hejl et al. 1995, T. McEneaney, pers.

comm.). However, Hejl and Woods (1991) studied bird assemblages in old-growth and rotation-aged

Douglas-fir / ponderosa pine stands of western Montana and adjacent Idaho and found no pygmy

nuthatches in 32 study sites. In western Montana it is found in cottonwood / ponderosa pine forest types

(S. Hejl, pers. comm.). Although there are no confirmed breeding records in the Custer National Forest

that is within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the species may breed in mixed ponderosa pine

forest there; it may commonly move locally into and out of the area (Hutto in Clark et al. 1989). The

pygmy nuthatch prefers mature to old-growth stands that are fairly open: <70% canopy coverage

(Aney 1984, Hutto in Clark et al. 1989) down to 10% canopy coverage (Norris 1958). Territories are

maintained year-round (Ehrlich et al. 1988); their sizes range from 3.2 acres to 4.9 acres (Norris 1958,

Hutto in Clark et al. 1989). The species relies almost exclusively on live ponderosa pine for foraging

during the nonbreeding season (Stallcup 1968), with pine seeds comprising ~65% of its diet in the course

of 1 year (Norris 1958). In Arizona, breeding pair and pairs with “helpers” fledged significantly more

young in habitats with the greatest floral diversity and structural maturity (basal area, tree

Habitat description

Modeled by P. McLaughlin

MTNHP status --

Predicted habitat: 305,123 0.80 ha, % of state.

9/30/98 3.3.1
Appendix 3.3 Example From Montana Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates

diameter, and tree height) than those in other habitats (Sydeman et al. 1988). Storer (1977) found

that pygmy nuthatch nest sites were generally devoid of deciduous undergrowth, except in ravines.

Scott (1979) and Scott and Oldemeyer (1983) found that pygmy nuthatch abundance decreased

significantly in a forest plot that was selectively harvested, despite the availability of aspen snags.

This nuthatch relies heavily on ponderosa pine snags for nest sites. The availability of old-growth

ponderosa pine may determine the viability of the pygmy nuthatch population (Diem and Zeveloff

1980, Hutto in Clark et al. 1989).

The pygmy nuthatch generally nests in dead or decaying ponderosa pine (Bent 1948, McEllin 1979),

preferably in large snags, from 45cm DBH to > 50cm DBH (Raphael 1980, Clark et al. 1989). In winter,

it roosts communally and relies on the availability of cavities for survival; a single snag is important

to a large population (Knorr 1957, Sydeman and Guntert 1983). Neither size class nor snag presence is

available for this model. Breeding habitat is modeled, with the assumption that winter habitat is

included within model parameters. Low (10-39%) canopy closure is selected for ponderosa pine (4206);

mixed forest riparian (6130) is included in its entirety.

Model assumptions & caveats

References

Aney, W.C. 1984. The effects of patch size on bird communities of remnant old-growth pine stands in western

Montana. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 98 pp.

Bent, A.C. 1948. Life histories of North American nuthatches, wrens, thrashers, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull.

195. Washington, D.C.

Clark, T.W., A.H. Harvey, R.D. Dorn, D.L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds. 1989. Rare, sensitive, and threatened species of

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Montana Natural Heritage

Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Mountain West Environmental Services. 153 pp.

Diem, K.L. and S.E. Zeveloff. 1980. Ponderosa pine bird communities. Pages 170-197 in Management of Western

Forests and Grasslands for Nongame birds. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North

American birds. Simon and Shuster, Inc., New York. xxx + 785 pp.

Hejl, S.J. and R.E. Woods. 1991. Bird assemblages in old-growth and rotation-aged Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine

stands in the northern Rocky Mountains: a preliminary assessment. Pages 285-292 in D. M. Baumgartner and J. E.

Lotan, eds. Symposium proceedings, interior Douglas-fir: the species and its management. Wash. State Univ., Pullman.

Hejl, S.J., R.L. Hutto, C.R. Preston, and D.M. Finch. 1995. Effects of silvicultural treatments in the Rocky Mountains.

Pages 220-244 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds. Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds.

Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

Knorr, O.A. 1957. Communual roosting of the pygmy nuthatch. Condor 59: 398.

Manolis, T. 1977. Foraging relationships of mountain chickadees and pygmy nuthatches. West. Birds 8: 13-20.

McEllin, S. M. 1979. Nest sites and population demographies of white-breasted and pygmy nuthatches in Colorado.

Condor 81: 348-352.

Montana Bird Distribution Committee. 1996. P. D. Skaar’s Montana Bird Distribution, Fifth Edition. Special

Publication No. 3. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena. 130 pp.

9/30/98 3.3.2
Appendix 3.3 Example From Montana Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates

Norris, R.A. 1958. Comparative biosystematics and life history of the nuthatches Sitta pygmaea and Sitta pusilla.

Pages 119-300 in F. A. Pitelka, S. B. Benson, W. B. Quay, and C. Stern, eds. U.C. Publications in Zoology. Vol. 56, no.

2. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.

Raphael, M.G. 1980. Utilization of standing dead trees by breeding birds at Sagehen Creek, Calif. Ph.D Thesis,

Univ. California, Berkeley. 195 pp.

Scott, V.E. 1979. Bird response to snag removal in ponderosa pine. J. Forestry 77: 26-28.

Scott, V.E. and J.L. Oldemeyer. 1983. Cavity-nesting bird requirements and responses to snag cutting in ponderosa

pine. Pages 19-23 in J. W. Davis, G. A. Goodwin, and R. A. Ockenfels (tech. coords.). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-99.

Stallcup, P.L. 1968. Spatio-temporal relationships of nuthatches and woodpeckers in ponderosa pine forest of

Colorado. Ecology 49: 831-843.

Storer, B.E. 1977. Aspects of the breeding ecology of the pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) and the foraging ecology of

wintering mixed-species flocks in western Montana. M.S. thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 114 pp.

Sydeman, W.J. and M. Guntert. 1983. Winter communal roosting in the pygmy nuthatch. Pages 121-124 in J. W.

Davis, G. A. Goodwin, and R. A. Ockenfels, tech. coords. U. S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-99.

Sydeman, W. J., M. Guntert, and R. J. Balda. 1988. Annual reproductive yield in the cooperative pygmy nuthatch

(Sitta pygmaea). Auk 105: 70-77.

9/30/98 3.3.3
Montana Gap Analysis: Modeling Layers for Birds P. McLaughlin

Appendix 3.3 Example from Montana Atlas of Terrestrial Vertebrates, Part 2: Modeling Rules & Data Layers.

Element Code ABPAZ01030

Sitta pygmaea

PYGMY NUTHATCH

1

Elevation

1

Aspect 1

Slope 1

Hydro Buffer 1

Modeled?

Primary Layers Used = 2

Name of Loop landcov_canopy.list

0 <600

0 601-750

0 751-900

0 901-1050

0 1051-1200

0 1201-1350

0 1351-1500

0 1501-1650

0 1651-1800

0 1801-1950

0 1951-2100

0 2101-2250

0 2251-2400

0 2401-2550

0 2551-2700

0 2701-2850

0 2851-3000

0 3001-3150

0 3301-3450

0 3451-3600

0 3601-3750

0 3751-3900

<1969

1970-2461

2462-2953

2954-3445

3446-3937

3938-4429

4430-4921

4922-5413

5414-5906

5907-6398

6399-6890

6891-7382

7383-7874

7875-8366

8367-8858

8859-9350

9351-9843

9844-10335

10828-11319

11320-11811

11812-12303

12304-12795

10336-10827 0 3151-3300

FEET METERS

Elevation Contours

1100 0

2010 0

0

3180 0

3200 0

3300 0

3350 0

0

4000 0

4140 0

4203 0

4205 0

4206 1

4207 0

4210 0

4211 0

4212 0

4214 0

4216 0

4223 0

4260 0

4270 0

4280 0

4290 0

4300 0

4400 0

5000 0

6110

6200 0

6300 0

6400 0

7300 0

7500 0

7600 0

7800 0

8100 0

9100 0

URBAN

DRY AGRICULTURE

PARKLAND/MEADOW

MESIC SHRUB

XERIC SHRUB

SAGEBRUSH

LOW COVER FOREST

MIXED BROADLEAF

LODGEPOLE PINE

LIMBER PINE

PONDEROSA PINE

GRAND FIR

WESTERN RED CEDAR

WESTERN HEMLOCK

DOUGLAS-FIR

ROCKY MOUNTAIN JUNIPER

UTAH JUNIPER

DOUGLAS-FIR/LODGEPOLE

MIXED WHITEBARK PINE

MIXED SUBALPINE FOREST

MIXED MESIC FOREST

MIXED XERIC FOREST

MIXED BROADLEAF/CONIFER

BURN

WATER

CONIFER RIPARIAN

GRAMINOID/FORB RIPARIAN

SHRUB RIPARIAN

MIXED RIPARIAN

EXPOSED ROCK

MINES & QUARRIES

BADLANDS

MIXED BARREN

ALPINE MEADOW

SNOW

0

BROADLEAF RIPARIAN 6120 0

MIXED FOREST RIPARIAN 6130 1

WESTERN LARCH 4215 0

IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 2020 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ALTERED HERBACEOUS 3110

V. LOW-LOW COVER GRASS 3130 0

LOW-MEDIUM GRASS 3150

MEDIUM-HIGH GRASS 3170

SILVER SAGE 3309

SALT FLATS 3310

MESIC SHRUB-GRASSLAND 3510

XERIC SHRUB-GRASSLAND 3520

MISSOURI BREAKS 7604

Land Cover Types

Select cover types; apply canopy closure to 4206 only;

include 6130 in entirety.

SELECT

& BUFFER BY

1

1

1

< 40% (L)

40-70% (M)

> 70% (H)

9/30/98

Input Layers

Cover Type

Canopy

Closure

Model Description 

1

Name of AML bird3model.aml

Model Status breeding

3.3.4

Output Grid BPAZ0103
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with

checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A = taxonomic

group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented for wildlife

area. %Nc = percent commission, %No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AAAAA01080 X M A A X A A A X A X M A C 66.6733.33 0.00

Ambystoma macrodactylum

LONG-TOED SALAMANDER

AAAAA01140 M X A A M A A A M A M O A M 83.330.00 16.67

Ambystoma tigrinum

TIGER SALAMANDER

AAAAD12270 X X A A X A A A X A X M A X 100.000.00 0.00

Plethodon idahoensis

COEUR D'ALENE SALAMANDER

AAABA01010 X C A A X A A A X A X M A C 33.3366.67 0.00

Ascaphus truei

TAILED FROG

AAABB01030 X M A A X A A A X A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Bufo boreas

WESTERN TOAD

AAABB01050 C X A A M A A A C A X X A X 33.3366.67 0.00

Bufo cognatus

GREAT PLAINS TOAD

AAABB01080 X X A A X A A A C A X X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Bufo hemiophrys

CANADIAN TOAD

AAABB01180 C X A A M A A A C A X X A X 33.3366.67 0.00

Bufo woodhousii

WOODHOUSE'S TOAD

AAABC05070 M X A A M A A A C A M X A M 80.0020.00 0.00

Pseudacris triseriata

WESTERN CHORUS FROG

AAABC05100 X C A A X A A A X A X C A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Pseudacris regilla

PACIFIC CHORUS FROG

AAABF02010 C X A A M A A A C A X X A C 25.0075.00 0.00

Spea bombifrons

PLAINS SPADEFOOT

AAABH01070 X X A A X A A A X A X M A X 100.000.00 0.00

Rana catesbeiana

BULLFROG

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.1
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AAABH01170 M C A A M A A A M A C M A M 71.4328.57 0.00

Rana pipiens

NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG

AAABH01290 X M A A X A A A X A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Rana luteiventris

COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG

ARAAB01010 X X A A M A A A M A X X A X 100.000.00 0.00

Chelydra serpentina

SNAPPING TURTLE

ARAAD01010 M M A A M A A A M A X M A C 83.3316.67 0.00

Chrysemys picta

PAINTED TURTLE

ARAAG01030 X X A A M A A A X A X X A X 100.000.00 0.00

Apalone spinifera

SPINY SOFTSHELL

ARACB01010 X C A A X A A A X A X M A X 50.0050.00 0.00

Elgaria coerulea

NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD

ARACF12030 M X A A M A A A C A X X A M 75.0025.00 0.00

Phrynosoma douglasii

SHORT-HORNED LIZARD

ARACF14030 X X A A M A A A X A X X A X 100.000.00 0.00

Sceloporus graciosus

SAGEBRUSH LIZARD

ARACH01110 X C A A X A A A X A X M A X 50.0050.00 0.00

Eumeces skiltonianus

WESTERN SKINK

ARADA01010 X M A A X A A A X A C M A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Charina bottae

RUBBER BOA

ARADB07010 M C A A M A A A C A C M A C 42.8657.14 0.00

Coluber constrictor

RACER

ARADB17010 C X A A M A A A M A X X A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Heterodon nasicus

WESTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.2
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ARADB19050 C X A A M A A A X A X X A X 50.0050.00 0.00

Lampropeltis triangulum

MILK SNAKE

ARADB26010 M C A A M A A A M A C M A M 71.4328.57 0.00

Pituophis melanoleucus

PINE OR GOPHER SNAKE

ARADB36050 M C A A C A A A X A M M A M 66.6733.33 0.00

Thamnophis elegans

WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE

ARADB36100 M X A A C A A A M A X X A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Thamnophis radix

PLAINS GARTER SNAKE

ARADB36130 C M A A M A A A C A C M A M 57.1442.86 0.00

Thamnophis sirtalis

COMMON GARTER SNAKE

ARADB47010 X X A A C A A A M A X X A X 50.0050.00 0.00

Liochlorophis vernalis

SMOOTH GREEN SNAKE

ARADE02120 M C A A M A A A C A C M A C 42.8657.14 0.00

Crotalus viridis

WESTERN RATTLESNAKE

ABNBA01030 O M X M M O M X O M O M M X 63.640.00 36.36

Gavia immer

COMMON LOON

ABNCA02010 O M O M M M M M M M M M M M 85.710.00 14.29

Podilymbus podiceps

PIED-BILLED GREBE

ABNCA03010 O C X M M M M O M M O M M C 61.5415.38 23.08

Podiceps auritus

HORNED GREBE

ABNCA03020 O M O X X M M M O M O M M M 66.670.00 33.33

Podiceps grisegena

RED-NECKED GREBE

ABNCA03030 M C O M M M M M M M M M M C 78.5714.29 7.14

Podiceps nigricollis

EARED GREBE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.3
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNCA04010 O C O M M M M M M M M M M C 71.4314.29 14.29

Aechmophorus occidentalis

WESTERN GREBE

ABNCA04020 X X X M X M O X C X O M X X 50.0016.67 33.33

Aechmophorus clarkii

CLARK'S GREBE

ABNFC01010 O X X M O M X X M O O O X O 33.330.00 66.67

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN

ABNFD01020 M O O M M M M M M M M M C M 78.577.14 14.29

Phalacrocorax auritus

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT

ABNGA01020 M C O M M M M M M M M M M M 85.717.14 7.14

Botaurus lentiginosus

AMERICAN BITTERN

ABNGA04010 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Ardea herodias

GREAT BLUE HERON

ABNGA11010 M X X M O M M C M O M M X M 72.739.09 18.18

Nycticorax nycticorax

BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON

ABNGE02020 O X X M X M X X O O O O X C 25.0012.50 62.50

Plegadis chihi

WHITE-FACED IBIS

ABNJB02010 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Cygnus columbianus

TUNDRA SWAN

ABNJB02030 X C X X X O C X X X M C X C 16.6766.67 16.67

Cygnus buccinator

TRUMPETER SWAN

ABNJB03040 M X X M M M M M M M M M X C 90.919.09 0.00

Anser albifrons

GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE

ABNJB04010 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Chen caerulescens

SNOW GOOSE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.4
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNJB04020 M C X M M M M M M M M M M C 84.6215.38 0.00

Chen rossii

ROSS'S GOOSE

ABNJB05030 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Branta canadensis

CANADA GOOSE

ABNJB09010 M M O M C M M M M M O M M M 78.577.14 14.29

Aix sponsa

WOOD DUCK

ABNJB10010 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Anas crecca

GREEN-WINGED TEAL

ABNJB10060 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Anas platyrhynchos

MALLARD

ABNJB10110 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Anas acuta

NORTHERN PINTAIL

ABNJB10130 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Anas discors

BLUE-WINGED TEAL

ABNJB10140 M M O M M M M C M M M M M M 85.717.14 7.14

Anas cyanoptera

CINNAMON TEAL

ABNJB10150 M M O M M M M C M M M M M M 85.717.14 7.14

Anas clypeata

NORTHERN SHOVELER

ABNJB10160 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Anas strepera

GADWALL

ABNJB10180 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Anas americana

AMERICAN WIGEON

ABNJB11020 M C X M M M C M M M M M M C 76.9223.08 0.00

Aythya valisineria

CANVASBACK

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.5
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNJB11030 M M O M M M C M M M M M M C 78.5714.29 7.14

Aythya americana

REDHEAD

ABNJB11040 M M X O X M M C O M M M M M 75.008.33 16.67

Aythya collaris

RING-NECKED DUCK

ABNJB11060 M C X X X C M M X C M M C C 50.0050.00 0.00

Aythya marila

GREATER SCAUP

ABNJB11070 M M X M M M M C M M M M M M 92.317.69 0.00

Aythya affinis

LESSER SCAUP

ABNJB15010 X C C X X X M C X C X M C M 37.5062.50 0.00

Histrionicus histrionicus

HARLEQUIN DUCK

ABNJB18010 M M O M M M M M X M O M M M 84.620.00 15.38

Bucephala clangula

COMMON GOLDENEYE

ABNJB18020 O M O X X M M C X C M M M M 63.6418.18 18.18

Bucephala islandica

BARROW'S GOLDENEYE

ABNJB18030 M M X M M M M M M M M M M C 92.317.69 0.00

Bucephala albeola

BUFFLEHEAD

ABNJB20010 O M O O X O M M X M C M M X 54.559.09 36.36

Lophodytes cucullatus

HOODED MERGANSER

ABNJB21010 M M O C M C M M X M M M M M 76.9215.38 7.69

Mergus merganser

COMMON MERGANSER

ABNJB21020 O C X M M M M M M M M C M X 75.0016.67 8.33

Mergus serrator

RED-BREASTED MERGANSER

ABNJB22010 M M O M M M M M M M M M M C 85.717.14 7.14

Oxyura jamaicensis

RUDDY DUCK

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.6
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNKA02010 C M M X M C C M O C M M C C 46.1546.15 7.69

Cathartes aura

TURKEY VULTURE

ABNKC01010 M M M X M C M M X M M M M M 91.678.33 0.00

Pandion haliaetus

OSPREY

ABNKC10010 M M M O C C M M X M M M M M 76.9215.38 7.69

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

BALD EAGLE

ABNKC11010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Circus cyaneus

NORTHERN HARRIER

ABNKC12020 C M M O M C M M O M M M M M 71.4314.29 14.29

Accipiter striatus

SHARP-SHINNED HAWK

ABNKC12040 C M M X M C M M X M M M C M 75.0025.00 0.00

Accipiter cooperii

COOPER'S HAWK

ABNKC12060 X C M X C C M C X X M M C M 50.0050.00 0.00

Accipiter gentilis

NORTHERN GOSHAWK

ABNKC19050 X C C M M C C C X C C C C X 18.1881.82 0.00

Buteo platypterus

BROAD-WINGED HAWK

ABNKC19070 M C M M M M M C M M M M C M 78.5721.43 0.00

Buteo swainsoni

SWAINSON'S HAWK

ABNKC19110 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Buteo jamaicensis

RED-TAILED HAWK

ABNKC19120 M X M M M C M C M M M M C M 76.9223.08 0.00

Buteo regalis

FERRUGINOUS HAWK

ABNKC19130 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Buteo lagopus

ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.7
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNKC22010 M M M M M C M C M M M M C M 78.5721.43 0.00

Aquila chrysaetos

GOLDEN EAGLE

ABNKD06020 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Falco sparverius

AMERICAN KESTREL

ABNKD06030 M M M C M C M C M C M M M M 71.4328.57 0.00

Falco columbarius

MERLIN

ABNKD06070 O C M O C X C M O M M M C M 46.1530.77 23.08

Falco peregrinus

PEREGRINE FALCON

ABNKD06080 M C M C M M C C C C M M C M 50.0050.00 0.00

Falco rusticolus

GYRFALCON

ABNKD06090 M C M M M M M M M M M M O M 85.717.14 7.14

Falco mexicanus

PRAIRIE FALCON

ABNLC01010 M M M M M M C M M M M M X M 92.317.69 0.00

Perdix perdix

GRAY PARTRIDGE

ABNLC03010 X C C X X X X X X C X M X X 25.0075.00 0.00

Alectoris chukar

CHUKAR

ABNLC07010 O C M M M M C M O M X M M O 61.5415.38 23.08

Phasianus colchicus

RING-NECKED PHEASANT

ABNLC09010 X M C X X X M X X X X M X C 60.0040.00 0.00

Falcipennis canadensis

SPRUCE GROUSE

ABNLC09020 C M M X X C M X X X M M O M 66.6722.22 11.11

Dendragapus obscurus

BLUE GROUSE

ABNLC10030 X C X X X X M X X X X M X X 66.6733.33 0.00

Lagopus leucurus

WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.8
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNLC11010 C M M X C C M M X C M M M M 0.00 66.6733.33

Bonasa umbellus

RUFFED GROUSE

ABNLC12010 X X X M M X X X X X M X X X 0.00 100.000.00

Centrocercus urophasianus

SAGE GROUSE

ABNLC13030 M C X M M M C X M X M X C M 0.00 70.0030.00

Tympanuchus phasianellus

SHARP-TAILED GROUSE

ABNLC13033 X C C X X X M C X C X M C X 0.00 28.5771.43

Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus

COLUMBIAN SHARP-TAILED GROUSE

ABNLC14010 C C C C M C C C X C X M C M 0.00 25.0075.00

Meleagris gallopavo

WILD TURKEY

ABNLC21020 X X C X X X C X X C X C X X 0.00 0.00100.00

Colinus virginianus

NORTHERN BOBWHITE

ABNME01010 X X X C X X X X M X O X X X 33.33 33.3333.33

Coturnicops noveboracensis

YELLOW RAIL

ABNME05030 M O O M M M C M M M M M X C 38 15.38 69.2315.

Rallus limicola

VIRGINIA RAIL

ABNME08020 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 7.14 92.860.00

Porzana carolina

SORA

ABNME14020 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 7.14 92.860.00

Fulica americana

AMERICAN COOT

ABNMK01010 O M X M X C C M X X M O C M 20.00 50.0030.00

Grus canadensis

SANDHILL CRANE

ABNMK01030 X X X C C X X X M X M X X O 20.00 40.0040.00

Grus americana

WHOOPING CRANE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.9
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNNB02010 M C O M M M M M M M M M C C 7.14 71.4321.43

Pluvialis squatarola

BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER

ABNNB03060 M M O M M M C M M M M M C C 7.14 71.4321.43

Charadrius semipalmatus

SEMIPALMATED PLOVER

ABNNB03070 X X X M M X X X M X X X X X 0.00 100.000.00

Charadrius melodus

PIPING PLOVER

ABNNB03090 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0.00 100.000.00

Charadrius vociferus

KILLDEER

ABNNB03100 X X X C M C X X X X X X X X 0.00 33.3366.67

Charadrius montanus

MOUNTAIN PLOVER

ABNND01010 M X X M X M X O X X O X X C 33.33 50.0016.67

Himantopus mexicanus

BLACK-NECKED STILT

ABNND02010 M C O M M M C M M O M M C C 14.29 57.1428.57

Recurvirostra americana

AMERICAN AVOCET

ABNNF01020 M C O M M M M M M M M M M C 7.14 78.5714.29

Tringa melanoleuca

GREATER YELLOWLEGS

ABNNF01030 M M O M M M M M M M M M M C 7.14 85.717.14

Tringa flavipes

LESSER YELLOWLEGS

ABNNF01070 M C O M M M M M M M M M M M 7.14 85.717.14

Tringa solitaria

SOLITARY SANDPIPER

ABNNF02010 M X X M M M M O M O M M C M 16.67 75.008.33

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

WILLET

ABNNF04020 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 7.14 92.860.00

Actitis macularia

SPOTTED SANDPIPER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.10
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNNF06010 M C C M M M C X M C O M X M 8.33 58.3333.33

Bartramia longicauda

UPLAND SANDPIPER

ABNNF07070 O M M M M M C M M M O M C O 21.43 64.2914.29

Numenius americanus

LONG-BILLED CURLEW

ABNNF08040 M X O M M M C O M O M O C M 30.77 53.8515.38

Limosa fedoa

MARBLED GODWIT

ABNNF11040 M C O M M M C M M M M M C C 7.14 64.2928.57

Calidris pusilla

SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER

ABNNF11050 M C X M M M M M M M M M C C 0.00 76.9223.08

Calidris mauri

WESTERN SANDPIPER

ABNNF11100 M C O M M M M M M M M M M C 7.14 78.5714.29

Calidris minutilla

LEAST SANDPIPER

ABNNF11110 X X X M M X X X M X O X X X 25.00 75.000.00

Calidris fuscicollis

WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER

ABNNF11120 M C O M M M M M M M M M C C 7.14 71.4321.43

Calidris bairdii

BAIRD'S SANDPIPER

ABNNF11130 M C X M M M M M M O M M C C 7.69 69.2323.08

Calidris melanotos

PECTORAL SANDPIPER

ABNNF11190 M C X M M M C M M X C M C C 0.00 58.3341.67

Calidris himantopus

STILT SANDPIPER

ABNNF16010 O X X C C C C C M O X C X C 20.00 10.0070.00

Limnodromus griseus

SHORT-BILLED DOWITCHER

ABNNF16020 M M O M M M M M M M M M M C 7.14 85.717.14

Limnodromus scolopaceus

LONG-BILLED DOWITCHER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.11
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNNF18010 M M O M M M C M M O M M M M 14.29 78.577.14

Gallinago gallinago

COMMON SNIPE

ABNNF20010 M M O M M M M M M M M M M M 7.14 92.860.00

Phalaropus tricolor

WILSON'S PHALAROPE

ABNNF20020 M C O M M M M M M M M M C C 7.14 71.4321.43

Phalaropus lobatus

RED-NECKED PHALAROPE

ABNNM03020 M X X M O M M X M O M O C M 27.27 63.649.09

Larus pipixcan

FRANKLIN'S GULL

ABNNM03050 M C X M M M M M M M M M C C 0.00 76.9223.08

Larus philadelphia

BONAPARTE'S GULL

ABNNM03100 O C O M M M M X M O O M O O 46.15 46.157.69

Larus delawarensis

RING-BILLED GULL

ABNNM03110 M X O M M M M X M O M M O O 33.33 66.670.00

Larus californicus

CALIFORNIA GULL

ABNNM08020 X X X M M M X O M X O M X X 28.57 71.430.00

Sterna caspia

CASPIAN TERN

ABNNM08070 M O O M M M X O M O M M X X 36.36 63.640.00

Sterna hirundo

COMMON TERN

ABNNM08090 M X O X M M C O M O M M O C 33.33 50.0016.67

Sterna forsteri

FORSTER'S TERN

ABNNM08100 X X X X C X X X C O X X X X 33.33 0.0066.67

Sterna antillarum

LEAST TERN

ABNNM10020 M M O M M M M O M O M M M C 21.43 71.437.14

Chlidonias niger

BLACK TERN

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.12
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNPB01010 M M C M M M C M M C X M X M 0.00 75.0025.00

Columbia livia

ROCK DOVE

ABNPB04040 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0.00 100.000.00

Zenaida macroura

MOURNING DOVE

ABNRB02010 M C M M M C C X M C O C C C 7.69 38.4653.85

Coccyzus erythropthalmus

BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO

ABNRB02020 X X X O X X X X X X C O X X 66.67 0.0033.33

Coccyzus americanus

YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO

ABNSA01010 X X X X X X X C X X X M X X 0.00 50.0050.00

Tyto alba

BARN OWL

ABNSB01020 X C C X X C C M X C C M C C 0.00 20.0080.00

Otus flammeolus

FLAMMULATED OWL

ABNSB01030 C C X M C C X X C X X X X M 0.00 28.5771.43

Otus asio

EASTERN SCREECH-OWL

ABNSB01040 X C M X X C M M X C M M M C 0.00 60.0040.00

Otus kennicottii

WESTERN SCREECH-OWL

ABNSB05010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0.00 100.000.00

Bubo virginianus

GREAT HORNED OWL

ABNSB06010 M C M M M C M C M M X M C C 0.00 61.5438.46

Nyctea scandiaca

SNOWY OWL

ABNSB07010 X X X X X X C X X X X C X X 0.00 0.00100.00

Surnia ulula

NORTHERN HAWK OWL

ABNSB08010 C M M X C C M M X C M M M M 0.00 66.6733.33

Glaucidium gnoma

NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.13
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNSB10010 M C M M M M C O M C M M X C 7.69 61.5430.77

Athene cunicularia

BURROWING OWL

ABNSB12020 X C M X X X M C X C X M M X 0.00 57.1442.86

Strix varia

BARRED OWL

ABNSB12040 X M C X X C M X X X M M X M 0.00 71.4328.57

Strix nebulosa

GREAT GRAY OWL

ABNSB13010 M M M M M C M C C C M M C C 0.00 57.1442.86

Asio otus

LONG-EARED OWL

ABNSB13040 M M M M M M M M M M M M C M 0.00 92.867.14

Asio flammeus

SHORT-EARED OWL

ABNSB15010 X C C X X X M X X X C C X C 0.00 16.6783.33

Aegolius funereus

BOREAL OWL

ABNSB15020 O M M O M C M M X C M C C M 15.38 53.8530.77

Aegolius acadicus

NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL

ABNTA02020 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0.00 100.000.00

Chordeiles minor

COMMON NIGHTHAWK

ABNTA04010 X C C X M C X C X C X M X M 0.00 37.5062.50

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

COMMON POORWILL

ABNUA01010 X C M X X X M O X O X M X X 33.33 50.0016.67

Cypseloides niger

BLACK SWIFT

ABNUA03010 X X X X M X X X X X X X X X 0.00 100.000.00

Chaetura pelagica

CHIMNEY SWIFT

ABNUA03020 X C M X X C M M X C X M M M 0.00 66.6733.33

Chaetura vauxi

VAUX'S SWIFT

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.14
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNUA06010 X C X X O X C O X X O M O C 50.00 12.5037.50

Aeronautes saxatalis

WHITE-THROATED SWIFT

ABNUC45010 X X X M C X X X M X X X X X 0.00 66.6733.33

Archilochus colubris

RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD

ABNUC45020 X C M X X X C M X M O M M X 12.50 62.5025.00

Archilochus alexandri

BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD

ABNUC48010 X M M X X C M M X M M M M M 0.00 90.0010.00

Stellula calliope

CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD

ABNUC51020 X M M X X C M M X M M M M M 0.00 90.0010.00

Selasphorus rufus

RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD

ABNXD01020 O M M O M X M M M M M M M M 15.38 84.620.00

Ceryle alcyon

BELTED KINGFISHER

ABNYF04010 X M M X C C M M X M M M M M 0.00 81.8218.18

Melanerpes lewis

LEWIS'S WOODPECKER

ABNYF04040 C C X M M C X X M X M M C C 0.00 50.0050.00

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

RED-HEADED WOODPECKER

ABNYF05030 X M C X X C M C X C M M C C 0.00 40.0060.00

Sphyrapicus thyroideus

WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER

ABNYF05040 C M M X C C C M X C M M C M 0.00 50.0050.00

Sphyrapicus nuchalis

RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER

ABNYF07030 C M M M M C M M C M M M M M 0.00 78.5721.43

Picoides pubescens

DOWNY WOODPECKER

ABNYF07040 C M M M M C M M C C M M M M 0.00 71.4328.57

Picoides villosus

HAIRY WOODPECKER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.15
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABNYF07080 X M C X C C M C X C M M C C 36.3663.64 0.00

Picoides tridactylus

THREE-TOED WOODPECKER

ABNYF07090 X M X X X X M X X X O M X X 75.000.00 25.00

Picoides arcticus

BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER

ABNYF10020 C M M M M C M M M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Colaptes auratus

NORTHERN FLICKER

ABNYF12020 X M M X X C M M X C O M M C 60.0030.00 10.00

Dryocopus pileatus

PILEATED WOODPECKER

ABPAE32010 C M C X C C M M X C M M C M 50.0050.00 0.00

Contopus cooperi

OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER

ABPAE32050 C M M M M M M M M M M M M M 92.867.14 0.00

Contopus sordidulus

WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE

ABPAE33030 X C X X X C X X X X X X X M 33.3366.67 0.00

Empidonax alnorum

ALDER FLYCATCHER

ABPAE33040 C M M O M C M M M M M M M M 78.5714.29 7.14

Empidonax traillii

WILLOW FLYCATCHER

ABPAE33070 C C C M M M M M M C M M C M 64.2935.71 0.00

Empidonax minimus

LEAST FLYCATCHER

ABPAE33080 C C M X C C M C X C M M M M 50.0050.00 0.00

Empidonax hammondii

HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER

ABPAE33090 C M M X M C M M X C M M M M 75.0025.00 0.00

Empidonax oberholseri

DUSKY FLYCATCHER

ABPAE33160 X C M X M X C M X M M M M M 80.0020.00 0.00

Empidonax occidentalis

CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.16
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPAE35030 M C M M M C M M M C M M C M 71.4328.57 0.00

Sayornis saya

SAY'S PHOEBE

ABPAE52030 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Tyrannus vociferans

CASSIN'S KINGBIRD

ABPAE52050 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Tyrannus verticalis

WESTERN KINGBIRD

ABPAE52060 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Tyrannus tyrannus

EASTERN KINGBIRD

ABPAT02010 M C M M M M M C M M M M M C 78.5721.43 0.00

Eremophila alpestris

HORNED LARK

ABPAU03010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Tachycineta bicolor

TREE SWALLOW

ABPAU03040 M M M C M M M M C M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Tachycineta thalassina

VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW

ABPAU07010 O C M O M X M M O O M M M O 53.857.69 38.46

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW

ABPAU08010 X M M O M O M M O O M M C O 53.857.69 38.46

Riparia riparia

BANK SWALLOW

ABPAU09010 O M M M M M M M M M M M M M 92.860.00 7.14

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

CLIFF SWALLOW

ABPAU09030 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Hirundo rustica

BARN SWALLOW

ABPAV01010 X C C X X X M C X C M M M M 55.5644.44 0.00

Perisoreus canadensis

GRAY JAY

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.17
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPAV02010 X C M X X X M X X X M M O M 71.4314.29 14.29

Cyanocitta stelleri

STELLER'S JAY

ABPAV02020 C X X M M C C X C X X C X X 28.5771.43 0.00

Cyanocitta cristata

BLUE JAY

ABPAV07010 X X X X M X X X X X C X X X 50.0050.00 0.00

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

PINYON JAY

ABPAV08010 C C M X M C M M X C M M C M 58.3341.67 0.00

Nucifraga columbiana

CLARK'S NUTCRACKER

ABPAV09010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Pica pica

BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE

ABPAV10010 M M M M M C M M M M M M M M 92.867.14 0.00

Corvus brachyrhynchos

AMERICAN CROW

ABPAV10110 C M M X M C M M C M M M M M 76.9223.08 0.00

Corvus corax

COMMON RAVEN

ABPAW01010 C M M M M C M M M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Poecile atricapillus

BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE

ABPAW01040 C M M X M C M C X C M M M M 66.6733.33 0.00

Poecile gambeli

MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE

ABPAW01060 X C X X X X M X X X X M X C 50.0050.00 0.00

Poecile hudsonicus

BOREAL CHICKADEE

ABPAW01070 X C C X X X M C X C X M M X 42.8657.14 0.00

Poecile rufescens

CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE

ABPAZ01010 M M M O M C M M X C M M M M 76.9215.38 7.69

Sitta canadensis

RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.18
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPAZ01020 C M M X C C M M X C O M M C 50.0041.67 8.33

Sitta carolinensis

WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH

ABPAZ01030 X C M X X X C M X C O M C X 37.5050.00 12.50

Sitta pygmaea

PYGMY NUTHATCH

ABPBA01010 X C M X X C M M O C M M M M 63.6427.27 9.09

Certhia americana

BROWN CREEPER

ABPBG03010 M M M M M C M C C C M M X M 69.2330.77 0.00

Salpinctes obsoletus

ROCK WREN

ABPBG04010 X C C X X X X C X C O M X X 16.6766.67 16.67

Catherpes mexicanus

CANYON WREN

ABPBG09010 M M M M M M M M M M M M C M 92.867.14 0.00

Troglodytes aedon

HOUSE WREN

ABPBG09050 X C C X X C M M X C O M M M 50.0040.00 10.00

Troglodytes troglodytes

WINTER WREN

ABPBG10020 M M M M M M C M M M M M M M 92.867.14 0.00

Cistothorus palustris

MARSH WREN

ABPBH01010 X M M X O X M M X C M M M M 80.0010.00 10.00

Cinclus mexicanus

AMERICAN DIPPER

ABPBJ05010 X M M X X C M M X C M M M M 80.0020.00 0.00

Regulus satrapa

GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET

ABPBJ05020 C M M X X C M M X C M M M M 72.7327.27 0.00

Regulus calendula

RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET

ABPBJ08010 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Polioptila caerulea

BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.19
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBJ15010 X X X X M X X X C X X X X X 50.0050.00 0.00

Sialia sialis

EASTERN BLUEBIRD

ABPBJ15020 X M C X X C M C X M O M C C 40.0050.00 10.00

Sialia mexicana

WESTERN BLUEBIRD

ABPBJ15030 C M M M M C M M C M M M M M 78.5721.43 0.00

Sialia currucoides

MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD

ABPBJ16010 C M M X C C M M X C M M C M 58.3341.67 0.00

Myadestes townsendi

TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE

ABPBJ18080 C M M C C C M M M C M M M M 64.2935.71 0.00

Catharus fuscescens

VEERY

ABPBJ18090 X X X C M X X X C X X X X X 33.3366.67 0.00

Catharus minimus

GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH

ABPBJ18100 C C M O M C M C X M M M M M 61.5430.77 7.69

Catharus ustulatus

SWAINSON'S THRUSH

ABPBJ18110 C M M O M C M C X C M M C C 46.1546.15 7.69

Catharus guttatus

HERMIT THRUSH

ABPBJ20170 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Turdus migratorius

AMERICAN ROBIN

ABPBJ22010 X M C X X C M C X C X M M M 55.5644.44 0.00

Ixoreus naevius

VARIED THRUSH

ABPBK01010 M C M M M C M M M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Dumetella carolinensis

GRAY CATBIRD

ABPBK04010 X X C C M X X X X C M M X X 50.0050.00 0.00

Oreoscoptes montanus

SAGE THRASHER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.20
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBK06010 M C X M M C C X M X X O C C 40.0050.00 10.00

Toxostoma rufum

BROWN THRASHER

ABPBM02050 X C X O O X M X X X M M X O 42.8614.29 42.86

Anthus rubescens

AMERICAN PIPIT

ABPBM02060 M C X M M M M X M X X O X M 77.7811.11 11.11

Anthus spragueii

SPRAGUE'S PIPIT

ABPBN01010 M C M M M C M M M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Bombycilla garrulus

BOHEMIAN WAXWING

ABPBN01020 M M M M M M M M C M M M M M 92.867.14 0.00

Bombycilla cedrorum

CEDAR WAXWING

ABPBR01020 M M M M M M M M C M O M M M 85.717.14 7.14

Lanius excubitor

NORTHERN SHRIKE

ABPBR01030 M C O M M C O X M X O O X M 45.4518.18 36.36

Lanius ludovicianus

LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE

ABPBT01010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Sturnus vulgaris

EUROPEAN STARLING

ABPBW01160 C C M X C C M M X M M M C M 58.3341.67 0.00

Vireo solitarius

SOLITARY VIREO

ABPBW01210 C M M M M C M M M C M M M M 78.5721.43 0.00

Vireo gilvus

WARBLING VIREO

ABPBW01240 C M M M M C M M M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Vireo olivaceus

RED-EYED VIREO

ABPBX01040 X X C X X X M X X C O M C X 33.3350.00 16.67

Vermivora peregrina

TENNESSEE WARBLER

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.21
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBX01050 C C M X C C M C O M M M M M 53.8538.46 7.69

Vermivora celata

ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER

ABPBX01060 X C M X X X C M O C X M M O 44.4433.33 22.22

Vermivora ruficapilla

NASHVILLE WARBLER

ABPBX03010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Dendroica petechia

YELLOW WARBLER

ABPBX03060 M M M O M C M M O M M M M M 78.577.14 14.29

Dendroica coronata

YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER

ABPBX03080 X C M X X C M M X C O M M M 60.0030.00 10.00

Dendroica townsendi

TOWNSEND'S WARBLER

ABPBX03230 C C X C M C C C M X X M X M 40.0060.00 0.00

Dendroica striata

BLACKPOLL WARBLER

ABPBX05010 X X X X M X X X O X X O X O 25.000.00 75.00

Mniotilta varia

BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER

ABPBX06010 X M M X M C M M O M M M M M 83.338.33 8.33

Setophaga ruticilla

AMERICAN REDSTART

ABPBX10010 C C X X M C M X M X X C C M 44.4455.56 0.00

Seiurus aurocapillus

OVENBIRD

ABPBX10020 C M M X M C M M X C M M M M 75.0025.00 0.00

Seiurus noveboracensis

NORTHERN WATERTHRUSH

ABPBX11040 C C M X O C M M O M M M M M 61.5423.08 15.38

Oporornis tolmiei

MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER

ABPBX12010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Geothlypis trichas

COMMON YELLOWTHROAT

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.22
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBX16020 O C O X X X M X X O M M O M 44.4411.11 44.44

Wilsonia pusilla

WILSON'S WARBLER

ABPBX24010 C C M M M C C C M C O M C C 35.7157.14 7.14

Icteria virens

YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT

ABPBX45050 C M M X M C M M X M M M M M 83.3316.67 0.00

Piranga ludoviciana

WESTERN TANAGER

ABPBX61040 C M M M M C M M C C M M M M 71.4328.57 0.00

Pheucticus melanocephalus

BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK

ABPBX64020 C C M M M C M M M M M M M M 78.5721.43 0.00

Passerina amoena

LAZULI BUNTING

ABPBX64030 X C X X M C X X C X X O X M 33.3350.00 16.67

Passerina cyanea

INDIGO BUNTING

ABPBX65010 X X X X C X X X M X X O X X 33.3333.33 33.33

Spiza americana

DICKCISSEL

ABPBX74010 X X X X M X X X X X M X X X 100.000.00 0.00

Pipilo chlorurus

GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE

ABPBX74080 C M M M M C M M M C M M M M 78.5721.43 0.00

Pipilo maculatus

SPOTTED TOWHEE

ABPBX94010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Spizella arborea

AMERICAN TREE SPARROW

ABPBX94020 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Spizella passerina

CHIPPING SPARROW

ABPBX94030 M C C M M M M C M C M M C M 64.2935.71 0.00

Spizella pallida

CLAY-COLORED SPARROW

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.23
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBX94040 X C M M M X O X X C M M X M 66.6722.22 11.11

Spizella breweri

BREWER'S SPARROW

ABPBX94050 X X X C M X X X C X X X X X 33.3366.67 0.00

Spizella pusilla

FIELD SPARROW

ABPBX95010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Pooecetes gramineus

VESPER SPARROW

ABPBX96010 M C M M M M C C M M M M C M 71.4328.57 0.00

Chondestes grammacus

LARK SPARROW

ABPBX98010 M C X M M M M X M X O X X C 66.6722.22 11.11

Calamospiza melanocorys

LARK BUNTING

ABPBX99010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Passerculus sandwichensis

SAVANNAH SPARROW

ABPBXA0010 M X X M C M C X M X X O X C 50.0037.50 12.50

Ammodramus bairdii

BAIRD'S SPARROW

ABPBXA0020 M C M M M C C C M C M M M C 57.1442.86 0.00

Ammodramus savannarum

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW

ABPBXA0040 X X X O C X M X M X X O X O 33.3316.67 50.00

Ammodramus leconteii

LE CONTE'S SPARROW

ABPBXA0070 X X X X X X X X M X X X X X 100.000.00 0.00

Ammodramus nelsoni

NELSON'S SHARP-TAILED SPARROW

ABPBXA2010 X M O X X X M X X O M M O M 62.500.00 37.50

Passerella iliaca

FOX SPARROW

ABPBXA3010 M M M M M C M M M M M M M M 92.867.14 0.00

Melospiza melodia

SONG SPARROW

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.24
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBXA3020 X C C X X X M X X O M M X M 14.29 57.1428.57

Melospiza lincolnii

LINCOLN'S SPARROW

ABPBXA4020 X C X X C X M C X X O M C X 28.5757.14 14.29

Zonotrichia albicollis

WHITE-THROATED SPARROW

ABPBXA4040 O M O X X X M X X O M M O M 55.560.00 44.44

Zonotrichia leucophrys

WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW

ABPBXA4050 C C M M C C C M C C M M M C 42.8657.14 0.00

Zonotrichia querula

HARRIS'S SPARROW

ABPBXA5020 M M M X M C M M X C M M M M 83.3316.67 0.00

Junco hyemalis

DARK-EYED JUNCO

ABPBXA6010 M C X M C M C X M X M X X M 66.6733.33 0.00

Calcarius mccownii

MCCOWN'S LONGSPUR

ABPBXA6020 M C M M M M C C C C M M C C 50.0050.00 0.00

Calcarius lapponicus

LAPLAND LONGSPUR

ABPBXA6040 M C X M M M C X M X M X X M 77.7822.22 0.00

Calcarius ornatus

CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR

ABPBXA8010 M M M M M M C C M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Plectrophenax nivalis

SNOW BUNTING

ABPBXA9010 M M M M C C M M M M O M M M 78.5714.29 7.14

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

BOBOLINK

ABPBXB0010 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Agelaius phoeniceus

RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD

ABPBXB2030 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Sturnella neglecta

WESTERN MEADOWLARK

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.25
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBXB3010 M M M M M M C M M M M M M M 92.867.14 0.00

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD

ABPBXB5010 X X X M C X M X C X X M X X 60.0040.00 0.00

Euphagus carolinus

RUSTY BLACKBIRD

ABPBXB5020 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Euphagus cyanocephalus

BREWER'S BLACKBIRD

ABPBXB6070 C C C M M M M X M C O C C M 46.1546.15 7.69

Quiscalus quiscula

COMMON GRACKLE

ABPBXB7030 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 100.000.00 0.00

Molothrus ater

BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD

ABPBXB9070 X X X C M X X X C X X X X X 33.3366.67 0.00

Icterus spurius

ORCHARD ORIOLE

ABPBXB9220 M M M M M C M M M M O M C M 78.5714.29 7.14

Icterus bullockii

BULLOCK'S ORIOLE

ABPBY02010 X X X X X X X X X X M O X X 50.000.00 50.00

Leucosticte atrata

BLACK ROSY-FINCH

ABPBY02030 X X X X X X M X X X X M X X 100.000.00 0.00

Leucosticte tephrocotis

GRAY-CROWNED ROSY-FINCH

ABPBY03010 X C M X X C M C X C M M C M 50.0050.00 0.00

Pinicola enucleator

PINE GROSBEAK

ABPBY04020 X C C C C X C C M C C M C X 18.1881.82 0.00

Carpodacus purpureus

PURPLE FINCH

ABPBY04030 X M M X X X M X X O M M O M 75.000.00 25.00

Carpodacus cassinii

CASSIN'S FINCH

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.26
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

ABPBY04040 C C C C C C C M X C O M C C 15.3876.92 7.69

Carpodacus mexicanus

HOUSE FINCH

ABPBY05010 M M M X M C M M X C M M M M 83.3316.67 0.00

Loxia curvirostra

RED CROSSBILL

ABPBY05020 X C M X X X M C X C C M C C 33.3366.67 0.00

Loxia leucoptera

WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL

ABPBY06010 M C M M M C M M M M C M M M 78.5721.43 0.00

Carduelis flammea

COMMON REDPOLL

ABPBY06020 C C M M M C M C C C C M C M 42.8657.14 0.00

Carduelis hornemanni

HOARY REDPOLL

ABPBY06030 C M M O M C M M X M M M M M 76.9215.38 7.69

Carduelis pinus

PINE SISKIN

ABPBY06110 M M M M M M M M M M O M C M 85.717.14 7.14

Carduelis tristis

AMERICAN GOLDFINCH

ABPBY09020 C M C X C C M M X M M M M M 66.6733.33 0.00

Coccothraustes vespertinus

EVENING GROSBEAK

ABPBZ01010 M C M M M M C M M M M M M M 85.7114.29 0.00

Passer domesticus

HOUSE SPARROW

AMABA01010 X C C O M A M A O A M M A C 44.4433.33 22.22

Sorex cinereus

MASKED SHREW

AMABA01030 X X X X C A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Sorex preblei

PREBLE'S SHREW

AMABA01070 X C M X C A M A X A C M A C 42.8657.14 0.00

Sorex vagrans

VAGRANT SHREW

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.27
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMABA01080 X C C X C A C A X A C M A C 14.2985.71 0.00

Sorex monticolus

DUSKY OR MONTANE SHREW

AMABA01130 X X X X C A X A X A X O A X 0.0050.00 50.00

Sorex nanus

DWARF SHREW

AMABA01150 X M C X C A M A X A M M A C 57.1442.86 0.00

Sorex palustris

WATER SHREW

AMABA01230 X X X X M A X A X A X X A X 100.000.00 0.00

Sorex merriami

MERRIAM'S SHREW

AMABA01250 X X X X X A C A O A X M A X 33.3333.33 33.33

Sorex hoyi

PYGMY SHREW

AMABA01280 C X X C C A X A C A X X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Sorex haydeni

HAYDEN'S SHREW

AMACC01010 M C M M M A M A M A M M A C 80.0020.00 0.00

Myotis lucifugus

LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS

AMACC01020 X C C X X A C A X A X M A X 25.0075.00 0.00

Myotis yumanensis

YUMA MYOTIS

AMACC01070 C C M C M A M A C A C M A C 40.0060.00 0.00

Myotis evotis

LONG-EARED MYOTIS

AMACC01090 X C C X X A X A X A C C A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Myotis thysanodes

FRINGED MYOTIS

AMACC01110 C C C C C A M A C A C M A C 20.0080.00 0.00

Myotis volans

LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS

AMACC01120 X C C X X A C A X A X C A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Myotis californicus

CALIFORNIA MYOTIS

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.28
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMACC01140 C C C C C A C A C A C M A C 10.0090.00 0.00

Myotis ciliolabrum

WESTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS

AMACC01150 X X X X C A X A C A X X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Myotis septentrionalis

NORTHERN MYOTIS

AMACC02010 M C M C M A M A M A C M A C 60.0040.00 0.00

Lasionycteris noctivagans

SILVER-HAIRED BAT

AMACC04010 C C C M M A M A M A C M A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Eptesicus fuscus

BIG BROWN BAT

AMACC05030 C C C C M A M A M A C M A C 40.0060.00 0.00

Lasiurus cinereus

HOARY BAT

AMACC07010 X X X X X A X A X A X X A X

Euderma maculatum

SPOTTED BAT

AMACC08010 C C C C C A C A X A C M A C 11.1188.89 0.00

Corynorhinus townsendii

TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT

AMACC10010 X X X X X A X A X A X X A X

Antrozous pallidus

PALLID BAT

AMAEA01020 X C C X X A M A X A M M A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Ochotona princeps

AMERICAN PIKA

AMAEB01040 X X X X X A X A X A X X A X

Sylvilagus floridanus

EASTERN COTTONTAIL

AMAEB01060 M M M M M A C A M A C M A C 70.0030.00 0.00

Sylvilagus nuttallii

MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL

AMAEB01070 C X X C C A X A X A X X A M 25.0075.00 0.00

Sylvilagus audubonii

DESERT COTTONTAIL

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.29
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMAEB03010 C M M M M A M A C A M M A M 80.0020.00 0.00

Lepus americanus

SNOWSHOE HARE

AMAEB03040 M C M M M A C A M A M M A M 80.0020.00 0.00

Lepus townsendii

WHITE-TAILED JACKRABBIT

AMAEB03050 X X X X X A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Lepus californicus

BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT

AMAEB04010 X X X X X A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Brachylagus idahoensis

PYGMY RABBIT

AMAFB02020 X O X X M A M A C A M X A X 60.0020.00 20.00

Tamias minimus

LEAST CHIPMUNK

AMAFB02030 X C M X X A M A X A M M A M 83.3316.67 0.00

Tamias amoenus

YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK

AMAFB02130 X C C X X A M A X A C M A M 50.0050.00 0.00

Tamias ruficaudus

RED-TAILED CHIPMUNK

AMAFB02190 X X X X X A X A X A X X A X

Tamias umbrinus

UINTA CHIPMUNK

AMAFB03020 M M M X C A C A X A M M A M 75.0025.00 0.00

Marmota flaviventris

YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT

AMAFB03040 X C C X X A M A X A X M A C 40.0060.00 0.00

Marmota caligata

HOARY MARMOT

AMAFB05040 M X X M M A M A M A X X A M 100.000.00 0.00

Spermophilus richardsonii

RICHARDSON'S GROUND SQUIRREL

AMAFB05050 X X X X X A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Spermophilus armatus

UINTA GROUND SQUIRREL

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.30
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMAFB05070 X M M X X A M A X A X M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Spermophilus columbianus

COLUMBIAN GROUND SQUIRREL

AMAFB05090 C X X C M A M A M A X X A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

THIRTEEN-LINED GROUND SQUIRREL

AMAFB05170 X C C X X A M A X A M M A M 66.6733.33 0.00

Spermophilus lateralis

GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL

AMAFB05190 X X X X X A X A X A M X A X 100.000.00 0.00

Spermophilus elegans

WYOMING GROUND SQUIRREL

AMAFB06010 C X X C M A X A C A X X A C 20.0080.00 0.00

Cynomys ludovicianus

BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG

AMAFB06020 X X X X X A X A X A X X A X

Cynomys leucurus

WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG

AMAFB08010 X M M X X A M A X A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

RED SQUIRREL

AMAFB09020 X M C X X A M A X A M M A M 83.3316.67 0.00

Glaucomys sabrinus

NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL

AMAFC01040 M C M M M A M A M A M M A M 90.0010.00 0.00

Thomomys talpoides

NORTHERN POCKET GOPHER

AMAFC01070 X X X X X A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Thomomys idahoensis

IDAHO POCKET GOPHER

AMAFD01010 X X X C C A X A M A X X A X 33.3366.67 0.00

Perognathus fasciatus

OLIVE-BACKED POCKET MOUSE

AMAFD01070 X X X X X A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Perognathus parvus

GREAT BASIN POCKET MOUSE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.31
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMAFD03010 X X X C M A X A C A X X A X 33.3366.67 0.00

Dipodomys ordii

ORD'S KANGAROO RAT

AMAFD05050 X X X X X A X A X A X X A X

Chaetodipus hispidus

HISPID POCKET MOUSE

AMAFE01010 C M C M M A M A M A M M A M 80.0020.00 0.00

Castor canadensis

AMERICAN BEAVER

AMAFF02030 C X X C M A X A C A X X A X 25.0075.00 0.00

Reithrodontomys megalotis

WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE

AMAFF03040 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Peromyscus maniculatus

DEER MOUSE

AMAFF03070 X X X M M A X A M A X X A X 100.000.00 0.00

Peromyscus leucopus

WHITE-FOOTED MOUSE

AMAFF06010 C X X C M A C A M A X X A C 33.3366.67 0.00

Onychomys leucogaster

NORTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE

AMAFF08090 C M M M M A M A X A C M A M 77.7822.22 0.00

Neotoma cinerea

BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT

AMAFF09020 X C C X X A M A C A M M A M 57.1442.86 0.00

Clethrionomys gapperi

SOUTHERN RED-BACKED VOLE

AMAFF10010 X C C X X A M A X A C M A C 33.3366.67 0.00

Phenacomys intermedius

HEATHER VOLE

AMAFF11010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Microtus pennsylvanicus

MEADOW VOLE

AMAFF11020 X C M X X A C A X A C M A C 33.3366.67 0.00

Microtus montanus

MONTANE VOLE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.32
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMAFF11060 C C M C M A M A X A M M A C 55.5644.44 0.00

Microtus longicaudus

LONG-TAILED VOLE

AMAFF11140 C X X M M A X A M A X X A X 75.0025.00 0.00

Microtus ochrogaster

PRAIRIE VOLE

AMAFF11190 X C X X X A M A X A C M A C 40.0060.00 0.00

Microtus richardsoni

WATER VOLE

AMAFF13010 C X X C M A C A M A C X A C 28.5771.43 0.00

Lemmiscus curtatus

SAGEBRUSH VOLE

AMAFF15010 M M M M M A M A M A O M A M 90.000.00 10.00

Ondatra zibethicus

MUSKRAT

AMAFF17020 X C X X X A M A X A X C A C 25.0075.00 0.00

Synaptomys borealis

NORTHERN BOG LEMMING

AMAFH01010 X X X O O A X A X A X X A X 0.000.00 100.00

Zapus hudsonius

MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE

AMAFH01020 C C C M M A M A M A M M A M 70.0030.00 0.00

Zapus princeps

WESTERN JUMPING MOUSE

AMAFJ01010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Erethizon dorsatum

COMMON PORCUPINE

AMAJA01010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Canis latrans

COYOTE

AMAJA01030 X C C X X A M A X A M M A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Canis lupus

GRAY WOLF

AMAJA03010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Vulpes vulpes

RED FOX

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.33
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMAJA03030 C X X C C A C A C A X X A C 0.00100.00 0.00

Vulpes velox

SWIFT FOX

AMAJB01010 M M M X C A M A X A M M A M 87.5012.50 0.00

Ursus americanus

BLACK BEAR

AMAJB01020 X M C X X A M A X A M M A M 83.3316.67 0.00

Ursus arctos

GRIZZLY OR BROWN BEAR

AMAJE02010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Procyon lotor

COMMON RACCOON

AMAJF01010 X M C X X A M A X A C C A C 33.3366.67 0.00

Martes americana

AMERICAN MARTEN

AMAJF01020 X C C X X A M A X A X M A C 40.0060.00 0.00

Martes pennanti

FISHER

AMAJF02010 X C M X X A M A X A M M A M 83.3316.67 0.00

Mustela erminea

ERMINE

AMAJF02020 M X X M C A M A M A X X A M 83.3316.67 0.00

Mustela nivalis

LEAST WEASEL

AMAJF02030 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Mustela frenata

LONG-TAILED WEASEL

AMAJF02040 X X X X C A X A X A X X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Mustela nigripes

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET

AMAJF02050 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Mustela vison

MINK

AMAJF03010 X C C X X A M A X A M M A M 66.6733.33 0.00

Gulo gulo

WOLVERINE

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.34
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMAJF04010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Taxidea taxus

AMERICAN BADGER

AMAJF05020 X X X X X A X A X A C X A X 0.00100.00 0.00

Spilogale gracilis

WESTERN SPOTTED SKUNK

AMAJF06010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Mephitis mephitis

STRIPED SKUNK

AMAJF08010 C C C X M A M A X A M M A M 62.5037.50 0.00

Lutra canadensis

NORTHERN RIVER OTTER

AMAJH01020 C M M X C A M A C A M M A M 66.6733.33 0.00

Felis concolor

MOUNTAIN LION

AMAJH03010 X M M O X A M A X A M M A M 85.710.00 14.29

Lynx canadensis

LYNX

AMAJH03020 M M C M M A M A C A M M A M 80.0020.00 0.00

Lynx rufus

BOBCAT

AMALC01010 O M M O M A M A X A M M A M 77.780.00 22.22

Cervus elaphus

WAPITI OR ELK

AMALC02010 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Odocoileus hemionus

MULE DEER

AMALC02020 M M M M M A M A M A M M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Odocoileus virginianus

WHITE-TAILED DEER

AMALC03010 O C M O X A M A X A M M A M 62.5012.50 25.00

Alces alces

MOOSE

AMALD01010 M X M M M A C A M A M M A M 88.8911.11 0.00

Antilocapra americana

PRONGHORN

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.35
%Nc %No %Nm

Scientific Name

COMMON NAME

Element Code

Appendix 3.4 continued. For 423 terrestrial vertebrates, correspondence of predicted distributions with checklists for 14 wildlife areas. M = match, C = commission, O = omission, A =

taxonomic group absent from checklist, X = species neither predicted to occur, nor documented

for wildlife area. % Nc = percent commission, % No = percent omission, %Nm = percent correct.

AMALE01010 X X M X X A X A X A O O A X 33.330.00 66.67

Bos bison

AMERICAN BISON

AMALE02010 X C M X X A M A X A C M A C 50.0050.00 0.00

Oreamnos americanus

MOUNTAIN GOAT

AMALE04010 X X M X M A M A X A X M A M 100.000.00 0.00

Ovis canadensis

MOUNTAIN SHEEP

BL = Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR); BC = Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area (WMA); BR = National Bison

Range; BO = Bowdoin NWR; CR = Charles M. Russell NWR; FO = Freezout Lake WMA; GP = Glacier National Park; LM = Lee Metcalf

NWR; ML = Medicine Lake NWR; NP = Ninepipe/Pablo NWR; RR = Red Rock Lakes NWR; FR = Flathead Indian Reservation; SR = Swan

River NWR; PB = Pine Butte Swamp Preserve. NOTE: Of 425 vertebrates modeled, 2 were not considered for validation because their

occurrence in the state has not been confirmed, Idaho giant salamander (Dicamptodon aterrimus) and wood frog (Rana sylvatica).

3.4.36
Appendix 4.1. Administrative units included in the MT-GAP land stewardship database for lands with status 1 or 2. 

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

BLM 2 Acid Shale-Pine Forest Area of Critical JVP Resource Management Plan (RMP)

Environmental Concern (ACEC)

BLM 1 Azure Cave ACEC JVP RMP

BLM 2 Bear Creek Flats ACEC Garnet RMP

BLM 2 Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC JVP RMP

BLM 1 Black Footed Ferret ACEC Big Dry RMP

BLM 2 Collar Gulch ACEC JVP RMP

BLM 2 Cow Creek ACEC West HiLine RMP

BLM 2 Judith Mountains Scenic Area ACEC JVP RMP

BLM 2 Kevin Rim ACEC West HiLine RMP

BLM 2 Meeteetse Spires ACEC Contact: BLM, Billings, MT

BLM 2 Pompeys Pillar ACEC Billings RMP

BLM 1 Rattler Gulch ACEC Garnet RMP

BLM 2 Sleeping Giant ACEC Headwaters RMP

BLM 2 Smoky Butte Big Dry RMP

BLM 2 Squaw Rock ACEC Garnet RMP

BLM 2 Sweetgrass Hills ACEC - East Butte West HiLine RMP

BLM 2 Sweetgrass Hills ACEC - Middle Butte West HiLine RMP

BLM 2 Sweetgrass Hills ACEC - West Butte West HiLine RMP

BLM 2 Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range proposed Contact: BLM, Billings, MT

ACEC

BLM 1 Blind Horse Outstanding Natural Area (ONA) JVP RMP

BLM 1 Chute Mountain ONA JVP RMP

BLM 1 Deep Creek/Battle Creek ONA JVP RMP

BLM 1 Ear Mountain ONA JVP RMP

BLM 1 Square Butte ONA JVP RMP

BLM 2 Centennial Mountains Primitive Area Contact: BLM, Billings, MT

BLM 2 Humbug Spires Primitive Area Contact: BLM, Billings, MT

BLM 1 Bear Trap Canyon Wilderness Wilderness Management Plan for the Bear Trap Canyon unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Montana. 

1984. Department of the Interior, BLM.

BLM 2 Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River West HiLine RMP

USFWS 1 Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Contact: D.M. Prellwitz, Bowdoin NWR, Malta, MT

USFWS 1 Benton Lake NWR Contact: J.E. McCollum, Benton Lake NWR, Black Eagle, MT

USFWS 2 Black Coulee NWR Contact: D.M. Prellwitz, Bowdoin NWR, Malta, MT

4.1.1
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

USFWS 2 Charles M. Russell NWR Final Environmental Impact Statement for the management of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife

Refuge. 1985. Dept. Of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Denver, CO.

Contact: M. Hendrick, Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT.

USFWS 1 Creedman Coulee NWR Contact: D.M. Prellwitz, Bowdoin NWR, Malta, MT

USFWS 2 Hailstone NWR Contact: M. Hendrick, Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT.

USFWS 2 Halfbreed Lake NWR Contact: M. Hendrick, Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT.

USFWS 2 Hewitt Lake NWR Contact: D.M. Prellwitz, Bowdoin NWR, Malta, MT

USFWS 2 Lake Mason NWR Contact: Mike Getman, USFWS, Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT.

USFWS 2 Lake Thibadeau NWR Contact: D.M. Prellwitz, Bowdoin NWR, Malta, MT

USFWS 2 Lamesteer NWR Contact: T. Gutzke, Medicine lake, MT

USFWS 2 Lee Metcalf NWR Contact: P. Gonzales, Lee Metcalf NWR, Stevensville, MT

USFWS 2 Medicine Lake NWR Contact: T. Gutzke, Medicine lake, MT

USFWS 2 National Bison Range NWR Contact: D. Wiseman, National Bison Range, Moiese, MT

USFWS 2 Red Rock Lakes NWR Contact: D. Gomez, Red Rock lakes NWR, Lima, MT

USFWS 2 Smith Lake WPA Contact: D. Wiseman, National Bison Range,Moiese, MT

USFWS 1 Swan River NWR Contact: R. Washtak, NW Montana Wildlife Management District, Kalispell, MT

USFWS 2 UL Bend NWR Contact: M. Hendrick, Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT.

USFWS 2 War Horse NWR Contact: M. Hendrick, Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT.

USFWS 2 Rock Creek Peninsula Public Use Natural Area Contact: C.H. Lobdell, USFWS, Boise, ID

USFWS 1 Big Island Research Natural Area Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Bruces Island RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Dillon Island RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Fourth Ridge RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Grand Island RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 2 Lake Mason RNA Contact: Mike Getman, USFWS, Charles M. Russell, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 1 Limber Pine RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Manning Corral Prairie Dog Town RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Missouri River Bottomlands RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Mullan Trail RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Prairie Dog Island RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Sheep Mountain RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Spring Creek Bay Coulee RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Tepee Hills RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 Two Calf Douglas Fir Community RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

4.1.2
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

USFWS 1 Two Calf Island RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 York Island RNA Department of the Interior, USFWS Regional Office, Region 6, Denver, CO

USFWS 1 UL Bend Wilderness Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 1 Medicine Lake Wilderness Contact: Medicine Lake NWR, Medicine Lake, MT

USFWS 1 Red Rock Lakes Wilderness Contact: Red Rock Lakes NWR, Lima, MT

USFWS 2 Alkali Creek Proposed Wilderness Area Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Antelope Creek Proposed Wilderness Area Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Billy Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Blackfoot PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Burnt Lodgepole PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Crooked Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Mcky Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Sheep Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Wagon Coulee PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 West Beauchamp Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 West Hell Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Wibeau Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 East Beauchamp Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 East Hell Creek PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

USFWS 2 Fort Musselshell PWA Contact: Charles M. Russell NWR, Lewistown, MT

NPS 1 Little Bighorn Battlefield NM Contact: National Park Service, Denver, CO

NPS 1 Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site Contact: National Park Service, Denver, CO

NPS 2 Bears Paw Battlefield National Historic Site Contact: National Park Service, Denver, CO

NPS 1 Big Hole Battlefield National Monument Contact: National Park Service, Denver, CO

NPS 1 Glacier National Park Contact: Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT

NPS 1 Yellowstone NP Contact: Yellowstone National Park, WY

NPS 2 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area Statement for Management: Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. 1987. USDA National Park 

Service, Fort Smith, MT.

NPS 2 Flathead NWSR Contact: Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT

USFS 2 Flathead NWSR Environmental Impact Statement, Final: Flathead Wild and Scenic River proposal. 1977. USDA Forest 

Service, Northern region.

USFS 1 Bartleson Peak RNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Big Creek RNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Bitterroot Mountain Snow Avalanche RNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

4.1.3
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

USFS 1 Bitterroot River RNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Boulder Creek RNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Carlton Ridge RNA Bitterroot and Lolo Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Cliff Lake RNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Coram RNA Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Cottonwood Creek RNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Council Grove RNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 East Shore RNA Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Hoskins Lake RNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Line Creek Plateau RNA Custer and Shoshone Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Little Bitterroot RNA Flathead Management Plan

USFS 1 Lost Water Canyon RNA Custer Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Lower Lost Horse Canyon RNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Medicine Point RNA Bitterroot Management Plan

USFS 1 O’Brien Creek RNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Onion Park RNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Paine Gulch RNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Pete Creek Meadows RNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Petty Creek RNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Plant Creek RNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Poker Jim RNA Custer Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Pyramid Peak RNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Sawmill Creek RNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Sheep Mountain Bog RNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Tuchuck RNA Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Ulm Peak RNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Upper Lost Horse Canyon RNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Wagner Basin RNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Walling Reef RNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Wolf-Weigel RNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Berray Mountain Cedars Botanical Area Special Kootenai Forest Management Plan

Interest Area (SIA)

USFS 1 Big Creek Riparian Ecosystem SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Devils Gap Geologic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

4.1.4
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

USFS 1 Elk Meadow Botanical Area SIA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Mary’s Frog Pond Botanical Area SIA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Northwest Peak Scenic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Rexford Hoodoos Geologic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Ross Creek Cedars Scenic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Shoofly Meadows Botanical Area SIA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Star Creek Canyon Geologic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Sunday Creek Falls Geologic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Ten Lakes Scenic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Tenmile Talus Geologic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 West Fork Yaak Falls Geologic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Wood Creek Larch Scenic Area SIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Barktable Ridge proposed RNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Basin Creek proposed RNA (pRNA) Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Bass Creek pRNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Bernice pRNA Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Big Snowy pRNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Black Butte pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Cattle Gulch pRNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Cave Mountain pRNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Dexter Basin pRNA Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Dry Mountain pRNA Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 East Fork Bitterroot pRNA Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 East Fork Mill Creek pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Elkhorn Lake pRNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Goat Flat pRNA Beaverhead and Deerlodge Forest Management Plans

USFS 2 Granite Butte pRNA Helena Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Horse Prairie pRNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Indian Meadows pRNA Helena Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 LeBeau pRNA Flathead and Kootenai Forest Management Plans

USFS 2 Lost Park pRNA Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Lower Ross Creek pRNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Minerva Creek pRNA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Mount Ellis pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

4.1.5
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

USFS 2 Norman-Parmenter pRNA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Obsidian Sands pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Palace Butte pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Passage Creek pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Red Mountain pRNA Helena Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Sapphire Divide pRNA Bitterroot and Deerlodge Forest Management Plans

USFS 2 Skull-Odell pRNA Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Sliding Mountain pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Squaw Creek pRNA Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Swan River pRNA Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Thunderbolt Mountain pRNA Deerlodge and Helena Forest Management Plans

USFS 2 Wheeler Ridge pRNA Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Barnum Wetland Botanical Area pSIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Bitterroot Point Botanical Area pSIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Condon Creek Botanical Area pSIA Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 French Creek Botanical Area pSIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Hidden Lake Botanical Area pSIA Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Jumping Creek Botanical Area pSIA Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 West Fork Buttes Botanical Area pSIA Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Custer and Gallatin Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Anaconda Pintlar Wilderness Beaverhead, Bitterroot and Deerlodge Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Bob Marshall Wilderness Flathead and Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Gates Of The Mountains Wilderness Helena Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Great Bear Wilderness Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Lee Metcalf Wilderness Beaverhead and Gallatin Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Mission Mountains Wilderness Flathead Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Rattlesnake Wilderness Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 1 Scapegoat Wilderness Helena, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Selway Bitterroot Wilderness Bitterroot and Lolo Forest Management Plans

USFS 1 Welcome Creek Wilderness Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Beaverhead NF Recommended Wilderness Beaverhead Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Bitterroot NF Recommended Wilderness Bitterroot Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Custer NF Recommended Wilderness Custer Forest Management Plan

4.1.6
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

USFS 2 Deerlodge NF Recommended Wilderness Deerlodge Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Gallatin NF Recommended Wilderness Gallatin Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Helena NF Recommended Wilderness Helena Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Kootenai NF Recommended Wilderness Kootenai Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Lewis and Clark NF Recommended Wilderness Lewis and Clark Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Lolo NF Recommended Wilderness Lolo Forest Management Plan

USFS 2 Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area Kootenai Forest Management Plan

State 2 Stillwater Game Preserve Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Blackfoot Clearwater Game Range Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Bear Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Beartooth WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Bitterroot/Calf Creek WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Blackleaf WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Blacktail WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Canyon Ferry WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Ear Mountain WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Elk Island WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Fleecer Mountain WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Fox Lake WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Freezeout Lake WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Gallatin Porcupine WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Garrity Mountain WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Haymaker WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Judith River WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Mount Haggin WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Ninepipe WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Pishkun Reservoir WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Rookery WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Seven Sisters WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Sun River WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Threemile WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Wall Creek WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Warm Springs WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

State 2 Willow Creek WMA Contact: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

4.1.7
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

State 2 State owned, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

managed

State 2 State owned, TNC managed lease Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

State 2 State owned, TNC managed other Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

State 2 Ackley Lake Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Beaverhead Rock Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Council Grove Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Lost Creek Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Madison Buffalo Jump Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Medicine Rock Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Natural Bridge Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Painted Rocks Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Parker Homestead Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Pirogue Island Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Rosebud Battlefield Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Sluice Boxes Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Thompson Falls Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Wild Horse Island Primitive State Park Contact: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Kalispell, MT

State 2 Isaac Homestead Contact: Candice Coefield, Fish Wildlife and Parks Lands Inventory, 1996, Helena, MT

State 2 Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River Contact: Candice Coefield, Fish Wildlife and Parks Lands Inventory, 1996, Helena, MT

MPC 2 Montana Power Company (MPC) owned, NRCS Contact: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Bozeman, MT

managed

Private 2 Privately owned, DU managed Conservation Contact: Ducks Unlimited (DU) Helena, MT

Easement (CE)

Private 2 Privately owned, FVLT managed CE Contact: Five Valleys Land Trust (FVLT), Missoula, MT

Private 2 Privately owned, Montana Land Reliance (MLR) Contact: The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

managed

Private 2 Privately owned, MLR managed CE Contact: The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

Private 2 Privately owned, RMEF managed CE Contact: Rocky Mountains Elk Foundation, Bozeman, MT

Private 2 Privately owned, TNC managed Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

Private 2 Privately owned, TNC managed CE Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

Private 2 Privately owned, TNC managed other Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

Private 2 Privately owned, TNC managed regis Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

TNC 1 Pine Butte Swamp Preserve Contact: Pine Butte Swamp Preserve, Choteau, MT

4.1.8
Appendix 4.1 Administrative units with status 1 or 2

Agency Status Administrative Unit Source

TNC 1 Other TNC Preserves Contact: Montana Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Helena, MT

Tribal 1 Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness Contact: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT

Tribal 2 Flathead Tribal Land Contact: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT

Tribal 1 Jocko Primitive Area Contact: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT

Tribal 2 Pablo NWR Contact: D. Wiseman, Nationl Bison Range, Moiese, MT

Tribal 2 Ninepipe NWR Contact: D. Wiseman, National Bison Range, Moiese, MT

Tribal 1 Lozeau Primitive Area Contact: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT

4.1.9
Appendix 5.1. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status..

BLM FWSUSFS Other FedNPS Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

1100

64

0

0

33

0

145

1

0

13

105 1,324

50

0

0

0

0

888

636

788

28

0

9

0

59,288

360

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 118 33 50 146 1,324 888 1,452 59,297 424

Total (ha & %)

50

803

3,140

59,380

360

63,733

Urban or Developed Lands %Status 1 & 2: 1.34

0.08

1.26

4.93

93.17

0.57

100

BLM FWSUSFS Other FedNPS Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

2010

601

0

178

18,714

1,068

710

899

4

6

857 967

2

10

0

0

57

160,852

582

158,718

0

113

2,342

0

3,282,300

3,632

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 868 18,892 11 2,677 967 160,909 159,299 3,284,755 4,233

Total (ha & %)

1,187

3,885

341,008

3,282,901

3,632

3,632,612

Agricultural Lands - Dry %Status 1 & 2: 0.14

0.03

0.11

9.39

90.37

0.10

100

BLM FWSUSFS Other FedNPS Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

2020

1,247

0

42

3,447

207

278

1,004

0

0

774 483

0

12

0

0

275

84,936

947

62,500

2

0

3,555

0

1,793,475

4,111

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 774 3,489 12 1,490 483 85,211 63,448 1,797,030 5,357

Total (ha & %)

207

5,109

153,144

1,794,723

4,111

1,957,295

Agricultural Lands - Irrigated %Status 1 & 2: 0.27

0.01

0.26

7.82

91.69

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3110

302

4

659

57,715

642

10,298

1,825

1,169

496

8,964 104

137

2

0

12

15

52,121

2,106

68,261

0

4

1,792

0

804,932

3,387

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 10,629 58,378 139 12,764 104 52,148 70,367 806,728 3,690

Total (ha & %)

1,967

15,367

188,990

805,234

3,387

1,014,946

Altered Herbaceous %Status 1 & 2: 1.71

0.19

1.51

18.62

79.34

0.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3130

0

109

8,515

193,431

512

5,393

566

130

136

5,144 623

5

2,421

0

12

179

45,140

1,349

95,426

0

0

4,695

0

738,527

2,048

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,410 202,054 2,426 6,471 623 45,332 96,776 743,222 2,048

Total (ha & %)

768

22,688

340,330

738,527

2,048

1,104,361

Very Low Cover Grasslands %Status 1 & 2: 2.12

0.07

2.05

30.82

66.87

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3150

186

2,825

7,543

1,144,477

7,780

56,951

8,105

15,661

4,859

231,718 8,511

4,465

943

62

589

125

736,044

23,824

851,295

14

3,200

54,451

1

7,248,126

15,709

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 252,239 1,154,845 5,470 72,836 8,511 736,757 875,133 7,305,777 15,895

Total (ha & %)

34,520

148,696

2,980,214

7,248,326

15,709

10,427,465

Low / Moderate Cover Grasslands %Status 1 & 2: 1.76

0.33

1.43

28.58

69.51

0.15

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3170

62

141

1,300

82,335

1,123

20,809

890

1,084

115

35,089 718

1,848

108

0

4

34

126,189

921

72,518

1

17

6,332

0

881,326

3,697

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 36,288 83,776 1,955 22,823 718 126,227 73,439 887,675 3,759

Total (ha & %)

4,217

29,618

317,739

881,389

3,697

1,236,660

Moderate / High Cover Grasslands %Status 1 & 2: 2.74

0.34

2.40

25.69

71.27

0.30

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3180

0

716

1,469

24,457

992

276

0

79,349

19,431

238,830 1,924

18,682

8

0

4,465

1

5,644

2,924

20,523

0

0

3,123

0

105,227

160

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 337,610 26,643 18,690 1,268 1,924 10,110 23,447 108,350 160

Total (ha & %)

104,204

27,232

291,378

105,227

160

528,201

Montane Parklands & Subalpine Meadows %Status 1 & 2: 24.89

19.73

5.16

55.16

19.92

0.03

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3200

124

1,550

137

30,659

170

2,596

518

43,595

13,455

159,620 626

14,270

28

0

2,420

71

82,823

3,594

35,826

3

540

3,425

0

552,252

1,571

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 216,670 32,345 14,297 3,285 626 85,314 39,424 556,217 1,695

Total (ha & %)

62,545

23,306

310,072

552,379

1,571

949,873

Mixed Mesic Shrubs %Status 1 & 2: 9.04

6.59

2.45

32.64

58.15

0.17

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3300

18

667

8,565

199,530

1,251

43,101

182

487

944

19,887 4,597

25

206

0

107

0

46,993

1,311

76,121

0

106

765

0

820,097

2,893

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 21,318 208,761 231 44,535 4,597 47,100 77,432 820,968 2,910

Total (ha & %)

2,643

54,891

347,310

820,115

2,893

1,227,852

Mixed Xeric Shrubs %Status 1 & 2: 4.69

0.22

4.47

28.29

66.79

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3309

2

90

392

19,262

125

7,143

45

0

0

69 8

3

6

0

0

0

1,670

83

4,311

0

0

15

0

39,612

498

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 69 19,744 10 7,313 8 1,670 4,393 39,628 501

Total (ha & %)

218

7,640

25,364

39,615

498

73,335

Silver Sage %Status 1 & 2: 10.72

0.30

10.42

34.59

54.02

0.68

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3310

0

0

403

66,405

111

4,452

135

0

0

604 0

0

2

0

0

0

1,381

34

6,806

0

0

90

0

49,723

995

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 604 66,808 2 4,698 0 1,381 6,840 49,813 995

Total (ha & %)

111

4,981

75,332

49,723

995

131,141

Salt-Desert Shrub / Dry Salt Flats %Status 1 & 2: 3.88

0.09

3.80

57.44

37.92

0.76

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3350

0

214

4,755

538,350

2,675

36,284

1,002

12,103

2,272

118,552 2,419

2,993

3,588

0

5

1

68,734

6,956

176,774

0

34

8,244

15

1,153,093

6,510

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 132,927 543,319 6,581 39,961 2,419 68,740 183,730 1,161,387 6,510

Total (ha & %)

18,023

62,100

905,847

1,153,093

6,510

2,145,574

Sagebrush %Status 1 & 2: 3.73

0.84

2.89

42.22

53.74

0.30

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3510

11

28

18

22,298

2

381

35

32

0

7,906 153

4

21

0

0

0

42,382

85

15,693

0

0

1,206

0

189,657

164

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 7,938 22,344 25 418 153 42,382 15,778 190,863 175

Total (ha & %)

67

1,711

88,466

189,668

164

280,075

Mesic Shrub - Grassland Associations %Status 1 & 2: 0.64

0.02

0.61

31.59

67.72

0.06

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

3520

0

0

3,548

122,441

442

11,382

404

0

0

600 523

0

626

0

0

0

7,053

311

35,784

0

5

808

0

339,297

837

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 600 125,989 626 12,229 523 7,053 36,095 340,110 837

Total (ha & %)

447

16,675

166,806

339,297

837

524,062

Xeric Shrub - Grassland Associations %Status 1 & 2: 3.27

0.09

3.18

31.83

64.74

0.16

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4000

13

30

170

25,208

2

3,431

36

674

13

40,890 0

15

25

0

0

0

67,765

508

11,293

0

0

634

0

135,194

285

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 41,577 25,408 41 3,469 0 67,765 11,801 135,828 298

Total (ha & %)

722

4,781

145,192

135,207

285

286,188

Low Density Xeric Forest %Status 1 & 2: 1.92

0.25

1.67

50.73

47.25

0.10

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4140

271

111

200

6,895

645

2,044

63

3,208

1,699

41,968 208

11,026

134

0

0

0

47,723

1,805

13,737

0

113

2,604

0

219,806

3,279

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 46,875 7,206 11,160 2,752 208 47,723 15,541 222,524 3,550

Total (ha & %)

15,103

8,486

110,593

220,078

3,279

357,540

Mixed Broadleaf Forest %Status 1 & 2: 6.60

4.22

2.37

30.93

61.55

0.92

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4203

0

1,248

1,640

35,942

39

84

15

185,475

53,701

761,169 545

45,577

208

0

7,242

43

23,130

3,996

20,427

0

34

2,760

0

142,161

718

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,000,345 38,831 45,785 139 545 30,415 24,423 144,955 718

Total (ha & %)

239,615

62,432

841,230

142,161

718

1,286,157

Lodgepole Pine %Status 1 & 2: 23.49

18.63

4.86

65.41

11.05

0.06

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4205

22

96

416

9,918

49

665

1

12,037

1,417

27,738 99

1,558

130

0

0

0

8,795

2,492

6,792

0

787

1,310

0

45,855

198

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 41,192 10,430 1,688 714 99 8,795 9,283 47,951 220

Total (ha & %)

14,527

6,430

53,342

45,877

198

120,372

Limber Pine %Status 1 & 2: 17.41

12.07

5.34

44.31

38.11

0.16

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4206

11

204

3,521

90,530

346

23,711

192

3,969

2,641

168,013 473

43

89

0

1,383

137

88,045

2,619

52,381

0

17

4,623

0

621,039

2,141

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 174,623 94,256 132 24,249 473 89,566 55,000 625,680 2,152

Total (ha & %)

5,962

37,341

399,635

621,050

2,141

1,066,130

Ponderosa Pine %Status 1 & 2: 4.06

0.56

3.50

37.48

58.25

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4207

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

35

314

13,317 0

1,094

1

0

107

146

1,480

0

1,533

0

0

9

0

3,974

9

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 13,666 0 1,094 0 0 1,733 1,533 3,983 9

Total (ha & %)

1,235

470

16,330

3,974

9

22,017

Grand Fir %Status 1 & 2: 7.74

5.61

2.13

74.17

18.05

0.04

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4210

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

296

711

28,772 4

75

12

0

164

70

284

0

1,708

0

0

0

0

4,210

30

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 29,780 0 87 3 4 518 1,708 4,210 30

Total (ha & %)

535

793

30,772

4,210

30

36,339

Western Red Cedar %Status 1 & 2: 3.65

1.47

2.18

84.68

11.58

0.08

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4211

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

494

619

17,805 0

518

23

0

22

0

6

0

235

0

0

0

0

1,159

61

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 18,918 0 541 0 0 28 235 1,159 61

Total (ha & %)

1,034

642

18,045

1,159

61

20,941

Western Hemlock %Status 1 & 2: 8.00

4.94

3.07

86.17

5.54

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4212

30

991

3,874

56,340

620

939

181

81,338

28,397

646,592 363

23,120

348

1

6,174

548

45,766

7,220

52,969

3

275

7,556

0

364,173

2,176

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 756,327 61,205 23,469 1,740 363 52,488 60,192 372,005 2,206

Total (ha & %)

112,518

48,883

802,212

364,206

2,176

1,329,994

Douglas-fir %Status 1 & 2: 12.14

8.46

3.68

60.32

27.38

0.16

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4214

0

10

689

22,478

91

4,066

15

15

77

2,422 0

156

8

0

0

0

1,405

264

4,487

0

8

147

0

43,883

160

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,514 23,177 164 4,172 0 1,405 4,751 44,037 160

Total (ha & %)

279

5,251

30,807

43,883

160

80,380

Rocky Mountain Juniper %Status 1 & 2: 6.88

0.35

6.53

38.33

54.59

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4215

0

0

0

90

0

0

7

5,242

1,657

59,254 14

6,937

10

0

792

15

2,904

34

2,467

0

0

40

0

10,922

53

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 66,154 90 6,947 7 14 3,711 2,501 10,962 53

Total (ha & %)

12,971

1,755

64,736

10,922

53

90,437

Western Larch %Status 1 & 2: 16.28

14.34

1.94

71.58

12.08

0.06

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4216

0

0

671

2,958

0

0

0

11

0

822 0

0

1,893

0

0

0

4,785

0

388

0

0

38

0

3,258

18

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 833 3,630 1,893 0 0 4,785 388 3,296 18

Total (ha & %)

11

2,603

8,954

3,258

18

14,843

Utah Juniper %Status 1 & 2: 17.61

0.08

17.53

60.32

21.95

0.12

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4223

0

425

153

16,024

45

15

39

49,568

17,087

254,926 44

13,064

26

0

2,191

11

6,729

2,890

11,264

0

76

1,133

0

75,436

187

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 321,581 16,603 13,090 99 44 8,930 14,154 76,645 187

Total (ha & %)

65,369

21,315

289,025

75,436

187

451,332

Douglas-fir / Lodgepole Pine %Status 1 & 2: 19.21

14.48

4.72

64.04

16.71

0.04

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4260

0

220

502

1,403

21

0

0

140,607

25,927

174,006 564

29,951

0

0

3,036

0

3,264

833

3,253

0

0

99

0

10,062

592

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 340,540 2,125 29,951 21 564 6,300 4,086 10,161 592

Total (ha & %)

173,835

27,362

182,490

10,062

592

394,340

Mixed Whitebark Pine Forest %Status 1 & 2: 51.02

44.08

6.94

46.28

2.55

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4270

0

816

6,596

24,599

483

203

4

309,320

68,827

913,667 2,603

93,837

301

0

17,028

23

26,182

5,197

24,468

0

26

2,159

0

85,656

618

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,291,814 32,010 94,137 689 2,603 43,233 29,665 87,841 618

Total (ha & %)

421,509

83,306

991,523

85,656

618

1,582,611

Mixed Subalpine Forest %Status 1 & 2: 31.90

26.64

5.26

62.65

5.41

0.04

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4280

0

208

156

3,629

139

580

139

80,744

27,432

638,180 57

59,681

1,143

0

15,541

3,805

55,166

1,781

61,259

6

128

1,289

0

275,253

995

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 746,356 3,992 60,824 859 57 74,511 63,046 276,669 995

Total (ha & %)

156,441

36,185

758,430

275,258

995

1,227,310

Mixed Mesic Forest %Status 1 & 2: 15.69

12.75

2.95

61.80

22.43

0.08

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4290

15

295

3,577

49,586

93

14,906

108

13,305

4,197

147,396 78

2,907

126

4

2,146

75

24,185

2,135

26,963

0

73

4,771

0

243,678

1,432

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 164,897 53,458 3,037 15,107 78 26,405 29,098 248,522 1,447

Total (ha & %)

18,819

29,786

248,319

243,693

1,432

542,050

Mixed Xeric Forest %Status 1 & 2: 8.97

3.47

5.50

45.81

44.96

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4300

6

3

48

2,608

22

0

66

2,918

1,456

36,463 5

1,142

12

0

210

53

10,419

167

4,066

0

113

263

0

39,553

249

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 40,837 2,659 1,154 87 5 10,682 4,233 39,930 256

Total (ha & %)

4,409

1,999

53,627

39,560

249

99,844

Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Forest %Status 1 & 2: 6.42

4.42

2.00

53.71

39.62

0.25

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

4400

0

0

66

520

0

28

0

60,245

6,514

36,170 14

20,481

221

0

0

0

770

3,157

1,467

0

0

2

0

9,567

41

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 102,928 586 20,702 28 14 770 4,624 9,569 41

Total (ha & %)

80,725

9,988

38,941

9,567

41

139,262

Standing Burnt Forest %Status 1 & 2: 65.14

57.97

7.17

27.96

6.87

0.03

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

5000

365

52

222

8,682

617

1,359

182

2,012

279

2,925 266

998

198

0

119

121

6,761

1,265

4,676

0

9

254

0

57,057

309,986

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,216 8,956 1,196 2,159 266 7,001 5,941 57,320 310,351

Total (ha & %)

3,807

3,698

23,492

57,423

309,986

398,406

Water %Status 1 & 2: 1.88

0.96

0.93

5.90

14.41

77.81

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

6110

31

56

134

2,910

292

373

132

4,920

1,973

23,145 45

1,873

113

0

226

20

3,139

560

3,551

1

27

586

0

38,887

2,011

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 30,038 3,101 1,985 797 45 3,385 4,112 39,500 2,042

Total (ha & %)

7,394

3,759

32,922

38,919

2,011

85,005

Conifer Riparian %Status 1 & 2: 13.12

8.70

4.42

38.73

45.78

2.37

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

6120

905

3

98

5,711

362

1,668

80

946

241

6,549 207

267

12

0

114

26

18,190

755

8,347

2

59

1,215

0

147,501

5,115

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 7,736 5,812 279 2,110 207 18,330 9,104 148,775 6,020

Total (ha & %)

1,752

4,014

39,083

148,407

5,115

198,372

Broadleaf Riparian %Status 1 & 2: 2.91

0.89

2.02

19.70

74.81

2.58

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

6130

4

7

31

744

41

6

14

1,183

432

9,663 11

1,726

75

0

44

14

2,760

286

1,369

0

14

202

0

15,877

432

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 11,278 782 1,801 61 11 2,817 1,655 16,092 436

Total (ha & %)

3,015

1,046

14,560

15,881

432

34,933

Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Riparian %Status 1 & 2: 11.62

8.63

2.99

41.68

45.46

1.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

6200

270

136

78

32,237

1,769

2,696

934

1,200

298

9,873 778

383

108

0

5

9

62,999

684

37,965

0

19

3,287

0

536,346

10,501

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 11,372 32,451 491 5,399 778 63,013 38,649 539,651 10,771

Total (ha & %)

3,512

7,160

144,787

536,615

10,501

702,575

Graminoid & Forb Riparian %Status 1 & 2: 1.52

0.50

1.02

20.61

76.38

1.50

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

6300

381

186

75

12,648

1,254

990

255

2,731

949

16,569 423

2,203

160

0

109

37

32,432

1,354

15,566

1

186

2,055

0

267,576

5,457

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 20,248 12,909 2,364 2,499 423 32,578 16,921 269,817 5,838

Total (ha & %)

6,669

5,620

77,893

267,958

5,457

363,596

Shrub Riparian %Status 1 & 2: 3.38

1.83

1.54

21.42

73.70

1.50

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

6400

8

28

23

3,059

241

159

137

1,081

408

7,514 118

1,868

130

0

100

0

9,539

513

5,507

0

71

1,153

0

89,597

1,409

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 9,004 3,109 1,997 536 118 9,639 6,020 90,821 1,418

Total (ha & %)

3,389

2,385

25,874

89,605

1,409

122,662

Mixed Riparian %Status 1 & 2: 4.71

2.76

1.94

21.09

73.05

1.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

7300

0

302

1,885

21,119

27

4,938

64

186,117

28,276

117,068 51

85,506

237

0

5,454

4

6,951

1,831

9,331

2

21

395

0

116,939

4,549

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 331,461 23,306 85,743 5,028 51 12,409 11,164 117,355 4,549

Total (ha & %)

277,427

37,566

154,584

116,941

4,549

591,068

Rock %Status 1 & 2: 53.29

46.94

6.36

26.15

19.78

0.77

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

7500

0

0

33

1,231

4

0

0

0

44

827 2

0

0

0

0

0

16

13

868

0

0

0

0

8,857

25

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 871 1,264 0 4 2 16 881 8,857 25

Total (ha & %)

4

90

2,945

8,857

25

11,922

Mines, Quarries, Gravel Pits %Status 1 & 2: 0.79

0.03

0.76

24.70

74.30

0.21

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

7600

6

946

10,111

242,931

373

18,457

86

1,251

0

2,283 2,783

0

671

0

0

0

11,973

694

47,894

0

0

62

0

404,098

4,980

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,534 253,988 671 18,917 2,783 11,973 48,589 404,160 4,986

Total (ha & %)

2,570

29,997

307,951

404,104

4,980

749,602

Badlands %Status 1 & 2: 4.35

0.34

4.00

41.08

53.91

0.66

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

7604

0

0

4,530

20,768

198

32,244

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

30

344

3,134

0

0

0

0

6,329

1,600

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 25,297 0 32,442 0 30 3,478 6,329 1,600

Total (ha & %)

198

37,118

23,931

6,329

1,600

69,176

Missouri Breaks %Status 1 & 2: 53.94

0.29

53.66

34.60

9.15

2.31

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

7800

0

338

73

22,270

33

607

75

15,477

4,673

42,631 185

1,081

37

0

271

0

6,684

691

8,217

0

102

289

0

91,570

1,749

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 62,781 22,681 1,119 714 185 6,955 8,908 91,961 1,749

Total (ha & %)

17,302

6,370

80,061

91,570

1,749

197,051

Mixed Barren Sites %Status 1 & 2: 12.01

8.78

3.23

40.63

46.47

0.89

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

8100

0

42

9

139

0

0

0

32,261

6,505

12,323 24

1,693

0

0

40

0

3

51

62

0

0

0

0

1,462

49

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 51,089 190 1,693 0 24 43 113 1,462 49

Total (ha & %)

34,036

6,565

12,552

1,462

49

54,664

Alpine Meadows %Status 1 & 2: 74.27

62.26

12.01

22.96

2.68

0.09

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

9100

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

21,107

181

1,613 0

2,082

0

0

1,553

0

103

0

0

0

0

0

0

204

233

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 22,900 2 2,082 0 0 1,656 0 204 233

Total (ha & %)

24,741

181

1,717

204

233

27,077

Snowfields or Ice %Status 1 & 2: 92.04

91.38

0.67

6.34

0.75

0.86

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.1 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 50 land cover types in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

9800

0

0

0

1,694

0

0

0

437

1,480

3,830 46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,013

0

0

34

0

9,577

61

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,747 1,694 0 0 46 0 1,013 9,611 61

Total (ha & %)

437

1,514

6,583

9,577

61

18,172

Clouds %Status 1 & 2: 10.74

2.41

8.33

36.22

52.70

0.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

9900

0

0

0

1,163

0

0

0

488

1,022

3,838 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

34

449

0

0

15

0

5,325

11

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,348 1,163 0 0 0 0 483 5,340 11

Total (ha & %)

488

1,071

5,450

5,325

11

12,345

Cloud Shadow %Status 1 & 2: 12.63

3.96

8.67

44.14

43.13

0.09

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that cover type. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

BLM FWSUSFS Other FedNPS Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAAAA01080

0

291

893

28,515

359

1,152

751

73,689

22,550

289,553 369

37,370

1,003

0

6,017

1,081

42,482

7,797

42,533

6

247

4,963

0

453,195

44,183

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 385,792 29,699 38,373 2,262 369 49,580 50,336 458,405 44,183

Total (ha & %)

117,972

39,439

404,203

453,201

44,183

1,058,998

LONG-TOED SALAMANDER Ambystoma macrodactylum %Status 1 & 2: 14.86

11.14

3.72

38.17

42.80

4.17

100

BLM FWSUSFS Other FedNPS Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAAAA01140

4,592

12,693

67,364

2,799,883

23,761

299,634

14,572

563,647

82,013

1,799,609 31,202

155,577

11,386

67

0

0

1,845,839

36,892

1,752,622

0

5,949

93,103

15

19,025,062

83,111

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,445,269 2,879,940 167,030 337,967 31,202 1,845,839 1,789,514 19,124,130 87,703

Total (ha & %)

761,627

590,392

8,243,811

19,029,654

83,111

28,708,594

TIGER SALAMANDER Ambystoma tigrinum %Status 1 & 2: 4.71

2.65

2.06

28.72

66.29

0.29

100

BLM FWSUSFS Other FedNPS Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAAAD12270

0

0

0

0

0

28

0

1,869

2,261

57,446 12

0

0

0

391

0

2,134

0

2,674

0

0

128

0

19,947

727

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 61,575 0 0 28 12 2,526 2,674 20,075 727

Total (ha & %)

2,260

2,416

62,266

19,947

727

87,617

COEUR D'ALENE SALAMANDER Plethodon idahoensis %Status 1 & 2: 5.34

2.58

2.76

71.07

22.77

0.83

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAAAH01030

0

0

0

0

0

210

0

29,665

22,290

222,915 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14

3,902

0

0

359

0

41,167

1,019

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 274,869 0 0 210 0 0 3,916 41,525 1,019

Total (ha & %)

29,665

22,872

226,817

41,167

1,019

321,539

IDAHO GIANT SALAMANDER Dicamptodon aterrimus %Status 1 & 2: 16.34

9.23

7.11

70.54

12.80

0.32

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABA01010

0

173

255

5,006

80

303

91

58,996

16,547

212,636 74

25,088

541

0

4,817

795

18,018

2,508

17,502

0

83

1,182

0

127,253

174

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 288,179 5,434 25,629 474 74 23,629 20,010 128,518 174

Total (ha & %)

89,238

22,130

253,327

127,253

174

492,122

TAILED FROG Ascaphus truei %Status 1 & 2: 22.63

18.13

4.50

51.48

25.86

0.04

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABB01030

0

8,214

17,115

595,454

11,125

12,195

4,352

1,160,908

297,669

4,668,290 7,781

363,326

2,613

67

64,557

5,788

434,881

76,637

699,155

60

5,567

124,041

16

5,803,918

19,769

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,126,868 620,783 366,006 27,672 7,781 505,226 775,852 5,933,542 19,769

Total (ha & %)

1,613,697

536,060

6,409,996

5,803,977

19,769

14,383,499

WESTERN TOAD Bufo boreas %Status 1 & 2: 14.95

11.22

3.73

44.56

40.35

0.14

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABB01050

1,934

3,578

29,391

2,146,032

9,484

197,182

13,665

58

15

129,625 19,538

257

128

0

0

0

1,090,115

5,485

1,220,636

0

454

5,246

0

12,647,627

45,776

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 129,698 2,179,000 385 220,331 19,538 1,090,115 1,226,121 12,653,328 47,710

Total (ha & %)

13,831

237,447

4,619,611

12,649,561

45,776

17,566,226

GREAT PLAINS TOAD Bufo cognatus %Status 1 & 2: 1.43

0.08

1.35

26.30

72.01

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABB01080

5

0

0

190

310

5,475

2,757

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

43,377

343

16,885

0

254

106

0

219,606

4,086

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 190 0 8,542 0 43,377 17,229 219,966 4,091

Total (ha & %)

565

5,924

63,210

219,610

4,086

293,396

CANADIAN TOAD Bufo hemiophrys %Status 1 & 2: 2.21

0.19

2.02

21.55

74.85

1.39

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABB01180

4,411

3,920

39,923

2,117,998

10,927

269,679

7,134

671

619

231,048 21,972

313

10,592

0

0

0

1,212,921

6,516

1,012,541

0

0

10,570

0

11,737,481

49,027

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 232,338 2,161,841 10,905 287,740 21,972 1,212,921 1,019,057 11,748,051 53,438

Total (ha & %)

15,831

337,899

4,603,613

11,741,892

49,027

16,748,262

WOODHOUSE'S TOAD Bufo woodhousii %Status 1 & 2: 2.11

0.09

2.02

27.49

70.11

0.29

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABC05070

4,943

12,584

68,486

2,896,038

23,456

274,753

15,072

567,894

87,350

1,979,659 31,836

143,517

11,479

67

0

0

1,672,002

47,990

1,721,960

0

5,617

107,171

16

18,492,004

141,219

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,634,903 2,977,107 155,063 313,281 31,836 1,672,002 1,769,950 18,604,808 146,163

Total (ha & %)

753,068

597,229

8,316,650

18,496,947

141,219

28,305,114

WESTERN CHORUS FROG Pseudacris triseriata %Status 1 & 2: 4.77

2.66

2.11

29.38

65.35

0.50

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABC05100

0

8

238

9,316

509

7,280

1,592

30,450

38,765

1,094,984 601

107,726

2,719

0

21,420

5,364

127,327

8,832

140,367

51

241

11,993

0

1,118,184

19,574

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,164,199 9,562 110,445 9,381 601 154,111 149,251 1,130,418 19,574

Total (ha & %)

160,355

75,191

1,374,187

1,118,235

19,574

2,747,542

PACIFIC CHORUS FROG Pseudacris regilla %Status 1 & 2: 8.57

5.84

2.74

50.02

40.70

0.71

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABF02010

4,445

8,734

57,870

2,735,974

12,877

285,348

14,919

99,312

25,961

623,412 24,399

66,614

11,103

62

0

0

1,757,975

33,259

1,672,848

0

5,054

82,138

0

18,935,122

80,506

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 748,685 2,802,578 77,779 313,144 24,399 1,757,975 1,706,107 19,022,314 84,951

Total (ha & %)

192,593

495,680

6,829,587

18,939,567

80,506

26,537,934

PLAINS SPADEFOOT Spea bombifrons %Status 1 & 2: 2.59

0.73

1.87

25.74

71.37

0.30

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABH01070

0

0

0

36

0

75

12

25

9

389 14

0

0

0

0

45

330

6

314

0

0

133

0

4,393

313

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 423 36 0 87 14 374 320 4,526 313

Total (ha & %)

25

267

1,095

4,393

313

6,094

BULLFROG Rana catesbeiana %Status 1 & 2: 4.80

0.41

4.39

17.97

72.09

5.14

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABH01170

1,594

2,825

12,319

528,915

8,834

59,252

5,033

58,681

21,881

483,367 6,411

16,762

4,084

17

9,138

2,040

352,240

18,282

366,868

11

1,299

29,754

11

4,045,385

173,381

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 563,928 544,059 20,863 73,120 6,411 363,418 385,161 4,076,449 174,975

Total (ha & %)

97,540

147,611

1,742,862

4,046,990

173,381

6,208,384

NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG Rana pipiens %Status 1 & 2: 3.95

1.57

2.38

28.07

65.19

2.79

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABH01200

0

0

1,777

1,723

0

0

0

6,835

13,443

292,561 249

24,686

2,681

0

0

0

27,381

0

18,214

0

0

168

0

69,047

5,462

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 312,839 3,500 27,367 0 249 27,381 18,214 69,214 5,462

Total (ha & %)

31,521

18,069

340,129

69,047

5,462

464,227

WOOD FROG Rana sylvatica %Status 1 & 2: 10.68

6.79

3.89

73.27

14.87

1.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AAABH01290

0

1,316

4,466

124,836

5,480

4,112

1,963

233,316

55,676

878,025 2,574

86,695

1,432

17

12,936

2,083

94,022

18,617

150,775

11

535

32,550

11

1,441,306

68,048

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,167,018 130,617 88,144 11,555 2,574 109,040 169,403 1,474,402 68,048

Total (ha & %)

340,279

118,936

1,252,223

1,441,317

68,048

3,220,802

COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG Rana luteiventris %Status 1 & 2: 14.26

10.57

3.69

38.88

44.75

2.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARAAB01010

1,343

902

3,780

128,784

756

28,679

1,177

62

54

16,151 3,252

33

1,703

0

0

0

100,238

796

64,752

0

26

833

0

861,776

54,767

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 16,267 133,466 1,737 30,612 3,252 100,238 65,548 862,635 56,110

Total (ha & %)

1,779

35,847

314,355

863,119

54,767

1,269,866

SNAPPING TURTLE Chelydra serpentina %Status 1 & 2: 2.96

0.14

2.82

24.76

67.97

4.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARAAD01010

1,354

1,268

5,323

241,658

2,330

30,697

3,080

13,187

8,283

200,634 3,651

11,364

2,599

0

3,958

1,022

199,888

6,691

183,487

6

691

13,859

0

2,218,704

123,875

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 222,104 248,249 13,964 36,107 3,651 204,868 190,183 2,233,254 125,229

Total (ha & %)

32,799

68,473

832,398

2,220,064

123,875

3,277,610

PAINTED TURTLE Chrysemys picta %Status 1 & 2: 3.09

1.00

2.09

25.40

67.73

3.78

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARAAG01030

37

0

101

1,206

66

215

1

0

0

0 157

0

0

0

0

0

722

46

2,000

0

0

0

0

19,551

21,348

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 1,307 0 282 157 722 2,046 19,551 21,385

Total (ha & %)

66

363

4,086

19,588

21,348

45,450

SPINY SOFTSHELL Apalone spinifera %Status 1 & 2: 0.94

0.14

0.80

8.99

43.10

46.97

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARACB01010

0

0

166

3,959

315

2,924

781

52,610

54,836

915,243 356

0

0

0

21,548

1,176

67,251

3,101

60,276

17

126

3,178

0

500,799

14,360

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,022,689 4,125 0 4,020 356 89,976 63,394 504,103 14,360

Total (ha & %)

74,600

65,382

1,047,865

500,816

14,360

1,703,022

NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD Elgaria coerulea %Status 1 & 2: 8.22

4.38

3.84

61.53

29.41

0.84

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARACF12030

613

4,904

54,590

2,501,665

10,305

265,934

11,770

4,877

2,932

338,163 20,721

318

10,578

0

0

0

1,241,257

20,403

1,304,525

0

3,200

44,478

0

12,082,503

43,218

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 345,972 2,561,158 10,895 288,008 20,721 1,241,257 1,324,928 12,130,181 43,832

Total (ha & %)

23,603

398,914

5,418,101

12,083,116

43,218

17,966,952

SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma douglasii %Status 1 & 2: 2.35

0.13

2.22

30.16

67.25

0.24

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARACF14030

451

4,440

44,382

1,678,499

4,487

260,673

7,093

1,182

268

263,781 19,672

5,695

10,771

62

0

0

656,830

7,180

816,491

0

0

19,165

0

8,605,304

27,830

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 265,231 1,727,322 16,529 272,253 19,672 656,830 823,671 8,624,469 28,281

Total (ha & %)

15,804

342,440

3,442,429

8,605,755

27,830

12,434,258

SAGEBRUSH LIZARD Sceloporus graciosus %Status 1 & 2: 2.88

0.13

2.75

27.68

69.21

0.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARACH01110

0

6

322

9,494

0

6,918

108

33,404

28,587

479,994 481

21

0

0

10,627

873

75,450

6,229

61,745

0

276

6,421

0

650,418

2,054

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 541,984 9,822 21 7,026 481 86,950 67,974 657,115 2,054

Total (ha & %)

44,335

49,349

627,271

650,418

2,054

1,373,427

WESTERN SKINK Eumeces skiltonianus %Status 1 & 2: 6.82

3.23

3.59

45.67

47.36

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADA01010

0

5,461

16,019

437,637

10,494

10,127

2,611

901,130

229,214

3,347,965 7,294

342,257

2,735

67

54,456

5,156

329,355

61,379

480,473

53

4,277

87,879

16

3,752,588

44,751

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,478,309 459,118 345,058 23,233 7,294 388,968 541,905 3,844,760 44,751

Total (ha & %)

1,318,075

412,509

4,605,420

3,752,642

44,751

10,133,396

RUBBER BOA Charina bottae %Status 1 & 2: 17.08

13.01

4.07

45.45

37.03

0.44

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB07010

3,251

6,434

58,766

2,815,554

22,365

310,734

15,042

68,832

26,672

936,779 24,465

9,610

11,294

66

12,216

857

1,546,954

40,495

1,708,562

23

5,532

101,906

0

18,132,302

79,717

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,032,283 2,880,754 20,970 348,140 24,465 1,560,028 1,749,081 18,239,740 82,968

Total (ha & %)

124,989

550,724

7,047,422

18,135,577

79,717

25,938,428

RACER Coluber constrictor %Status 1 & 2: 2.61

0.48

2.12

27.17

69.92

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB17010

1,914

4,641

46,246

2,480,968

11,775

251,528

13,248

81

20

136,553 21,978

257

8,395

0

0

0

1,298,170

10,581

1,350,720

0

4,321

17,603

0

14,120,100

57,576

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 136,654 2,531,855 8,652 276,550 21,978 1,298,170 1,361,301 14,142,023 59,490

Total (ha & %)

21,075

334,373

5,301,636

14,122,014

57,576

19,836,672

WESTERN HOGNOSE SNAKE Heterodon nasicus %Status 1 & 2: 1.79

0.11

1.69

26.73

71.19

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB19050

119

3,553

40,082

1,736,013

5,609

207,774

6,128

1,573

211

297,803 17,628

277

10,154

0

0

0

672,188

7,449

844,007

0

0

37,415

0

9,282,244

23,038

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 299,587 1,779,648 10,431 219,512 17,628 672,188 851,456 9,319,659 23,157

Total (ha & %)

11,012

303,085

3,573,768

9,282,363

23,038

13,193,266

MILK SNAKE Lampropeltis triangulum %Status 1 & 2: 2.38

0.08

2.30

27.09

70.36

0.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB26010

3,275

9,981

65,413

3,069,411

22,860

311,586

16,960

87,611

43,477

1,436,960 24,081

56,598

11,997

67

17,208

1,352

1,811,105

63,984

1,865,567

27

5,728

111,478

16

19,196,654

87,056

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,568,048 3,144,805 68,662 351,406 24,081 1,829,664 1,929,577 19,313,876 90,330

Total (ha & %)

199,986

609,286

8,224,167

19,199,956

87,056

28,320,450

PINE OR GOPHER SNAKE Pituophis melanoleucus %Status 1 & 2: 2.86

0.71

2.15

29.04

67.80

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB36050

207

8,584

76,074

2,056,466

18,192

178,173

11,616

1,337,769

328,179

5,072,793 31,743

450,251

14,237

67

70,011

5,792

1,635,871

87,082

1,638,483

62

5,715

129,393

16

17,074,494

68,761

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,738,740 2,141,124 464,555 207,981 31,743 1,711,674 1,725,628 17,209,618 68,968

Total (ha & %)

1,890,521

818,930

10,447,056

17,074,764

68,761

30,300,028

WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER

SNAKE

Thamnophis elegans %Status 1 & 2: 8.94

6.24

2.70

34.48

56.35

0.23

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB36100

3,960

5,562

55,987

2,515,134

11,959

290,769

13,542

23,614

5,631

388,487 23,926

608

11,251

0

0

0

1,540,351

20,543

1,344,313

0

5,378

6,155

0

13,587,326

71,188

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 417,732 2,576,684 11,859 316,269 23,926 1,540,351 1,364,856 13,598,860 75,148

Total (ha & %)

47,122

390,337

5,825,753

13,591,286

71,188

19,925,684

PLAINS GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis radix %Status 1 & 2: 2.20

0.24

1.96

29.24

68.21

0.36

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB36130

3,911

8,610

29,402

1,522,287

16,829

136,341

13,809

553,643

150,845

2,968,609 14,642

250,885

8,259

67

47,296

5,441

1,236,348

57,001

1,176,663

53

4,504

96,599

6

12,161,337

137,086

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,673,097 1,560,299 259,211 166,978 14,642 1,289,085 1,233,716 12,262,447 140,998

Total (ha & %)

881,767

483,888

6,932,431

12,165,301

137,086

20,600,474

COMMON GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis sirtalis %Status 1 & 2: 6.63

4.28

2.35

33.65

59.05

0.67

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADB47010

1,678

0

0

2,990

97

1,980

1,224

0

0

0 40

5

0

0

0

0

37,344

190

13,398

0

41

38

0

166,661

11,606

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 2,990 5 3,301 40 37,344 13,588 166,740 13,283

Total (ha & %)

143

2,207

54,996

168,338

11,606

237,290

SMOOTH GREEN SNAKE Liochlorophis vernalis %Status 1 & 2: 0.99

0.06

0.93

23.18

70.94

4.89

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ARADE02120

2,841

9,870

65,255

3,071,818

20,937

303,654

12,256

91,421

41,704

1,333,318 23,855

12,687

11,511

67

16,689

1,337

1,600,832

60,136

1,736,033

0

4,844

113,385

16

18,241,078

78,041

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,466,442 3,146,943 24,265 336,847 23,855 1,618,858 1,796,169 18,359,323 80,882

Total (ha & %)

156,447

596,982

7,778,196

18,243,919

78,041

26,853,586

WESTERN RATTLESNAKE Crotalus viridis %Status 1 & 2: 2.81

0.58

2.22

28.97

67.94

0.29

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNBA01030

2

0

0

290

391

569

122

430

69

4,773 60

2,343

0

0

122

185

876

569

899

0

17

69

0

6,775

185,811

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,271 290 2,343 1,082 60 1,182 1,468 6,861 185,812

Total (ha & %)

3,302

1,460

7,019

6,776

185,811

204,369

COMMON LOON Gavia immer %Status 1 & 2: 2.33

1.61

0.72

3.43

3.32

90.92

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNCA02010

76

15

2

2,304

2,454

571

608

1,575

228

1,990 12

498

1

0

126

3

2,897

297

1,695

0

96

186

0

23,193

40,140

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,793 2,322 499 3,633 12 3,026 1,992 23,475 40,216

Total (ha & %)

4,765

1,289

9,506

23,269

40,140

78,969

PIED-BILLED GREBE Podilymbus podiceps %Status 1 & 2: 7.67

6.03

1.63

12.04

29.47

50.83

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNCA03010

78

0

0

1,567

563

899

497

562

55

577 6

525

2

0

143

9

2,753

205

840

0

163

40

0

12,807

21,904

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,194 1,567 527 1,959 6 2,905 1,045 13,009 21,982

Total (ha & %)

1,955

1,209

6,239

12,885

21,904

44,192

HORNED GREBE Podiceps auritus %Status 1 & 2: 7.16

4.43

2.74

14.12

29.16

49.57

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNCA03020

0

1

24

95

96

29

144

597

75

1,464 26

930

2

0

88

112

1,218

526

450

0

105

110

0

5,711

136,695

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,137 120 932 270 26 1,418 976 5,927 136,695

Total (ha & %)

1,818

878

3,398

5,711

136,695

148,500

RED-NECKED GREBE Podiceps grisegena %Status 1 & 2: 1.82

1.22

0.59

2.29

3.85

92.05

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNCA03030

75

14

24

1,352

836

774

540

770

64

1,652 12

658

0

0

40

98

2,610

584

1,139

0

81

188

0

12,766

78,797

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,486 1,390 658 2,151 12 2,748 1,723 13,035 78,872

Total (ha & %)

2,398

1,733

7,305

12,842

78,797

103,074

EARED GREBE Podiceps nigricollis %Status 1 & 2: 4.01

2.33

1.68

7.09

12.46

76.45

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNCA04010

1

0

24

737

2,279

1,185

326

549

35

2,295 25

663

0

0

22

97

1,937

581

799

0

81

173

0

9,649

237,227

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,879 761 663 3,791 25 2,056 1,379 9,903 237,228

Total (ha & %)

3,595

2,095

6,119

9,650

237,227

258,686

WESTERN GREBE Aechmophorus occidentalis %Status 1 & 2: 2.20

1.39

0.81

2.37

3.73

91.71

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNCA04020

0

0

24

140

251

178

32

0

0

3 0

0

0

0

0

0

19

211

57

0

0

1

0

1,055

74,148

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3 164 0 461 0 19 268 1,056 74,148

Total (ha & %)

251

415

250

1,055

74,148

76,120

CLARK'S GREBE Aechmophorus clarkii %Status 1 & 2: 0.88

0.33

0.55

0.33

1.39

97.41

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNFC01010

0

0

0

181

396

739

12

8

0

306 0

0

0

0

0

0

269

265

73

0

0

0

0

787

29,416

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 314 181 0 1,147 0 269 338 787 29,416

Total (ha & %)

404

1,004

841

787

29,416

32,451

AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN Pelecanus erythrorhynchos %Status 1 & 2: 4.34

1.25

3.09

2.59

2.42

90.65

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNFD01020

1,345

75

306

5,673

1,543

3,977

386

2,348

760

6,386 440

3,489

325

0

19

156

14,058

2,466

7,236

2

163

1,230

0

105,865

283,770

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 9,494 6,055 3,814 5,906 440 14,233 9,704 107,259 285,115

Total (ha & %)

7,638

9,219

34,179

107,213

283,770

442,019

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT Phalacrocorax auritus %Status 1 & 2: 3.81

1.73

2.09

7.73

24.26

64.20

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNGA01020

188

0

24

4,276

4,138

5,050

1,985

1,627

309

4,004 6

2,078

6

0

252

158

8,116

1,163

3,348

0

115

400

0

42,099

39,897

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,940 4,300 2,084 11,174 6 8,526 4,511 42,614 40,085

Total (ha & %)

8,211

7,110

21,736

42,287

39,897

119,241

AMERICAN BITTERN Botaurus lentiginosus %Status 1 & 2: 12.85

6.89

5.96

18.23

35.46

33.46

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNGA04010

1,345

268

561

9,057

3,014

4,332

693

19,076

5,452

60,833 645

15,239

970

1

2,514

463

19,340

3,464

17,707

11

431

2,752

0

180,803

112,705

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 85,361 9,885 16,211 8,039 645 22,317 21,182 183,985 114,050

Total (ha & %)

40,543

17,994

108,274

182,159

112,705

461,676

GREAT BLUE HERON Ardea herodias %Status 1 & 2: 12.68

8.78

3.90

23.45

39.46

24.41

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNGA11010

81

0

0

1,491

2,999

846

550

94

38

975 0

112

2

0

0

0

1,575

447

835

0

271

9

0

9,989

19,418

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,107 1,491 113 4,394 0 1,575 1,282 10,268 19,499

Total (ha & %)

3,475

1,341

5,427

10,070

19,418

39,731

BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nycticorax nycticorax %Status 1 & 2: 12.12

8.75

3.38

13.66

25.35

48.87

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNGE02020

0

0

2

2,344

1,208

347

79

1,689

90

893 0

0

0

0

0

0

15

948

1,422

0

336

91

0

22,964

8,992

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,672 2,347 0 1,634 0 15 2,369 23,390 8,992

Total (ha & %)

3,233

1,478

4,752

22,964

8,992

41,419

WHITE-FACED IBIS Plegadis chihi %Status 1 & 2: 11.38

7.81

3.57

11.47

55.44

21.71

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB02010

1,145

181

70

29,274

5,313

11,557

4,890

9,926

2,596

17,181 325

5,708

124

0

821

459

56,562

4,061

52,119

0

646

1,494

0

1,037,372

299,569

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 29,703 29,525 5,832 21,760 325 57,842 56,181 1,039,512 300,713

Total (ha & %)

22,594

20,361

160,352

1,038,516

299,569

1,541,392

TUNDRA SWAN Cygnus columbianus %Status 1 & 2: 2.79

1.47

1.32

10.40

67.38

19.44

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB02030

0

1

0

326

2,716

435

0

3,396

248

2,661 32

467

0

0

1,089

0

33

71

278

0

123

259

0

4,103

18,773

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,304 326 467 3,151 32 1,123 349 4,486 18,773

Total (ha & %)

7,791

1,013

3,330

4,103

18,773

35,011

TRUMPETER SWAN Cygnus buccinator %Status 1 & 2: 25.15

22.26

2.89

9.51

11.72

53.62

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB03040

1,151

618

1,128

227,957

12,313

45,020

8,952

6,631

633

14,503 761

1,434

364

0

11

534

158,913

9,023

175,063

0

1,516

4,124

0

1,996,246

281,273

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 21,767 229,703 1,797 66,285 761 159,458 184,086 2,001,886 282,424

Total (ha & %)

22,523

60,826

586,148

1,997,397

281,273

2,948,167

GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser albifrons %Status 1 & 2: 2.83

0.76

2.06

19.88

67.75

9.54

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB04010

1,154

621

1,148

230,880

13,343

45,227

8,992

23,066

3,789

31,304 932

8,703

374

0

2,473

535

168,220

10,937

178,391

0

1,533

5,243

0

2,044,276

316,514

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 58,159 232,649 9,078 67,562 932 171,228 189,329 2,051,053 317,668

Total (ha & %)

49,740

67,253

618,719

2,045,431

316,514

3,097,657

SNOW GOOSE Chen caerulescens %Status 1 & 2: 3.78

1.61

2.17

19.97

66.03

10.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB04020

1,154

621

1,148

230,880

13,343

45,227

8,992

21,540

3,708

29,485 893

8,703

374

0

2,473

535

168,220

10,937

178,074

0

1,533

5,243

0

2,039,305

299,529

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 54,733 232,649 9,078 67,562 893 171,228 189,012 2,046,081 300,683

Total (ha & %)

48,214

67,172

616,544

2,040,459

299,529

3,071,919

ROSS'S GOOSE Chen rossii %Status 1 & 2: 3.76

1.57

2.19

20.07

66.42

9.75

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB05030

4,175

828

8,558

254,895

14,401

72,433

7,373

15,535

3,561

45,669 3,937

15,608

2,462

0

2,665

569

163,939

14,968

156,400

0

1,919

8,149

0

1,925,445

348,135

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 64,765 264,280 18,070 94,207 3,937 167,173 171,368 1,935,513 352,309

Total (ha & %)

50,955

110,699

632,213

1,929,620

348,135

3,071,622

CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 5.26

1.66

3.60

20.58

62.82

11.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB09010

2,158

210

530

13,008

1,912

5,087

1,528

16,748

5,400

90,511 1,305

25,058

1,166

0

2,556

735

45,188

4,672

32,411

9

518

4,039

0

347,105

314,044

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 112,660 13,747 26,224 8,526 1,305 48,479 37,092 351,662 316,202

Total (ha & %)

47,002

21,629

183,951

349,272

314,044

915,898

WOOD DUCK Aix sponsa %Status 1 & 2: 7.49

5.13

2.36

20.08

38.14

34.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10010

267

256

467

84,636

9,880

26,518

5,000

16,474

3,592

40,285 525

13,747

266

0

2,317

484

69,779

7,194

61,421

0

1,233

3,134

0

538,987

313,704

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 60,351 85,359 14,013 41,397 525 72,580 68,615 543,354 313,971

Total (ha & %)

43,907

41,653

261,646

539,254

313,704

1,200,165

GREEN-WINGED TEAL Anas crecca %Status 1 & 2: 7.13

3.66

3.47

21.80

44.93

26.14

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10060

2,328

633

1,767

113,114

9,829

31,573

6,949

5,029

589

12,762 2,485

2,654

813

53

125

520

93,120

8,622

87,774

13

860

8,503

0

1,144,052

359,138

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 18,380 115,514 3,520 48,351 2,485 93,765 96,409 1,153,416 361,466

Total (ha & %)

19,131

52,388

316,256

1,146,393

359,138

1,893,305

MALLARD Anas platyrhynchos %Status 1 & 2: 3.78

1.01

2.77

16.70

60.55

18.97

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10110

1,635

1,448

3,751

591,560

14,080

54,813

10,916

43,940

7,629

81,139 2,338

16,496

2,228

43

4,059

617

367,266

16,025

446,378

2

2,945

10,504

0

4,955,058

320,990

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 132,709 596,759 18,767 79,808 2,338 371,942 462,405 4,968,507 322,625

Total (ha & %)

82,968

95,568

1,499,640

4,956,695

320,990

6,955,860

NORTHERN PINTAIL Anas acuta %Status 1 & 2: 2.57

1.19

1.37

21.56

71.26

4.62

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10130

228

235

459

86,322

9,346

29,492

5,726

10,617

1,686

13,195 431

3,915

203

0

1,105

228

59,935

6,525

55,873

0

783

2,309

0

513,765

307,076

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 25,498 87,016 4,117 44,564 431 61,268 62,398 516,858 307,303

Total (ha & %)

26,001

40,902

221,482

513,993

307,076

1,109,453

BLUE-WINGED TEAL Anas discors %Status 1 & 2: 6.03

2.34

3.69

19.96

46.33

27.68

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10140

228

235

459

86,322

9,346

29,492

5,726

10,617

1,686

13,195 431

3,915

203

0

1,105

228

59,935

6,525

55,873

0

783

2,309

0

513,765

307,076

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 25,498 87,016 4,117 44,564 431 61,268 62,398 516,858 307,303

Total (ha & %)

26,001

40,902

221,482

513,993

307,076

1,109,453

CINNAMON TEAL Anas cyanoptera %Status 1 & 2: 6.03

2.34

3.69

19.96

46.33

27.68

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10150

256

296

564

138,068

10,745

51,481

6,408

15,251

2,475

20,632 521

5,667

1,759

0

1,333

274

69,994

7,212

72,641

0

1,069

2,871

0

667,069

319,824

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 38,359 138,928 7,425 68,635 521 71,601 79,853 671,010 320,080

Total (ha & %)

34,363

66,636

308,263

667,325

319,824

1,396,411

NORTHERN SHOVELER Anas clypeata %Status 1 & 2: 7.23

2.46

4.77

22.08

47.79

22.90

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10160

630

245

486

101,463

9,847

37,662

6,880

4,657

412

9,404 443

2,113

514

0

125

520

70,413

6,941

71,009

0

943

2,469

0

809,398

317,272

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 14,473 102,194 2,627 54,389 443 71,058 77,950 812,810 317,902

Total (ha & %)

17,930

49,003

259,613

810,028

317,272

1,453,847

GADWALL Anas strepera %Status 1 & 2: 4.60

1.23

3.37

17.86

55.72

21.82

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB10180

630

255

524

126,791

11,406

47,377

6,917

12,706

1,724

16,987 508

4,099

1,301

0

1,105

521

72,788

7,142

76,234

0

943

2,849

0

851,789

322,829

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 31,417 127,570 5,399 65,700 508 74,414 83,376 855,580 323,459

Total (ha & %)

30,514

61,437

300,224

852,419

322,829

1,567,423

AMERICAN WIGEON Anas americana %Status 1 & 2: 5.87

1.95

3.92

19.15

54.38

20.60

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB11020

105

3

75

9,116

4,133

6,826

1,530

1,670

196

3,425 97

923

0

0

88

126

7,097

1,801

5,717

0

161

390

0

56,535

294,176

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,291 9,194 923 12,489 97 7,312 7,518 57,086 294,281

Total (ha & %)

6,980

9,414

26,982

56,640

294,176

394,191

CANVASBACK Aythya valisineria %Status 1 & 2: 4.16

1.77

2.39

6.85

14.37

74.63

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB11030

226

33

492

88,402

8,668

29,606

5,776

4,602

401

8,968 299

2,115

654

0

125

265

61,792

6,499

57,616

0

783

2,287

0

498,442

305,439

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 13,970 88,927 2,769 44,049 299 62,181 64,115 501,513 305,665

Total (ha & %)

16,326

40,204

222,852

498,668

305,439

1,083,488

REDHEAD Aythya americana %Status 1 & 2: 5.22

1.51

3.71

20.57

46.02

28.19

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB11040

0

2

29

871

2,496

309

457

1,865

364

4,949 41

1,580

2

0

190

119

2,415

1,007

1,563

0

292

313

0

20,323

172,206

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 7,178 902 1,582 3,262 41 2,725 2,570 20,928 172,206

Total (ha & %)

6,426

2,142

10,296

20,323

172,206

211,393

RING-NECKED DUCK Aythya collaris %Status 1 & 2: 4.05

3.04

1.01

4.87

9.61

81.46

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB11060

0

48

102

1,008

1,667

245

186

1,445

257

3,126 13

983

92

0

88

97

1,571

724

1,726

1

91

716

0

28,104

155,021

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,828 1,158 1,075 2,098 13 1,756 2,451 28,911 155,021

Total (ha & %)

4,322

2,232

7,630

28,105

155,021

197,310

GREATER SCAUP Aythya marila %Status 1 & 2: 3.32

2.19

1.13

3.87

14.24

78.57

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB11070

256

66

49

13,379

4,981

17,182

2,563

12,046

2,591

14,607 228

5,717

109

0

1,426

195

24,582

2,398

10,814

0

424

941

0

159,069

285,814

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 29,243 13,493 5,826 24,725 228 26,204 13,213 160,433 286,070

Total (ha & %)

24,659

23,465

66,173

159,325

285,814

559,435

LESSER SCAUP Aythya affinis %Status 1 & 2: 8.60

4.41

4.19

11.83

28.48

51.09

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB15010

0

78

40

1,314

173

356

196

25,021

4,768

70,440 33

18,909

953

0

1,051

371

14,879

1,471

13,143

2

332

3,669

0

153,906

14,450

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 100,229 1,431 19,862 726 33 16,301 14,616 157,908 14,450

Total (ha & %)

45,564

11,628

100,005

153,909

14,450

325,557

HARLEQUIN DUCK Histrionicus histrionicus %Status 1 & 2: 17.57

14.00

3.57

30.72

47.28

4.44

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB18010

453

1,099

1,214

9,939

791

1,450

579

51,507

17,607

204,578 676

39,612

1,000

0

6,064

926

31,015

4,454

33,668

11

169

4,695

0

251,820

263,437

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 273,693 12,252 40,612 2,820 676 38,004 38,134 256,684 263,890

Total (ha & %)

99,242

31,345

280,456

252,284

263,437

926,765

COMMON GOLDENEYE Bucephala clangula %Status 1 & 2: 14.09

10.71

3.38

30.26

27.22

28.43

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB18020

0

2

77

1,054

2,939

687

262

26,738

5,288

46,867 189

16,476

25

0

4,375

651

10,318

1,584

6,890

0

184

1,004

0

50,870

156,613

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 78,892 1,132 16,501 3,887 189 15,344 8,474 52,057 156,613

Total (ha & %)

50,713

9,316

65,578

50,870

156,613

333,090

BARROW'S GOLDENEYE Bucephala islandica %Status 1 & 2: 18.02

15.22

2.80

19.69

15.27

47.02

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB18030

60

81

380

3,750

2,193

6,434

607

42,141

8,035

91,110 416

25,683

42

0

6,003

518

13,102

3,199

11,636

0

442

1,349

0

91,421

271,808

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 141,287 4,211 25,725 9,234 416 19,623 14,835 93,212 271,868

Total (ha & %)

76,543

19,957

120,622

91,481

271,808

580,411

BUFFLEHEAD Bucephala albeola %Status 1 & 2: 16.62

13.19

3.44

20.78

15.76

46.83

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB20010

0

1,126

1,439

8,963

528

497

556

117,218

23,981

231,339 1,222

66,769

1,342

5

13,938

921

27,950

3,434

33,157

11

175

4,868

0

233,886

164,137

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 372,538 11,528 68,116 1,580 1,222 42,809 36,602 238,929 164,137

Total (ha & %)

199,754

36,482

303,192

233,897

164,137

937,462

HOODED MERGANSER Lophodytes cucullatus %Status 1 & 2: 25.20

21.31

3.89

32.34

24.95

17.51

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB21010

1,059

695

915

8,117

1,279

7,079

509

50,058

11,938

113,973 816

28,158

1,234

5

5,779

518

18,987

3,318

18,754

11

121

3,366

0

179,686

302,894

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 175,969 9,727 29,397 8,867 816 25,285 22,083 183,172 303,953

Total (ha & %)

86,090

28,368

161,162

180,756

302,894

759,269

COMMON MERGANSER Mergus merganser %Status 1 & 2: 15.08

11.34

3.74

21.23

23.81

39.89

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB21020

562

60

321

2,522

514

1,776

141

1,007

245

5,748 327

1,605

286

4

92

129

3,898

1,111

4,165

3

20

679

0

46,284

291,794

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 7,000 2,902 1,895 2,431 327 4,118 5,279 46,983 292,357

Total (ha & %)

3,298

4,546

16,804

46,850

291,794

363,292

RED-BREASTED MERGANSER Mergus serrator %Status 1 & 2: 2.16

0.91

1.25

4.63

12.90

80.32

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNJB22010

69

22

75

9,064

3,847

7,105

1,460

1,829

220

2,919 98

848

88

0

130

96

7,643

1,652

5,548

0

101

335

0

56,046

298,216

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,968 9,161 936 12,412 98 7,870 7,200 56,483 298,285

Total (ha & %)

6,777

9,573

26,732

56,115

298,216

397,414

RUDDY DUCK Oxyura jamaicensis %Status 1 & 2: 4.11

1.71

2.41

6.73

14.12

75.04

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKA02010

195

6,415

49,399

2,083,944

14,555

260,024

10,119

214,424

68,966

1,799,741 21,312

34,186

10,651

67

15,899

1,514

797,792

57,860

1,338,965

19

4,445

107,979

16

14,414,218

38,467

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,083,130 2,139,758 44,904 284,697 21,312 815,204 1,396,844 14,526,659 38,662

Total (ha & %)

289,924

556,392

6,051,955

14,414,433

38,467

21,351,170

TURKEY VULTURE Cathartes aura %Status 1 & 2: 3.96

1.36

2.61

28.34

67.51

0.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC01010

453

623

1,994

14,128

2,140

17,873

606

32,618

11,753

185,799 711

35,740

1,396

5

1,661

492

21,995

5,498

35,458

11

530

5,574

0

277,552

278,759

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 230,170 16,745 37,140 20,619 711 24,148 40,967 283,656 279,212

Total (ha & %)

73,311

44,581

258,702

278,016

278,759

933,369

OSPREY Pandion haliaetus %Status 1 & 2: 12.63

7.86

4.78

27.72

29.79

29.87

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC10010

1,191

641

1,980

14,694

2,118

17,850

613

18,426

7,340

145,547 1,179

28,228

1,261

5

1,209

489

22,273

6,023

34,928

11

527

5,171

0

282,183

286,671

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 171,313 17,315 29,494 20,581 1,179 23,971 40,963 287,880 287,862

Total (ha & %)

51,147

40,115

219,240

283,385

286,671

880,559

BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus leucocephalus %Status 1 & 2: 10.37

5.81

4.56

24.90

32.18

32.56

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC11010

3,225

6,723

37,466

2,530,268

20,256

202,877

16,837

159,301

43,383

902,858 22,976

46,902

8,402

62

7,828

804

1,633,316

48,052

1,744,081

20

4,295

97,883

16

18,976,632

62,868

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,105,541 2,574,457 55,367 239,971 22,976 1,641,948 1,792,153 19,078,826 66,094

Total (ha & %)

245,305

438,866

6,850,415

18,979,878

62,868

26,577,332

NORTHERN HARRIER Circus cyaneus %Status 1 & 2: 2.57

0.92

1.65

25.77

71.41

0.24

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC12020

36

3,441

12,018

128,346

2,178

1,059

519

635,831

179,153

3,190,839 4,993

195,873

1,912

0

45,892

4,647

147,209

22,243

179,596

32

697

18,342

0

1,134,201

8,985

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,005,824 143,805 197,785 3,757 4,993 197,749 201,870 1,153,240 9,021

Total (ha & %)

883,912

239,375

3,651,502

1,134,269

8,985

5,918,042

SHARP-SHINNED HAWK Accipiter striatus %Status 1 & 2: 18.98

14.94

4.05

61.70

19.17

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC12040

96

2,475

12,062

262,192

2,090

43,755

1,004

284,181

107,660

2,124,526 1,759

130,065

2,151

5

19,975

1,118

311,681

21,220

216,692

11

829

24,541

0

2,062,807

16,421

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,516,367 276,729 132,221 46,849 1,759 332,773 237,923 2,088,176 16,518

Total (ha & %)

439,615

212,505

2,917,859

2,062,914

16,421

5,649,314

COOPER'S HAWK Accipiter cooperii %Status 1 & 2: 11.55

7.78

3.76

51.65

36.52

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC12060

0

539

5,681

34,212

671

468

31

165,929

34,388

791,424 1,942

64,214

175

0

11,774

3,349

61,831

4,743

45,969

0

100

2,957

0

181,369

961

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 991,741 40,433 64,389 1,170 1,942 76,954 50,712 184,426 961

Total (ha & %)

243,228

51,761

935,409

181,369

961

1,412,727

NORTHERN GOSHAWK Accipiter gentilis %Status 1 & 2: 20.88

17.22

3.66

66.21

12.84

0.07

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC19050

1,550

234

353

15,827

1,576

3,860

365

3,223

1,464

23,194 798

3,888

464

0

0

29

25,027

2,754

17,338

3

78

4,788

0

252,359

10,059

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 27,881 16,414 4,352 5,802 798 25,056 20,095 257,224 11,609

Total (ha & %)

8,999

13,712

82,549

253,912

10,059

369,231

BROAD-WINGED HAWK Buteo platypterus %Status 1 & 2: 6.15

2.44

3.72

22.36

68.77

2.72

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC19070

3,979

2,946

12,218

2,054,872

18,262

143,221

15,345

6,732

2,151

182,960 19,232

7,417

4,026

32

689

603

1,330,371

26,226

1,478,456

18

3,484

55,655

16

16,575,949

65,381

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 191,844 2,070,036 11,474 176,829 19,232 1,331,664 1,504,700 16,635,104 69,359

Total (ha & %)

39,530

244,101

5,081,284

16,579,946

65,381

22,010,240

SWAINSON'S HAWK Buteo swainsoni %Status 1 & 2: 1.29

0.18

1.11

23.09

75.33

0.30

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC19110

4,318

9,032

62,842

3,016,080

21,972

301,401

17,802

214,521

76,281

1,831,212 25,224

70,852

11,956

67

12,173

1,431

1,859,773

64,938

1,945,379

26

5,817

117,331

16

21,043,484

86,199

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,122,014 3,087,955 82,874 341,175 25,224 1,873,378 2,010,343 21,166,648 90,518

Total (ha & %)

334,367

636,180

8,695,554

21,047,828

86,199

30,800,128

RED-TAILED HAWK Buteo jamaicensis %Status 1 & 2: 3.15

1.09

2.07

28.23

68.34

0.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC19120

1,827

3,683

13,631

2,139,744

14,245

138,703

11,257

5,465

1,524

160,401 18,713

6,415

3,809

32

595

266

936,838

22,441

1,201,804

0

3,268

43,306

16

10,589,252

47,910

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 167,391 2,157,058 10,255 164,205 18,713 937,699 1,224,245 10,635,842 49,736

Total (ha & %)

33,670

223,681

4,468,805

10,591,079

47,910

15,365,144

FERRUGINOUS HAWK Buteo regalis %Status 1 & 2: 1.68

0.22

1.46

29.08

68.93

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC19130

4,078

5,885

52,071

2,821,531

20,614

256,422

16,911

55,784

18,956

684,604 23,926

29,051

11,321

66

4,067

829

1,593,179

49,652

1,788,085

19

4,296

100,299

16

19,369,848

76,913

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 759,343 2,879,488 40,438 293,947 23,926 1,598,075 1,837,756 19,474,460 80,991

Total (ha & %)

119,697

489,549

6,928,319

19,373,946

76,913

26,988,422

ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK Buteo lagopus %Status 1 & 2: 2.26

0.44

1.81

25.67

71.79

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKC22010

480

5,524

61,115

2,240,520

11,389

254,845

8,908

335,089

75,860

1,604,504 14,345

129,072

9,410

67

16,811

1,148

1,053,066

52,127

1,317,056

17

4,016

88,373

15

12,431,835

30,627

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,015,453 2,307,160 138,549 275,142 14,345 1,071,024 1,369,200 12,524,238 31,107

Total (ha & %)

501,900

542,877

6,238,481

12,432,332

30,627

19,746,216

GOLDEN EAGLE Aquila chrysaetos %Status 1 & 2: 5.29

2.54

2.75

31.59

62.96

0.16

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKD06020

3,653

8,661

49,642

2,732,041

19,247

247,672

16,517

381,504

114,883

2,432,121 23,116

153,254

12,174

67

22,200

1,857

1,787,933

69,058

1,893,509

31

5,630

114,910

16

20,063,826

63,261

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,928,507 2,790,343 165,495 283,436 23,116 1,811,991 1,962,598 20,184,382 66,914

Total (ha & %)

590,496

610,196

8,885,319

20,067,510

63,261

30,216,780

AMERICAN KESTREL Falco sparverius %Status 1 & 2: 3.97

1.96

2.02

29.40

66.41

0.21

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKD06030

3,867

5,820

45,929

2,605,359

18,903

233,431

15,933

128,914

44,091

1,350,914 20,815

41,014

9,077

67

8,446

1,309

1,635,405

56,595

1,778,224

22

5,069

107,316

16

19,122,374

64,298

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,523,919 2,657,109 50,158 268,266 20,815 1,645,160 1,834,840 19,234,775 68,165

Total (ha & %)

208,166

497,747

7,406,733

19,126,263

64,298

27,303,208

MERLIN Falco columbarius %Status 1 & 2: 2.58

0.76

1.82

27.13

70.05

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKD06070

72

3,082

9,026

164,741

7,368

16,408

2,323

176,191

42,518

739,845 2,458

99,983

4,936

66

14,062

1,054

248,723

32,003

259,420

4

3,419

58,293

1

2,590,499

7,889

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 958,554 176,849 104,986 26,099 2,458 263,839 291,427 2,652,212 7,961

Total (ha & %)

304,105

164,238

1,417,578

2,590,575

7,889

4,484,385

PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus %Status 1 & 2: 10.44

6.78

3.66

31.61

57.77

0.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKD06080

3,070

3,459

22,130

1,523,977

15,040

112,854

15,055

23,000

6,652

305,926 13,212

10,925

4,545

62

831

731

1,385,071

32,977

1,325,597

17

3,615

81,012

1

15,060,354

49,984

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 335,578 1,549,566 15,533 142,950 13,212 1,386,633 1,358,591 15,144,982 53,054

Total (ha & %)

56,870

260,900

4,568,902

15,063,441

49,984

20,000,098

GYRFALCON Falco rusticolus %Status 1 & 2: 1.59

0.28

1.31

22.84

75.32

0.25

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNKD06090

889

5,942

51,358

2,632,352

16,547

236,183

12,215

205,214

43,473

735,482 23,100

81,514

8,679

62

7,880

396

1,278,668

40,084

1,554,068

15

3,477

81,475

16

15,158,542

42,904

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 984,169 2,689,652 90,256 264,945 23,100 1,286,944 1,594,166 15,243,509 43,793

Total (ha & %)

320,574

461,647

6,235,964

15,159,446

42,904

22,220,534

PRAIRIE FALCON Falco mexicanus %Status 1 & 2: 3.52

1.44

2.08

28.06

68.22

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC01010

1,320

5,335

22,510

1,720,430

12,598

156,802

12,933

52,670

18,328

480,478 16,207

20,768

1,975

62

1,421

301

1,323,543

31,878

1,326,146

18

3,985

70,766

1

14,270,286

32,616

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 551,476 1,748,274 22,806 182,333 16,207 1,325,265 1,358,042 14,345,038 33,937

Total (ha & %)

96,777

302,561

4,879,800

14,271,624

32,616

19,583,378

GRAY PARTRIDGE Perdix perdix %Status 1 & 2: 2.04

0.49

1.55

24.92

72.88

0.17

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC03010

31

200

2,618

67,587

0

210

104

557

288

52,873 0

168

6,346

0

112

1

184,127

1,836

37,989

0

0

4,187

0

503,444

2,423

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 53,718 70,405 6,514 314 0 184,239 39,825 507,631 2,453

Total (ha & %)

1,037

15,486

342,680

503,475

2,423

865,100

CHUKAR Alectoris chukar %Status 1 & 2: 1.91

0.12

1.79

39.61

58.20

0.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC07010

2,541

2,091

11,882

335,852

1,407

23,815

2,300

4,056

2,513

48,700 11,538

4,375

706

62

0

202

382,758

17,208

327,129

17

90

44,920

0

4,178,298

16,360

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 55,269 349,825 5,144 27,522 11,538 382,960 344,354 4,223,308 18,901

Total (ha & %)

12,019

101,245

1,108,341

4,180,855

16,360

5,418,821

RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus %Status 1 & 2: 2.09

0.22

1.87

20.45

77.15

0.30

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC09010

0

1,239

220

31,832

0

194

41

297,238

85,756

1,372,458 0

111,326

638

0

32,150

3,481

58,085

7,028

70,701

0

107

1,375

0

262,418

812

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,755,451 33,292 111,965 234 0 93,715 77,729 263,900 812

Total (ha & %)

442,061

98,692

1,533,116

262,418

812

2,337,100

SPRUCE GROUSE Falcipennis canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 23.14

18.92

4.22

65.60

11.23

0.04

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC09020

9

2,309

4,718

89,247

589

389

111

371,345

111,678

1,879,630 1,098

117,588

1,123

0

21,842

661

113,213

17,285

99,572

0

405

13,204

0

724,990

2,226

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,362,653 96,275 118,711 1,089 1,098 135,716 116,858 738,598 2,235

Total (ha & %)

514,077

149,059

2,182,872

724,999

2,226

3,573,233

BLUE GROUSE Dendragapus obscurus %Status 1 & 2: 18.56

14.39

4.17

61.09

20.29

0.06

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC10030

0

323

0

39

0

0

0

40,268

5,683

18,642 0

13,687

0

0

3,355

0

541

221

591

0

0

0

0

505

11

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 64,593 362 13,687 0 0 3,896 812 505 11

Total (ha & %)

57,633

5,904

19,813

505

11

83,867

WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN Lagopus leucurus %Status 1 & 2: 75.76

68.72

7.04

23.62

0.60

0.01

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC11010

83

3,562

9,675

159,596

3,385

3,521

1,472

355,029

108,850

2,238,116 1,081

161,695

2,620

5

31,557

4,957

372,778

28,077

243,966

15

1,678

30,925

0

2,373,618

15,392

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,701,995 172,833 164,321 8,378 1,081 409,292 272,059 2,406,222 15,474

Total (ha & %)

556,907

188,626

3,017,014

2,373,716

15,392

6,151,654

RUFFED GROUSE Bonasa umbellus %Status 1 & 2: 12.12

9.05

3.07

49.04

38.59

0.25

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC12010

24

1,909

27,359

1,115,262

4,579

116,218

1,384

12,766

2,439

120,618 10,259

3,018

5,098

0

0

0

124,227

7,746

326,238

0

2

9,280

15

2,631,050

15,317

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 135,823 1,144,530 8,116 122,181 10,259 124,227 333,984 2,640,348 15,341

Total (ha & %)

22,275

168,140

1,698,004

2,631,074

15,317

4,534,810

SAGE GROUSE Centrocercus urophasianus %Status 1 & 2: 4.20

0.49

3.71

37.44

58.02

0.34

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC13030

3,725

4,290

40,328

2,323,156

17,653

224,862

13,862

30,572

4,751

369,129 19,647

12,875

8,135

62

0

0

1,405,628

32,611

1,563,641

0

3,499

79,512

0

16,967,744

54,386

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 404,452 2,367,774 21,072 256,378 19,647 1,405,628 1,596,252 17,050,755 58,111

Total (ha & %)

68,889

390,200

5,695,126

16,971,469

54,386

23,180,070

SHARP-TAILED GROUSE Tympanuchus phasianellus %Status 1 & 2: 1.98

0.30

1.68

24.57

73.22

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC13033

0

6

1,147

34,691

237

5,595

1,857

23,808

10,409

147,400 619

4,172

268

0

3,448

294

38,750

9,844

64,073

20

308

10,646

0

806,072

1,757

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 181,617 35,843 4,440 7,690 619 42,493 73,938 817,025 1,757

Total (ha & %)

31,980

38,203

287,390

806,092

1,757

1,165,422

COLUMBIAN SHARP-TAILED GROUSE Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus %Status 1 & 2: 6.02

2.74

3.28

24.66

69.17

0.15

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC14010

41

613

6,814

147,049

972

41,547

386

19,506

7,514

323,522 777

14,041

348

4

3,421

196

141,635

6,866

93,632

2

249

12,799

0

1,151,232

10,822

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 350,541 154,476 14,393 42,906 777 145,252 100,500 1,164,279 10,863

Total (ha & %)

38,801

76,084

707,005

1,151,274

10,822

1,983,987

WILD TURKEY Meleagris gallopavo %Status 1 & 2: 5.79

1.96

3.84

35.64

58.03

0.55

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNLC21020

0

0

0

3,495

0

4,556

597

93

65

49,237 5

411

9

0

696

394

22,207

2,555

58,731

15

273

6,645

0

620,156

333

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 49,395 3,495 420 5,153 5 23,297 61,301 627,074 333

Total (ha & %)

1,473

14,224

134,273

620,171

333

770,474

NORTHERN BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus %Status 1 & 2: 2.04

0.19

1.85

17.43

80.49

0.04

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNME01010

6

0

0

1,969

718

996

596

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

1,495

24

575

0

19

19

0

8,578

7,007

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 1,969 0 2,310 0 1,495 599 8,617 7,013

Total (ha & %)

737

1,040

4,636

8,584

7,007

22,004

YELLOW RAIL Coturnicops noveboracensis %Status 1 & 2: 8.08

3.35

4.73

21.07

39.01

31.84

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNME05030

93

19

26

1,238

2,694

922

667

1,250

155

1,104 14

284

0

0

8

97

1,292

463

989

0

94

160

0

11,796

30,011

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,509 1,283 284 4,283 14 1,397 1,452 12,050 30,104

Total (ha & %)

4,349

1,823

5,305

11,889

30,011

53,376

VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicola %Status 1 & 2: 11.56

8.15

3.42

9.94

22.28

56.23

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNME08020

181

66

36

6,887

3,790

1,987

1,292

8,408

1,593

7,897 119

3,340

7

0

1,109

147

9,279

1,180

5,789

0

165

578

0

82,262

62,341

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 17,898 6,989 3,347 7,069 119 10,535 6,969 83,006 62,521

Total (ha & %)

16,877

5,530

31,263

82,443

62,341

198,453

SORA Porzana carolina %Status 1 & 2: 11.29

8.51

2.79

15.75

41.54

31.41

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNME14020

93

17

27

2,703

2,357

2,026

759

542

75

2,563 32

879

66

0

82

97

3,720

667

2,093

0

103

229

0

26,672

67,238

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,180 2,747 945 5,142 32 3,899 2,760 27,004 67,331

Total (ha & %)

3,980

3,188

11,870

26,765

67,238

113,040

AMERICAN COOT Fulica americana %Status 1 & 2: 6.34

3.52

2.82

10.50

23.68

59.48

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNMK01010

7

0

0

2,343

3,426

382

304

470

173

2,610 0

156

6

0

0

0

2,924

394

1,829

0

119

422

0

31,001

8,523

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,252 2,343 161 4,112 0 2,924 2,223 31,542 8,530

Total (ha & %)

4,171

1,376

10,009

31,008

8,523

55,087

SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 10.07

7.57

2.50

18.17

56.29

15.47

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNMK01030

156

37

4

5,633

3,385

985

1,073

2

0

391 0

18

0

0

0

0

3,885

45

6,938

0

110

133

0

173,704

11,748

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 394 5,674 18 5,443 0 3,885 6,983 173,947 11,904

Total (ha & %)

3,553

1,166

17,920

173,859

11,748

208,247

WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana %Status 1 & 2: 2.27

1.71

0.56

8.61

83.49

5.64

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNB02010

168

28

75

11,161

4,325

8,467

1,733

1,747

211

3,562 108

949

156

0

91

261

9,048

1,546

7,516

0

164

439

0

83,015

94,661

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,520 11,265 1,106 14,525 108 9,399 9,062 83,619 94,829

Total (ha & %)

7,305

11,155

33,128

83,184

94,661

229,433

BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER Pluvialis squatarola %Status 1 & 2: 8.05

3.19

4.86

14.44

36.26

41.26

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNB03060

809

131

615

15,996

4,380

7,516

1,747

1,881

286

4,665 657

1,106

289

6

91

259

13,494

2,099

13,296

2

165

1,558

0

160,816

138,259

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,832 16,742 1,402 13,644 657 13,844 15,397 162,539 139,068

Total (ha & %)

7,755

12,621

49,861

161,627

138,259

370,124

SEMIPALMATED PLOVER Charadrius semipalmatus %Status 1 & 2: 5.51

2.10

3.41

13.47

43.67

37.36

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNB03070

547

0

0

2,322

1,076

5,837

639

5

0

4 41

0

0

0

0

0

4,329

241

1,846

0

0

27

0

11,896

28,101

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 9 2,322 0 7,552 41 4,329 2,087 11,923 28,648

Total (ha & %)

1,081

6,105

9,181

12,443

28,101

56,912

PIPING PLOVER Charadrius melodus %Status 1 & 2: 12.63

1.90

10.73

16.13

21.86

49.38

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNB03090

2,921

659

10,997

124,305

6,054

44,673

4,945

7,739

1,544

12,192 2,134

2,881

1,356

0

192

488

84,788

6,808

91,272

31

359

5,367

0

1,603,167

134,298

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 21,475 135,961 4,237 55,672 2,134 85,469 98,110 1,608,893 137,219

Total (ha & %)

17,884

71,233

319,636

1,606,118

134,298

2,149,169

KILLDEER Charadrius vociferus %Status 1 & 2: 4.15

0.83

3.32

14.87

74.73

6.25

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNB03100

0

369

2,630

158,635

429

5,222

465

6

45

1,548 702

0

977

0

0

0

36,200

646

75,299

0

1

772

0

589,873

2,112

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,599 161,634 977 6,116 702 36,200 75,946 590,645 2,112

Total (ha & %)

805

10,292

272,849

589,873

2,112

875,932

MOUNTAIN PLOVER Charadrius montanus %Status 1 & 2: 1.27

0.09

1.18

31.15

67.34

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNND01010

83

0

0

2,413

641

41

250

6

0

11 0

0

0

0

0

0

705

60

847

0

21

0

0

10,922

10,595

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 18 2,413 0 932 0 705 907 10,943 10,678

Total (ha & %)

668

100

4,227

11,005

10,595

26,596

BLACK-NECKED STILT Himantopus mexicanus %Status 1 & 2: 2.89

2.51

0.38

15.89

41.38

39.84

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNND02010

120

0

0

5,600

3,890

1,408

643

301

11

1,794 0

211

153

0

0

0

3,898

1,036

2,891

0

124

211

0

30,699

28,245

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,106 5,600 364 5,941 0 3,898 3,927 31,034 28,365

Total (ha & %)

4,525

2,820

14,825

30,819

28,245

81,234

AMERICAN AVOCET Recurvirostra americana %Status 1 & 2: 9.04

5.57

3.47

18.25

37.94

34.77

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF01020

800

79

425

8,459

2,819

4,100

1,263

1,604

281

3,998 529

1,019

248

0

91

245

9,083

1,298

8,323

2

108

1,066

0

115,755

125,744

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,883 8,963 1,267 8,182 529 9,419 9,623 116,929 126,545

Total (ha & %)

5,719

7,663

31,654

116,558

125,744

287,339

GREATER YELLOWLEGS Tringa melanoleuca %Status 1 & 2: 4.66

1.99

2.67

11.02

40.57

43.76

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF01030

800

79

425

8,459

2,819

4,100

1,263

1,604

281

3,998 529

1,019

248

0

91

245

9,083

1,298

8,323

2

108

1,066

0

115,755

125,744

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,883 8,963 1,267 8,182 529 9,419 9,623 116,929 126,545

Total (ha & %)

5,719

7,663

31,654

116,558

125,744

287,339

LESSER YELLOWLEGS Tringa flavipes %Status 1 & 2: 4.66

1.99

2.67

11.02

40.57

43.76

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF01070

158

18

29

3,814

2,919

3,191

1,031

1,805

273

4,131 49

1,191

68

0

125

250

4,947

888

3,530

0

139

320

0

49,819

81,467

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,209 3,861 1,259 7,142 49 5,322 4,418 50,278 81,625

Total (ha & %)

6,197

5,020

17,502

49,977

81,467

160,163

SOLITARY SANDPIPER Tringa solitaria %Status 1 & 2: 7.00

3.87

3.13

10.93

31.20

50.87

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF02010

342

125

90

44,339

6,998

5,257

2,764

537

23

3,780 0

446

636

0

0

0

26,943

3,251

28,557

0

655

710

0

241,842

34,650

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,341 44,553 1,081 15,018 0 26,943 31,809 243,207 34,992

Total (ha & %)

8,760

9,968

106,383

242,184

34,650

401,945

WILLET Catoptrophorus semipalmatus %Status 1 & 2: 4.66

2.18

2.48

26.47

60.25

8.62

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF04020

884

187

717

16,927

5,659

9,971

2,057

3,787

668

10,611 680

2,385

402

6

251

188

15,968

2,840

15,330

5

468

2,228

0

180,224

147,162

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 15,066 17,831 2,793 17,688 680 16,407 18,175 182,920 148,045

Total (ha & %)

12,737

17,013

61,579

181,113

147,162

419,604

SPOTTED SANDPIPER Actitis macularia %Status 1 & 2: 7.09

3.04

4.06

14.68

43.16

35.07

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF06010

62

141

1,300

82,279

1,099

20,784

889

1,030

91

33,165 718

1,695

107

0

4

34

126,189

914

72,391

0

14

6,309

0

872,016

3,678

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 34,285 83,720 1,802 22,772 718 126,227 73,304 878,339 3,741

Total (ha & %)

3,983

29,538

315,629

872,078

3,678

1,224,907

UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda %Status 1 & 2: 2.74

0.33

2.41

25.77

71.20

0.30

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF07070

302

113

9,577

317,552

1,264

20,142

2,526

1,095

467

13,636 727

142

2,426

0

24

194

98,643

3,489

170,450

0

4

6,570

0

1,591,803

6,427

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 15,198 327,241 2,568 23,933 727 98,860 173,939 1,598,377 6,729

Total (ha & %)

2,642

42,865

603,533

1,592,105

6,427

2,247,573

LONG-BILLED CURLEW Numenius americanus %Status 1 & 2: 2.02

0.12

1.91

26.85

70.84

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF08040

178

0

84

39,782

5,745

2,355

2,582

237

10

794 0

63

0

0

0

0

20,834

661

23,876

0

655

374

0

172,760

23,508

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,041 39,866 63 10,682 0 20,834 24,537 173,790 23,686

Total (ha & %)

6,700

3,485

87,868

172,938

23,508

294,499

MARBLED GODWIT Limosa fedoa %Status 1 & 2: 3.46

2.28

1.18

29.84

58.72

7.98

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11040

168

28

75

11,054

4,320

8,085

1,733

1,747

211

3,562 108

949

156

0

91

261

9,041

1,546

7,503

0

164

439

0

82,798

94,350

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,520 11,158 1,106 14,139 108 9,393 9,049 83,402 94,519

Total (ha & %)

7,300

10,774

33,002

82,967

94,350

228,392

SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER Calidris pusilla %Status 1 & 2: 7.91

3.20

4.72

14.45

36.33

41.31

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11050

168

28

75

11,054

4,320

8,085

1,733

1,747

211

3,562 108

949

156

0

91

261

9,041

1,546

7,503

0

164

439

0

82,798

94,350

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,520 11,158 1,106 14,139 108 9,393 9,049 83,402 94,519

Total (ha & %)

7,300

10,774

33,002

82,967

94,350

228,392

WESTERN SANDPIPER Calidris mauri %Status 1 & 2: 7.91

3.20

4.72

14.45

36.33

41.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11100

812

132

604

16,241

4,875

8,587

1,790

2,219

344

4,928 667

1,225

301

6

138

261

14,139

2,122

13,535

2

165

1,701

0

164,598

140,165

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 7,491 16,978 1,533 15,251 667 14,537 15,660 166,464 140,977

Total (ha & %)

8,753

13,921

51,307

165,413

140,165

379,558

LEAST SANDPIPER Calidris minutilla %Status 1 & 2: 5.97

2.31

3.67

13.52

43.58

36.93

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11110

168

25

0

7,596

1,413

7,756

1,026

0

0

43 11

0

49

0

0

0

5,179

51

2,773

0

23

27

0

34,790

36,517

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 43 7,621 49 10,195 11 5,179 2,824 34,841 36,686

Total (ha & %)

1,461

7,882

16,628

34,959

36,517

97,448

WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER Calidris fuscicollis %Status 1 & 2: 9.59

1.50

8.09

17.06

35.87

37.47

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11120

168

28

75

11,054

4,320

8,085

1,733

1,747

211

3,562 108

949

156

0

91

261

9,041

1,546

7,503

0

164

439

0

82,798

94,350

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,520 11,158 1,106 14,139 108 9,393 9,049 83,402 94,519

Total (ha & %)

7,300

10,774

33,002

82,967

94,350

228,392

BAIRD'S SANDPIPER Calidris bairdii %Status 1 & 2: 7.91

3.20

4.72

14.45

36.33

41.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11130

138

12

0

6,278

3,561

715

907

199

25

1,332 0

115

0

0

0

0

4,132

482

4,093

0

139

238

0

44,041

26,185

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,556 6,290 115 5,183 0 4,132 4,575 44,417 26,323

Total (ha & %)

4,026

1,460

16,742

44,178

26,185

92,591

PECTORAL SANDPIPER Calidris melanotos %Status 1 & 2: 5.93

4.35

1.58

18.08

47.71

28.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF11190

138

12

0

6,278

3,561

715

907

199

25

1,332 0

115

0

0

0

0

4,132

482

4,093

0

139

238

0

44,041

26,185

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,556 6,290 115 5,183 0 4,132 4,575 44,417 26,323

Total (ha & %)

4,026

1,460

16,742

44,178

26,185

92,591

STILT SANDPIPER Calidris himantopus %Status 1 & 2: 5.93

4.35

1.58

18.08

47.71

28.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF16010

138

12

0

2,641

648

314

501

34

21

147 0

45

0

0

0

0

1,816

177

1,029

0

130

93

0

11,541

5,983

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 203 2,653 45 1,463 0 1,816 1,205 11,764 6,120

Total (ha & %)

869

605

6,133

11,679

5,983

25,269

SHORT-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus griseus %Status 1 & 2: 5.84

3.44

2.40

24.27

46.22

23.68

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF16020

168

28

75

11,054

4,320

8,085

1,733

1,747

211

3,562 108

949

156

0

91

261

9,041

1,546

7,503

0

164

439

0

82,798

94,350

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,520 11,158 1,106 14,139 108 9,393 9,049 83,402 94,519

Total (ha & %)

7,300

10,774

33,002

82,967

94,350

228,392

LONG-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus scolopaceus %Status 1 & 2: 7.91

3.20

4.72

14.45

36.33

41.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF18010

79

6

0

1,422

2,449

468

536

258

30

1,140 0

102

0

0

0

0

1,648

276

1,038

0

205

178

0

13,912

15,604

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,427 1,427 102 3,454 0 1,648 1,315 14,295 15,683

Total (ha & %)

3,020

953

5,784

13,991

15,604

39,351

COMMON SNIPE Gallinago gallinago %Status 1 & 2: 10.10

7.67

2.42

14.70

35.56

39.65

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF20010

137

27

75

10,081

4,604

7,599

1,662

740

90

3,170 105

1,034

88

0

123

227

8,509

1,535

6,548

0

162

437

0

70,574

85,763

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,001 10,183 1,123 13,866 105 8,859 8,083 71,173 85,900

Total (ha & %)

6,691

10,052

30,076

70,711

85,763

203,292

WILSON'S PHALAROPE Phalaropus tricolor %Status 1 & 2: 8.24

3.29

4.94

14.80

34.78

42.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNF20020

168

28

75

11,054

4,320

8,085

1,733

1,667

209

3,140 87

949

156

0

91

261

9,041

1,546

7,477

0

164

439

0

82,266

90,383

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,016 11,158 1,106 14,139 87 9,393 9,023 82,869 90,552

Total (ha & %)

7,220

10,772

32,534

82,435

90,383

223,343

RED-NECKED PHALAROPE Phalaropus lobatus %Status 1 & 2: 8.06

3.23

4.82

14.57

36.91

40.47

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM03020

74

0

363

16,616

7,257

6,014

2,758

1,376

34

2,228 143

940

0

0

0

0

7,582

3,259

10,816

0

433

659

0

89,648

75,213

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,639 16,979 940 16,029 143 7,582 14,075 90,739 75,287

Total (ha & %)

10,005

10,329

40,144

89,722

75,213

225,414

FRANKLIN'S GULL Larus pipixcan %Status 1 & 2: 9.02

4.44

4.58

17.81

39.80

33.37

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM03050

36

231

376

58,966

8,237

24,410

3,847

4,226

384

8,500 408

2,113

175

0

9

463

26,162

6,235

30,811

0

770

2,010

0

314,443

263,013

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 13,110 59,573 2,288 36,494 408 26,634 37,046 317,222 263,048

Total (ha & %)

15,585

34,052

128,694

314,478

263,013

755,823

BONAPARTE'S GULL Larus philadelphia %Status 1 & 2: 6.57

2.06

4.51

17.03

41.61

34.80

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM03100

2

0

0

1,922

701

5,867

149

102

7

370 0

145

0

0

0

0

964

932

744

0

2

6

0

11,462

176,121

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 480 1,922 145 6,717 0 964 1,675 11,470 176,122

Total (ha & %)

949

6,812

4,149

11,464

176,121

199,495

RING-BILLED GULL Larus delawarensis %Status 1 & 2: 3.89

0.48

3.42

2.08

5.75

88.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM03110

2

0

0

10,583

3,731

17,562

194

31

7

1,035 0

174

0

0

0

0

2,368

2,556

3,006

0

2

10

0

29,657

186,721

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,073 10,583 174 21,487 0 2,368 5,562 29,668 186,723

Total (ha & %)

3,937

20,135

17,187

29,658

186,721

257,638

CALIFORNIA GULL Larus californicus %Status 1 & 2: 9.34

1.53

7.82

6.67

11.51

72.47

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM08020

0

0

0

275

201

1,202

35

0

0

2 0

0

0

0

0

0

19

319

88

0

0

1

0

2,151

156,456

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2 275 0 1,438 0 19 407 2,152 156,456

Total (ha & %)

201

1,522

420

2,151

156,456

160,750

CASPIAN TERN Sterna caspia %Status 1 & 2: 1.07

0.13

0.95

0.26

1.34

97.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM08070

0

0

0

258

250

740

35

0

5

521 0

0

0

0

0

0

33

318

113

0

0

1

0

2,048

177,328

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 526 258 0 1,025 0 33 430 2,049 177,328

Total (ha & %)

250

1,064

959

2,048

177,328

181,650

COMMON TERN Sterna hirundo %Status 1 & 2: 0.72

0.14

0.59

0.53

1.13

97.62

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM08090

1

0

0

46

1,648

768

256

36

15

187 0

61

0

0

0

0

850

368

279

0

76

4

0

2,238

14,821

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 238 46 61 2,671 0 850 647 2,318 14,821

Total (ha & %)

1,820

1,155

1,618

2,239

14,821

21,653

FORSTER'S TERN Sterna forsteri %Status 1 & 2: 13.74

8.41

5.33

7.47

10.34

68.45

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM08100

309

8

0

505

56

2,397

16

0

0

0 130

0

0

0

0

0

311

220

1,121

0

0

0

0

3,417

95,251

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 514 0 2,469 130 311 1,341 3,417 95,561

Total (ha & %)

64

2,616

2,084

3,727

95,251

103,742

LEAST TERN Sterna antillarum %Status 1 & 2: 2.58

0.06

2.52

2.01

3.59

91.82

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNNM10020

1

4

0

1,342

1,891

770

326

93

16

555 0

137

0

0

0

0

1,402

380

697

0

29

92

0

8,736

37,079

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 664 1,346 137 2,987 0 1,402 1,076 8,857 37,080

Total (ha & %)

2,155

1,257

4,322

8,737

37,079

53,550

BLACK TERN Chlidonias niger %Status 1 & 2: 6.37

4.02

2.35

8.07

16.32

69.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNPB01010

1,912

96

6,269

62,368

1,493

38,315

1,968

9,151

3,869

32,490 2,808

12,301

259

0

680

336

252,216

2,927

233,658

32

134

6,238

0

5,234,018

13,679

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 45,510 68,733 12,561 41,777 2,808 253,233 236,618 5,240,390 15,591

Total (ha & %)

23,856

58,214

585,509

5,235,962

13,679

5,917,221

ROCK DOVE Columba livia %Status 1 & 2: 1.39

0.40

0.98

9.89

88.49

0.23

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNPB04040

3,985

8,220

58,865

2,826,199

20,790

262,749

14,828

199,805

56,476

1,295,068 27,373

65,642

11,537

66

11,618

990

1,647,257

57,390

1,768,422

50

5,483

105,238

16

19,093,456

76,981

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,551,349 2,893,284 77,246 298,368 27,373 1,659,865 1,825,862 19,204,194 80,966

Total (ha & %)

311,558

553,246

7,579,229

19,097,491

76,981

27,618,504

MOURNING DOVE Zenaida macroura %Status 1 & 2: 3.13

1.13

2.00

27.44

69.15

0.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNRB02010

1,754

2,002

798

106,632

992

10,696

900

37,833

7,855

196,046 1,619

30,037

471

0

1,032

221

316,824

7,329

100,475

0

1,064

11,094

0

1,514,501

18,025

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 241,734 109,433 30,509 12,588 1,619 318,077 107,804 1,526,659 19,779

Total (ha & %)

72,962

38,464

722,497

1,516,255

18,025

2,368,202

BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus erythropthalmus %Status 1 & 2: 4.71

3.08

1.62

30.51

64.03

0.76

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNRB02020

22

531

111

19,745

1,388

577

11

6,555

424

27,875 1,241

1,104

149

0

0

0

76,571

465

18,312

0

11

4,100

0

340,893

3,735

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 34,853 20,388 1,253 1,976 1,241 76,571 18,777 345,004 3,757

Total (ha & %)

9,588

5,826

143,755

340,915

3,735

503,819

YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus americanus %Status 1 & 2: 3.06

1.90

1.16

28.53

67.67

0.74

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSA01010

35

0

4,504

63,371

0

1,521

115

3,196

1,243

20,095 10

0

9,565

0

0

0

179,955

472

43,578

0

0

1,606

0

786,994

3,520

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 24,534 67,876 9,565 1,636 10 179,955 44,050 788,601 3,555

Total (ha & %)

3,196

18,912

307,124

787,029

3,520

1,119,782

BARN OWL Tyto alba %Status 1 & 2: 1.97

0.29

1.69

27.43

70.28

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB01020

0

2,014

5,364

80,206

854

2,164

633

52,495

27,227

612,376 470

23,718

177

0

8,288

684

87,415

16,103

102,407

5

783

28,180

0

990,494

4,092

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 692,098 87,584 23,896 3,651 470 96,387 118,515 1,019,457 4,092

Total (ha & %)

88,153

79,898

883,508

990,499

4,092

2,046,150

FLAMMULATED OWL Otus flammeolus %Status 1 & 2: 8.21

4.31

3.91

43.18

48.41

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB01030

1,275

158

324

12,944

670

4,006

103

5,058

1,070

24,166 1,603

836

115

0

0

0

49,181

1,396

20,964

0

155

1,441

0

379,656

9,154

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 30,294 13,426 951 4,779 1,603 49,181 22,361 381,252 10,429

Total (ha & %)

6,877

8,353

108,960

380,931

9,154

514,275

EASTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus asio %Status 1 & 2: 2.96

1.34

1.62

21.19

74.07

1.78

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB01040

0

161

159

5,023

692

230

250

11,266

5,696

88,340 119

15,353

229

0

594

113

34,800

2,931

11,781

2

326

3,616

0

132,846

3,145

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 105,302 5,343 15,582 1,172 119 35,507 14,714 136,789 3,145

Total (ha & %)

28,392

12,975

140,313

132,849

3,145

317,674

WESTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus kennicottii %Status 1 & 2: 13.02

8.94

4.08

44.17

41.82

0.99

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB05010

4,592

12,701

74,955

3,215,561

24,258

308,072

18,193

1,131,906

293,387

4,956,517 32,598

363,063

13,999

67

64,517

5,788

2,029,400

86,641

2,114,052

60

6,148

129,139

16

21,989,548

93,067

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,381,810 3,303,217 377,130 350,523 32,598 2,099,705 2,200,752 22,124,851 97,658

Total (ha & %)

1,602,593

911,981

12,366,404

21,994,200

93,067

36,968,244

GREAT HORNED OWL Bubo virginianus %Status 1 & 2: 6.80

4.34

2.47

33.45

59.49

0.25

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB06010

3,151

4,427

35,403

2,176,136

11,180

193,521

16,272

33,860

7,105

313,680 21,633

12,809

8,341

62

943

731

1,417,319

35,739

1,525,980

45

3,732

89,258

0

17,193,226

58,629

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 354,646 2,215,966 21,212 220,974 21,633 1,418,993 1,561,764 17,286,216 61,780

Total (ha & %)

66,951

370,100

5,471,082

17,196,422

58,629

23,163,184

SNOWY OWL Nyctea scandiaca %Status 1 & 2: 1.89

0.29

1.60

23.62

74.24

0.25

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB07010

0

0

0

0

0

0

403

713

6,400

191,951 9

74,099

2,217

0

441

0

68

745

39,824

12

0

590

0

184,810

1,534

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 199,064 0 76,316 403 9 509 40,581 185,401 1,534

Total (ha & %)

75,253

9,952

232,255

184,823

1,534

503,817

NORTHERN HAWK OWL Surnia ulula %Status 1 & 2: 16.91

14.94

1.98

46.10

36.68

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB08010

0

6,031

12,319

177,761

6,286

4,050

1,426

917,031

247,153

3,987,269 6,102

317,790

2,564

1

58,336

5,028

215,934

38,057

274,673

15

1,665

37,332

0

2,280,959

16,417

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,151,453 196,112 320,355 11,762 6,102 279,299 312,745 2,319,957 16,417

Total (ha & %)

1,307,140

346,504

4,663,164

2,280,975

16,417

8,614,200

NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium gnoma %Status 1 & 2: 19.20

15.17

4.02

54.14

26.48

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB10010

2,500

5,352

50,088

2,620,617

16,241

248,269

14,700

6,777

4,128

306,420 23,304

8,197

8,599

62

795

685

1,235,777

32,291

1,599,075

0

3,581

79,975

0

17,127,924

49,770

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 317,325 2,676,056 16,859 279,210 23,304 1,237,256 1,631,366 17,211,480 52,270

Total (ha & %)

40,943

424,036

5,799,953

17,130,424

49,770

23,445,126

BURROWING OWL Athene cunicularia %Status 1 & 2: 1.98

0.17

1.81

24.74

73.07

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB12020

0

2

687

57,592

493

1,435

786

473,190

121,511

2,176,232 177

230,718

2,350

0

50,068

4,820

167,501

13,821

153,975

12

198

4,669

0

823,386

5,445

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,770,933 58,280 233,068 2,714 177 222,388 167,808 828,253 5,445

Total (ha & %)

754,669

149,292

2,556,261

823,398

5,445

4,289,065

BARRED OWL Strix varia %Status 1 & 2: 21.08

17.60

3.48

59.60

19.20

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB12040

0

5,852

12,838

164,833

5,266

2,516

289

911,611

238,749

3,636,173 5,662

311,998

1,341

1

55,601

3,894

192,412

34,295

210,058

0

1,462

30,261

0

1,659,936

10,912

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,786,533 183,523 313,340 8,071 5,662 251,907 244,354 1,691,659 10,912

Total (ha & %)

1,291,790

323,893

4,209,427

1,659,936

10,912

7,495,960

GREAT GRAY OWL Strix nebulosa %Status 1 & 2: 21.56

17.23

4.32

56.16

22.14

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB13010

2,069

3,528

26,337

1,170,849

9,698

147,794

4,172

92,381

31,053

817,853 10,664

40,901

7,354

4

6,869

443

621,371

23,906

525,818

6

1,386

36,028

15

5,456,590

44,463

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 941,286 1,200,714 48,259 161,665 10,664 628,683 549,731 5,494,019 46,532

Total (ha & %)

154,762

272,916

3,150,747

5,458,665

44,463

9,081,553

LONG-EARED OWL Asio otus %Status 1 & 2: 4.71

1.70

3.01

34.69

60.11

0.49

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB13040

3,195

4,988

13,992

1,549,292

14,823

114,392

15,051

66,558

20,586

479,554 13,413

25,182

2,154

62

3,239

623

1,399,039

35,003

1,363,944

20

4,155

80,422

1

16,024,493

50,973

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 566,698 1,568,272 27,398 144,267 13,413 1,402,901 1,398,967 16,109,072 54,168

Total (ha & %)

118,945

267,173

4,820,356

16,027,708

50,973

21,285,156

SHORT-EARED OWL Asio flammeus %Status 1 & 2: 1.81

0.56

1.26

22.65

75.30

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB15010

0

3,656

9,415

123,295

1,646

565

70

711,026

186,078

2,727,633 3,595

193,337

0

1

42,416

441

110,530

21,533

102,827

0

636

17,046

0

674,090

3,003

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,624,737 136,367 193,338 2,282 3,595 153,388 124,360 691,772 3,003

Total (ha & %)

952,718

235,079

3,067,951

674,090

3,003

4,932,842

BOREAL OWL Aegolius funereus %Status 1 & 2: 24.08

19.31

4.77

62.19

13.67

0.06

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNSB15020

112

5,207

13,359

237,207

2,568

3,272

1,180

628,694

183,463

3,281,478 3,541

224,204

2,752

5

43,240

5,033

443,497

36,138

284,767

15

2,252

35,481

0

2,402,190

11,541

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,093,635 255,772 226,961 7,020 3,541 491,770 320,920 2,439,923 11,653

Total (ha & %)

906,165

279,499

4,251,675

2,402,317

11,541

7,851,196

NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL Aegolius acadicus %Status 1 & 2: 15.10

11.54

3.56

54.15

30.60

0.15

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNTA02020

4,082

6,097

54,239

2,827,291

20,504

266,546

16,880

132,778

29,688

767,471 23,886

63,253

11,856

66

3,286

849

1,638,060

52,243

1,791,523

25

4,426

98,527

16

19,349,264

78,871

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 929,937 2,887,627 75,175 303,931 23,886 1,642,195 1,843,792 19,452,233 82,952

Total (ha & %)

230,345

513,948

7,065,193

19,353,371

78,871

27,241,728

COMMON NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles minor %Status 1 & 2: 2.73

0.84

1.89

25.94

71.04

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNTA04010

92

2,584

45,128

1,282,447

3,179

204,445

2,660

23,083

4,712

176,774 11,239

3,728

9,521

4

2,931

232

284,097

15,491

400,312

0

657

15,853

0

3,650,684

21,224

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 204,570 1,330,159 13,253 210,284 11,239 287,259 415,803 3,667,194 21,316

Total (ha & %)

36,162

295,381

2,157,533

3,650,776

21,224

6,161,076

COMMON POORWILL Phalaenoptilus nuttallii %Status 1 & 2: 5.38

0.59

4.79

35.02

59.26

0.34

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUA01010

0

0

160

2,025

0

19

10

127,050

37,203

369,183 27

43,081

103

0

14,263

555

8,256

578

16,096

0

0

160

0

47,425

87

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 533,436 2,185 43,184 29 27 23,074 16,673 47,584 87

Total (ha & %)

184,395

38,777

395,596

47,425

87

666,280

BLACK SWIFT Cypseloides niger %Status 1 & 2: 33.50

27.68

5.82

59.37

7.12

0.01

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUA03010

355

2

0

2,822

0

365

0

2

0

2,488 663

5

0

0

0

0

14,488

488

9,548

0

0

0

0

202,541

1,715

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,490 2,824 5 365 663 14,488 10,036 202,541 2,070

Total (ha & %)

10

852

30,008

202,896

1,715

235,481

CHIMNEY SWIFT Chaetura pelagica %Status 1 & 2: 0.37

0.00

0.36

12.74

86.16

0.73

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUA03020

0

914

342

11,083

317

1,497

592

120,057

48,475

1,083,426 420

100,039

1,514

0

23,688

4,833

122,488

7,437

116,725

40

727

3,647

0

689,797

4,310

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,251,958 12,339 101,553 2,406 420 151,009 124,202 694,171 4,310

Total (ha & %)

245,740

67,746

1,334,735

689,837

4,310

2,342,368

VAUX'S SWIFT Chaetura vauxi %Status 1 & 2: 13.38

10.49

2.89

56.98

29.45

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUA06010

0

3,689

13,029

68,186

0

0

266

739,105

163,409

1,851,995 508

230,504

10,053

5

33,837

4,730

125,475

19,673

88,514

0

529

9,516

0

667,674

44,012

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,754,509 84,903 240,562 266 508 164,042 108,188 677,719 44,012

Total (ha & %)

1,007,663

220,410

2,134,949

667,674

44,012

4,074,708

WHITE-THROATED SWIFT Aeronautes saxatalis %Status 1 & 2: 30.14

24.73

5.41

52.39

16.39

1.08

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUC45010

1,245

0

1

2,349

70

661

93

0

0

0 92

5

0

0

0

0

9,884

16

3,779

0

1

2

0

39,571

1,315

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 2,350 5 824 92 9,884 3,796 39,573 2,560

Total (ha & %)

75

680

16,198

40,816

1,315

59,083

RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus colubris %Status 1 & 2: 1.28

0.13

1.15

27.42

69.08

2.23

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUC45020

0

0

7

1,591

228

127

187

43,833

7,675

93,716 45

6,173

450

0

4,881

71

3,475

2,822

7,505

2

32

858

0

96,023

829

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 145,224 1,598 6,623 543 45 8,427 10,330 96,913 829

Total (ha & %)

55,148

12,011

106,519

96,026

829

270,533

BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus alexandri %Status 1 & 2: 24.82

20.39

4.44

39.37

35.50

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUC48010

62

4,585

6,609

102,318

3,422

3,264

1,154

653,059

157,305

2,436,538 3,940

227,198

2,705

1

35,374

1,187

195,215

30,619

176,292

44

1,562

28,682

0

1,643,984

12,104

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,246,903 113,512 229,904 7,841 3,940 231,777 206,955 1,674,229 12,165

Total (ha & %)

925,201

230,372

2,915,459

1,644,089

12,104

5,727,225

CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD Stellula calliope %Status 1 & 2: 20.18

16.16

4.02

50.91

28.71

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNUC51020

53

2,416

3,060

49,826

2,714

2,717

856

295,106

71,347

737,674 2,395

114,925

1,194

1

12,297

326

94,349

17,174

82,100

15

1,068

16,116

0

939,920

8,420

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,104,126 55,303 116,120 6,286 2,395 106,972 99,288 957,104 8,473

Total (ha & %)

428,526

111,933

967,201

939,987

8,420

2,456,068

RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus rufus %Status 1 & 2: 22.01

17.45

4.56

39.38

38.27

0.34

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNXD01020

1,827

1,050

4,095

47,579

3,265

5,173

686

166,346

46,285

939,225 2,714

103,109

2,125

0

8,714

2,318

124,652

14,603

97,891

11

812

13,099

0

957,481

108,448

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,151,856 52,724 105,234 9,124 2,714 135,684 112,504 971,392 110,275

Total (ha & %)

283,296

87,698

1,212,747

959,319

108,448

2,651,508

BELTED KINGFISHER Ceryle alcyon %Status 1 & 2: 13.99

10.69

3.31

45.74

36.18

4.09

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF04010

43

537

7,026

125,358

419

24,695

330

79,328

13,037

375,351 431

25,435

535

4

3,464

210

176,684

9,019

80,718

2

163

11,309

0

919,806

5,167

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 467,716 132,921 25,974 25,444 431 180,358 89,738 931,278 5,210

Total (ha & %)

109,346

65,831

758,875

919,851

5,167

1,859,070

LEWIS'S WOODPECKER Melanerpes lewis %Status 1 & 2: 9.42

5.88

3.54

40.82

49.48

0.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF04040

971

122

292

11,543

978

3,595

45

62,682

7,275

44,754 418

14,198

38

0

158

19

32,473

4,484

18,807

0

186

3,015

0

300,669

7,718

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 114,711 11,956 14,237 4,619 418 32,650 23,292 303,870 8,689

Total (ha & %)

78,325

18,717

108,040

301,640

7,718

514,440

RED-HEADED WOODPECKER Melanerpes erythrocephalus %Status 1 & 2: 18.86

15.23

3.64

21.00

58.64

1.50

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF05030

0

2,742

5,063

98,859

690

1,640

617

360,896

113,369

1,914,032 589

176,037

1,941

5

29,188

1,058

132,906

21,697

155,241

9

753

21,078

0

1,125,552

5,289

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,388,296 106,663 177,983 2,948 589 163,152 176,948 1,147,383 5,289

Total (ha & %)

570,306

165,846

2,302,249

1,125,561

5,289

4,169,250

WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus thyroideus %Status 1 & 2: 17.66

13.68

3.98

55.22

27.00

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF05040

18

2,889

9,153

92,897

2,952

1,748

748

703,164

182,363

2,805,876 3,483

254,425

2,572

0

43,097

4,248

212,116

21,824

157,707

9

846

15,385

0

1,193,582

12,199

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,691,403 104,940 256,997 5,449 3,483 259,460 179,540 1,209,813 12,217

Total (ha & %)

1,007,374

237,292

3,272,827

1,193,609

12,199

5,723,301

RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus nuchalis %Status 1 & 2: 21.75

17.60

4.15

57.18

20.86

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF07030

1,217

181

511

18,867

1,362

4,091

355

13,176

5,800

117,788 475

16,034

347

0

594

113

82,230

3,572

31,070

2

326

4,871

0

461,625

11,086

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 136,764 19,559 16,381 5,808 475 82,938 34,645 466,822 12,304

Total (ha & %)

31,673

19,305

250,785

462,845

11,086

775,693

DOWNY WOODPECKER Picoides pubescens %Status 1 & 2: 6.57

4.08

2.49

32.33

59.67

1.43

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF07040

1,064

3,457

13,350

253,558

2,209

44,002

1,013

662,898

182,009

2,794,480 2,990

221,987

2,627

5

32,948

1,118

281,025

27,603

230,485

11

853

25,440

0

2,073,777

19,102

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,639,387 270,364 224,619 47,223 2,990 315,090 258,099 2,100,069 20,167

Total (ha & %)

924,352

296,147

3,563,554

2,074,852

19,102

6,878,007

HAIRY WOODPECKER Picoides villosus %Status 1 & 2: 17.74

13.44

4.31

51.81

30.17

0.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF07080

1

3,217

9,590

105,584

1,264

877

258

679,603

167,938

2,978,256 3,600

208,324

1,932

0

45,302

4,534

127,185

21,735

154,493

1

394

13,912

0

780,147

3,340

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,825,797 118,391 210,256 2,399 3,600 177,021 176,228 794,453 3,340

Total (ha & %)

938,105

220,518

3,369,376

780,148

3,340

5,311,485

THREE-TOED WOODPECKER Picoides tridactylus %Status 1 & 2: 21.81

17.66

4.15

63.44

14.69

0.06

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF07090

0

0

829

1,441

0

0

0

151,716

16,586

125,121 698

40,391

363

0

851

0

1,780

3,666

2,337

0

0

399

0

16,489

107

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 293,423 2,270 40,754 0 698 2,632 6,003 16,889 107

Total (ha & %)

192,959

21,843

131,377

16,489

107

362,776

BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER Picoides arcticus %Status 1 & 2: 59.21

53.19

6.02

36.21

4.55

0.03

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF10020

1,150

3,333

13,263

262,020

2,236

44,812

1,004

541,957

156,707

2,589,826 3,837

193,085

2,738

5

30,133

1,111

286,903

29,904

232,730

40

1,639

26,620

0

2,156,169

18,933

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,288,491 278,617 195,827 48,052 3,837 318,147 262,674 2,184,428 20,083

Total (ha & %)

772,384

275,155

3,376,325

2,157,359

18,933

6,600,156

NORTHERN FLICKER Colaptes auratus %Status 1 & 2: 15.87

11.70

4.17

51.16

32.69

0.29

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABNYF12020

0

1,121

1,339

38,238

314

625

445

167,139

64,980

1,483,326 211

86,947

1,101

0

24,954

4,758

92,747

12,475

128,032

3

625

7,537

0

696,792

3,818

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,715,444 40,698 88,048 1,384 211 122,459 140,510 704,954 3,818

Total (ha & %)

281,100

92,815

1,742,999

696,795

3,818

2,817,527

PILEATED WOODPECKER Dryocopus pileatus %Status 1 & 2: 13.27

9.98

3.30

61.86

24.73

0.14

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE32010

38

877

2,070

37,201

569

1,000

360

227,501

48,167

433,939 192

98,132

795

5

7,638

190

49,068

8,213

37,147

11

333

6,064

0

397,787

5,741

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 709,607 40,148 98,933 1,929 192 56,897 45,371 404,184 5,779

Total (ha & %)

335,050

66,499

557,913

397,836

5,741

1,363,039

OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER Contopus cooperi %Status 1 & 2: 29.46

24.58

4.88

40.93

29.19

0.42

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE32050

1,051

1,558

5,273

114,405

2,099

28,101

594

308,998

68,021

676,664 4,103

122,372

977

1

12,087

220

104,353

13,857

89,430

39

286

10,124

0

1,000,316

12,446

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,053,684 121,237 123,350 30,794 4,103 116,660 103,326 1,010,726 13,497

Total (ha & %)

447,400

126,574

989,550

1,001,405

12,446

2,577,377

WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE Contopus sordidulus %Status 1 & 2: 22.27

17.36

4.91

38.39

38.85

0.48

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE33030

0

770

0

183

0

0

0

11,977

4,357

9,554 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

759

1,997

0

360

30

0

19,072

638

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 25,888 953 0 0 0 0 2,756 19,462 638

Total (ha & %)

13,107

5,146

11,734

19,072

638

49,697

ALDER FLYCATCHER Empidonax alnorum %Status 1 & 2: 36.73

26.37

10.35

23.61

38.38

1.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE33040

298

2,119

2,053

50,152

3,099

3,929

1,119

141,220

39,400

526,089 2,112

61,618

988

0

7,791

223

203,634

11,042

87,844

12

966

13,682

0

1,194,087

12,699

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 706,709 54,323 62,606 8,146 2,112 211,647 98,898 1,208,735 12,997

Total (ha & %)

216,813

71,316

870,948

1,194,397

12,699

2,366,173

WILLOW FLYCATCHER Empidonax traillii %Status 1 & 2: 12.18

9.16

3.01

36.81

50.48

0.54

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE33070

1,349

266

362

23,220

2,211

3,422

409

7,785

3,574

83,770 742

8,299

264

0

378

82

80,500

3,477

35,135

2

459

5,524

0

567,746

13,546

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 95,129 23,848 8,563 6,043 742 80,960 38,614 573,729 14,895

Total (ha & %)

19,399

16,705

223,776

569,097

13,546

842,523

LEAST FLYCATCHER Empidonax minimus %Status 1 & 2: 4.29

2.30

1.98

26.56

67.55

1.61

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE33080

23

2,393

4,786

91,645

1,290

710

477

369,050

120,923

2,152,649 1,533

112,035

1,793

0

23,760

954

98,345

16,858

130,958

3

603

17,198

0

939,387

7,122

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,642,622 98,824 113,828 2,477 1,533 123,058 147,819 957,188 7,145

Total (ha & %)

509,130

163,222

2,475,606

939,414

7,122

4,094,495

HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER Empidonax hammondii %Status 1 & 2: 16.42

12.43

3.99

60.46

22.94

0.17

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE33090

33

1,800

5,274

97,821

2,474

24,611

1,283

129,884

30,501

443,707 481

67,719

1,260

4

6,116

262

189,672

13,955

98,406

12

1,032

16,007

0

1,427,133

13,353

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 604,092 104,895 68,983 28,368 481 196,050 112,374 1,444,173 13,386

Total (ha & %)

209,025

91,869

831,375

1,427,179

13,353

2,572,802

DUSKY FLYCATCHER Empidonax oberholseri %Status 1 & 2: 11.69

8.12

3.57

32.31

55.47

0.52

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE33160

0

1,709

2,583

45,366

2,316

2,846

373

282,254

75,927

1,259,158 1,106

107,888

2,066

1

15,845

2,864

74,324

14,002

86,642

12

624

12,751

0

761,040

8,465

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,617,339 49,659 109,955 5,536 1,106 93,033 100,656 774,415 8,465

Total (ha & %)

410,636

113,040

1,466,971

761,053

8,465

2,760,164

CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER Empidonax occidentalis %Status 1 & 2: 18.97

14.88

4.10

53.15

27.57

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE35030

361

2,075

42,629

1,415,703

6,235

165,322

4,116

27,143

4,284

201,791 11,148

4,885

9,572

0

136

194

314,796

15,578

509,858

0

944

16,481

15

4,433,960

22,883

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 233,218 1,460,408 14,457 175,673 11,148 315,126 525,436 4,451,400 23,245

Total (ha & %)

41,418

254,061

2,457,428

4,434,321

22,883

7,210,112

SAY'S PHOEBE Sayornis saya %Status 1 & 2: 4.10

0.57

3.52

34.08

61.50

0.32

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE52030

53

677

942

127,270

0

378

78

196

135

43,313 4,717

32

2,288

0

0

0

134,351

473

67,295

0

0

39

0

837,206

893

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 43,644 128,889 2,321 456 4,717 134,351 67,768 837,244 946

Total (ha & %)

906

4,256

377,023

837,258

893

1,220,336

CASSIN'S KINGBIRD Tyrannus vociferans %Status 1 & 2: 0.42

0.07

0.35

30.89

68.61

0.07

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE52050

3,085

927

23,906

1,017,320

6,938

143,462

5,447

14,791

3,476

194,777 9,300

3,595

6,383

0

238

373

512,865

14,083

605,795

3

330

19,501

15

8,527,475

28,547

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 213,044 1,042,153 9,978 155,847 9,300 513,477 619,882 8,547,321 31,632

Total (ha & %)

26,818

211,184

2,345,520

8,530,564

28,547

11,142,633

WESTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus verticalis %Status 1 & 2: 2.14

0.24

1.90

21.05

76.56

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAE52060

2,844

667

8,859

768,784

6,997

58,445

3,948

19,697

4,562

219,147 5,216

14,994

4,808

0

333

348

412,908

12,691

374,289

4

374

22,642

15

4,737,679

35,092

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 243,406 778,310 19,802 69,389 5,216 413,589 386,984 4,760,710 37,936

Total (ha & %)

43,062

112,355

1,784,307

4,740,526

35,092

6,715,343

EASTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus tyrannus %Status 1 & 2: 2.31

0.64

1.67

26.57

70.59

0.52

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAT02010

927

2,821

34,512

846,361

5,180

115,538

3,768

130,128

32,192

331,523 11,206

21,625

3,358

0

4,906

251

330,823

10,086

485,162

0

326

13,157

0

6,304,264

21,493

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 493,843 883,694 24,983 124,486 11,206 335,980 495,249 6,317,746 22,420

Total (ha & %)

164,986

209,094

2,008,844

6,305,191

21,493

8,709,608

HORNED LARK Eremophila alpestris %Status 1 & 2: 4.30

1.89

2.40

23.06

72.39

0.25

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAU03010

2,232

433

1,627

23,685

1,176

9,062

1,328

110,306

26,485

262,684 1,234

56,180

944

1

3,043

494

91,266

9,664

55,356

41

264

8,139

0

1,248,571

15,878

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 399,474 25,746 57,125 11,567 1,234 94,803 65,061 1,256,974 18,111

Total (ha & %)

171,402

56,416

435,554

1,250,844

15,878

1,930,095

TREE SWALLOW Tachycineta bicolor %Status 1 & 2: 11.81

8.88

2.92

22.57

64.81

0.82

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAU03040

2,232

410

2,343

33,519

1,225

11,946

1,322

20,346

8,243

184,200 1,219

25,476

721

4

1,984

426

108,563

6,701

58,224

38

224

10,204

0

1,307,661

16,088

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 212,789 36,271 26,201 14,493 1,219 110,972 64,963 1,318,089 18,320

Total (ha & %)

49,665

40,583

387,050

1,309,930

16,088

1,803,317

VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW Tachycineta thalassina %Status 1 & 2: 5.01

2.75

2.25

21.46

72.64

0.89

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAU07010

2,503

1,020

13,211

60,386

977

7,035

1,003

964

633

10,374 4,029

2,279

642

62

0

0

56,984

5,375

52,397

19

21

11,212

0

796,332

55,201

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 11,971 74,617 2,982 9,014 4,029 56,984 57,791 807,565 57,704

Total (ha & %)

5,260

38,108

185,236

798,854

55,201

1,082,658

NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW Stelgidopteryx serripennis %Status 1 & 2: 4.01

0.49

3.52

17.11

73.79

5.10

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAU08010

2,491

817

11,602

51,254

838

6,013

780

868

488

8,972 3,594

1,381

509

62

0

0

52,689

4,888

47,705

19

21

10,599

0

747,911

54,471

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 10,327 63,673 1,952 7,630 3,594 52,689 52,611 758,531 56,962

Total (ha & %)

3,924

34,098

165,055

750,420

54,471

1,007,969

BANK SWALLOW Riparia riparia %Status 1 & 2: 3.77

0.39

3.38

16.38

74.45

5.40

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAU09010

3,484

3,695

19,627

334,525

7,620

21,784

4,677

74,113

20,516

414,236 6,186

27,666

4,851

62

2,631

424

446,038

34,906

388,229

50

2,998

68,935

0

4,978,295

117,883

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 508,866 357,847 32,579 34,081 6,186 449,092 423,185 5,050,228 121,366

Total (ha & %)

118,723

171,043

1,593,954

4,981,829

117,883

6,983,431

CLIFF SWALLOW Petrochelidon pyrrhonota %Status 1 & 2: 4.15

1.70

2.45

22.83

71.34

1.69

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAU09030

3,948

5,058

17,515

1,497,136

10,848

90,623

10,554

67,136

20,863

490,043 13,559

26,905

3,979

62

3,370

837

1,333,974

35,282

1,292,383

22

3,317

84,651

1

15,023,198

43,627

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 578,042 1,519,710 30,946 112,025 13,559 1,338,182 1,327,687 15,111,167 47,575

Total (ha & %)

116,634

253,750

4,637,713

15,027,168

43,627

20,078,894

BARN SWALLOW Hirundo rustica %Status 1 & 2: 1.85

0.58

1.26

23.10

74.84

0.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV01010

11

1,392

6,926

42,348

739

473

213

455,252

116,965

1,844,449 3,238

146,868

1,233

0

33,545

3,851

66,950

10,047

94,900

0

277

4,858

0

402,050

2,213

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,416,667 50,666 148,101 1,425 3,238 104,346 104,948 407,185 2,223

Total (ha & %)

638,073

144,353

2,052,099

402,060

2,213

3,238,799

GRAY JAY Perisoreus canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 24.16

19.70

4.46

63.36

12.41

0.07

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV02010

11

3,451

10,025

119,989

1,556

679

79

691,863

183,288

2,943,624 4,074

184,054

353

0

43,555

1,885

106,420

20,308

117,014

0

486

16,067

0

697,027

3,285

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,818,776 133,465 184,407 2,314 4,074 151,860 137,323 713,580 3,297

Total (ha & %)

924,964

232,605

3,291,202

697,038

3,285

5,149,095

STELLER'S JAY Cyanocitta stelleri %Status 1 & 2: 22.48

17.96

4.52

63.92

13.54

0.06

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV02020

1,008

12

10

23,402

258

687

198

72

822

49,054 1,536

9,116

529

0

13

0

36,521

1,724

18,317

36

6

284

0

248,975

2,898

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 49,949 23,424 9,645 1,143 1,536 36,534 20,078 249,265 3,907

Total (ha & %)

9,477

4,056

129,029

250,019

2,898

395,480

BLUE JAY Cyanocitta cristata %Status 1 & 2: 3.42

2.40

1.03

32.63

63.22

0.73

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV07010

35

2

2,273

48,694

34

527

29

12,138

701

67,287 85

743

2,057

0

0

0

77,973

895

14,313

0

0

1,980

0

167,780

452

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 80,125 50,969 2,799 590 85 77,973 15,208 169,760 487

Total (ha & %)

12,917

8,432

208,381

167,815

452

397,997

PINYON JAY Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus %Status 1 & 2: 5.37

3.25

2.12

52.36

42.17

0.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV08010

58

815

4,982

79,908

443

14,915

277

216,424

44,275

349,746 403

80,393

2,233

1

6,926

106

47,408

9,906

47,790

2

454

5,234

0

506,220

3,223

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 610,445 85,705 82,627 15,635 403 54,439 57,699 511,908 3,281

Total (ha & %)

305,454

81,652

525,533

506,280

3,223

1,422,142

CLARK'S NUTCRACKER Nucifraga columbiana %Status 1 & 2: 27.22

21.48

5.74

36.95

35.60

0.23

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV09010

3,437

1,847

27,490

1,124,443

7,735

151,400

3,707

35,727

13,316

399,210 10,515

21,811

7,006

4

3,451

477

598,355

21,988

633,154

5

767

32,353

15

8,701,708

30,936

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 448,253 1,153,779 28,821 162,842 10,515 602,283 655,147 8,734,843 34,373

Total (ha & %)

71,338

254,030

2,769,403

8,705,150

30,936

11,830,856

BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE Pica pica %Status 1 & 2: 2.75

0.60

2.15

23.41

73.58

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV10010

3,548

5,868

39,057

2,511,932

16,425

213,062

15,767

87,096

27,126

766,102 21,407

46,623

10,352

66

4,952

840

1,588,495

46,194

1,698,334

55

4,219

93,549

16

18,469,024

52,468

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 880,324 2,556,857 57,041 245,253 21,407 1,594,287 1,744,584 18,566,808 56,016

Total (ha & %)

165,184

430,179

6,602,120

18,472,627

52,468

25,722,576

AMERICAN CROW Corvus brachyrhynchos %Status 1 & 2: 2.31

0.64

1.67

25.67

71.82

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAV10110

307

4,523

24,985

836,291

6,371

99,470

2,416

767,084

205,218

3,203,139 7,817

245,390

8,906

5

37,417

1,119

423,323

41,036

439,640

11

1,686

39,743

15

3,515,244

26,152

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,175,441 865,799 254,301 108,257 7,817 461,860 480,688 3,556,689 26,459

Total (ha & %)

1,062,471

420,479

4,912,647

3,515,562

26,152

9,937,312

COMMON RAVEN Corvus corax %Status 1 & 2: 14.92

10.69

4.23

49.44

35.38

0.26

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAW01010

1,119

2,063

13,204

281,678

2,147

51,377

1,025

251,706

92,307

1,921,881 3,291

125,176

4,061

5

19,178

1,087

340,324

20,220

223,174

39

838

24,344

0

2,230,952

18,121

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,265,894 296,945 129,241 54,549 3,291 360,589 243,433 2,256,134 19,240

Total (ha & %)

401,108

206,599

2,771,379

2,232,109

18,121

5,629,317

BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE Poecile atricapillus %Status 1 & 2: 10.80

7.13

3.67

49.23

39.65

0.32

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAW01040

83

4,664

20,816

250,018

2,739

24,547

933

893,477

238,055

3,936,033 4,744

292,399

2,676

5

56,261

4,945

343,023

31,473

264,551

10

1,669

29,201

0

1,910,828

12,743

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,067,565 275,498 295,081 28,219 4,744 404,229 296,033 1,941,699 12,826

Total (ha & %)

1,251,209

351,713

4,799,307

1,910,920

12,743

8,325,893

MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE Poecile gambeli %Status 1 & 2: 19.25

15.03

4.22

57.64

22.95

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAW01060

0

782

0

565

0

0

0

182,136

30,822

370,540 2

76,154

301

0

17,028

23

16,162

584

18,243

0

26

23

0

20,067

269

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 583,498 1,346 76,454 0 2 33,213 18,827 20,116 269

Total (ha & %)

276,125

31,753

405,512

20,067

269

733,726

BOREAL CHICKADEE Poecile hudsonicus %Status 1 & 2: 41.96

37.63

4.33

55.27

2.74

0.04

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAW01070

0

0

120

2,664

164

335

172

81,610

28,830

699,041 75

54,745

903

0

16,488

3,999

45,646

1,357

62,290

1

65

1,204

0

246,813

1,580

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 809,481 2,784 55,649 671 75 66,133 63,647 248,083 1,580

Total (ha & %)

153,073

36,748

809,887

246,814

1,580

1,248,102

CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE Poecile rufescens %Status 1 & 2: 15.21

12.26

2.95

64.89

19.78

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAZ01010

98

4,691

22,273

323,275

2,901

47,159

979

954,932

245,091

4,001,592 6,316

314,812

4,874

5

56,305

4,959

352,333

36,062

291,270

38

1,691

29,600

0

2,257,746

15,525

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,201,614 350,239 319,691 51,040 6,316 413,597 327,370 2,289,037 15,623

Total (ha & %)

1,335,332

390,017

4,975,770

2,257,882

15,525

8,974,527

RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 19.22

14.88

4.35

55.44

25.16

0.17

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAZ01020

224

329

3,416

100,711

927

27,423

356

12,135

6,271

257,924 2,179

13,968

323

0

1,751

230

151,706

6,103

72,905

30

301

8,868

0

1,015,725

10,764

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 276,331 104,455 14,292 28,706 2,179 153,687 79,037 1,024,895 10,988

Total (ha & %)

29,412

52,634

585,781

1,015,979

10,764

1,694,570

WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta carolinensis %Status 1 & 2: 4.84

1.74

3.11

34.57

59.96

0.64

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPAZ01030

11

0

819

8,861

41

304

91

4,339

2,182

49,949 239

1,605

131

0

1,404

47

17,696

1,567

15,390

0

12

3,448

0

196,265

721

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 56,471 9,680 1,737 435 239 19,147 16,957 199,726 731

Total (ha & %)

7,401

8,499

92,227

196,276

721

305,123

PYGMY NUTHATCH Sitta pygmaea %Status 1 & 2: 5.21

2.43

2.79

30.23

64.33

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBA01010

0

1,087

6,262

30,352

629

390

83

253,086

58,186

1,006,899 2,174

73,543

280

0

20,927

3,667

40,060

4,911

49,379

1

122

2,680

0

173,398

1,920

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,318,171 37,701 73,823 1,102 2,174 64,654 54,291 176,199 1,920

Total (ha & %)

349,394

76,377

1,128,947

173,398

1,920

1,730,036

BROWN CREEPER Certhia americana %Status 1 & 2: 24.61

20.20

4.42

65.26

10.02

0.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBG03010

6

1,268

19,427

345,178

749

68,155

266

123,308

21,228

125,762 2,982

83,187

3,664

0

3,909

6

33,119

7,339

76,476

2

52

1,060

0

688,272

13,353

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 270,298 365,873 86,851 69,171 2,982 37,035 83,817 689,385 13,359

Total (ha & %)

212,473

120,879

583,784

688,281

13,353

1,618,770

ROCK WREN Salpinctes obsoletus %Status 1 & 2: 20.59

13.12

7.47

36.06

42.52

0.83

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBG04010

0

0

3,347

30,129

0

79

0

18,703

3,513

43,524 184

326

751

0

1,541

6

8,326

352

10,088

0

3

520

0

116,121

1,116

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 65,740 33,476 1,077 79 184 9,874 10,440 116,644 1,116

Total (ha & %)

20,574

8,568

92,250

116,121

1,116

238,629

CANYON WREN Catherpes mexicanus %Status 1 & 2: 12.21

8.62

3.59

38.66

48.66

0.47

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBG09010

1,633

467

2,988

87,378

2,646

28,348

596

63,739

11,569

158,192 2,566

34,200

659

0

1,626

110

122,568

10,123

71,530

31

390

9,564

0

1,088,980

16,438

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 233,500 90,833 34,859 31,591 2,566 124,305 81,684 1,098,934 18,071

Total (ha & %)

103,068

63,362

442,831

1,090,644

16,438

1,716,343

HOUSE WREN Troglodytes aedon %Status 1 & 2: 9.70

6.01

3.69

25.80

63.55

0.96

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBG09050

0

46

26

1,146

81

102

80

33,796

7,953

132,048 0

13,151

157

0

3,437

1,183

6,699

692

10,225

1

52

379

0

40,297

1,332

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 173,797 1,218 13,308 263 0 11,319 10,917 40,728 1,332

Total (ha & %)

50,563

10,493

150,197

40,298

1,332

252,882

WINTER WREN Troglodytes troglodytes %Status 1 & 2: 24.14

19.99

4.15

59.39

15.94

0.53

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBG10020

292

28

81

14,553

2,579

2,594

1,217

3,281

822

17,012 96

2,804

304

0

187

87

56,966

1,622

25,834

0

97

3,579

0

359,504

54,727

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 21,116 14,663 3,108 6,391 96 57,240 27,456 363,180 55,018

Total (ha & %)

8,977

9,089

115,679

359,796

54,727

548,268

MARSH WREN Cistothorus palustris %Status 1 & 2: 3.29

1.64

1.66

21.10

65.62

9.98

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBH01010

0

419

874

13,114

874

503

139

74,213

17,553

225,145 474

29,113

944

0

2,488

365

21,716

4,915

23,991

0

286

6,646

0

327,473

1,332

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 316,911 14,407 30,057 1,516 474 24,569 28,906 334,405 1,332

Total (ha & %)

107,392

31,800

284,579

327,473

1,332

752,576

AMERICAN DIPPER Cinclus mexicanus %Status 1 & 2: 18.50

14.27

4.23

37.82

43.51

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ05010

0

171

6,612

30,356

1,004

505

115

193,853

47,434

892,482 2,232

74,111

301

0

18,892

3,759

37,612

4,108

52,438

1

72

3,042

0

175,178

2,083

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,133,769 37,139 74,412 1,623 2,232 60,262 56,546 178,292 2,083

Total (ha & %)

288,102

65,761

1,015,235

175,179

2,083

1,546,359

GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus satrapa %Status 1 & 2: 22.89

18.63

4.25

65.65

11.33

0.14

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ05020

23

3,449

14,275

137,232

1,661

1,017

482

702,932

187,018

3,318,325 3,733

213,377

2,267

0

46,571

4,795

175,489

24,319

189,108

2

533

17,753

0

1,080,496

6,440

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,208,274 154,956 215,645 3,159 3,733 226,855 213,429 1,098,782 6,464

Total (ha & %)

968,523

251,444

3,824,369

1,080,521

6,440

6,131,298

RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus calendula %Status 1 & 2: 19.90

15.80

4.10

62.37

17.62

0.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ08010

22

0

934

3,294

0

0

0

130

119

2,472 0

0

2,016

0

0

0

12,247

0

472

0

0

0

0

4,603

27

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,721 4,228 2,016 0 0 12,247 472 4,603 49

Total (ha & %)

130

3,069

18,486

4,625

27

26,336

BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER Polioptila caerulea %Status 1 & 2: 12.15

0.49

11.65

70.19

17.56

0.10

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ15010

1,450

150

0

45,341

40

1,540

634

23

0

33,783 1,186

5

0

0

0

0

68,408

991

30,320

0

19

19

0

377,091

4,396

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 33,805 45,490 5 2,214 1,186 68,408 31,311 377,130 5,846

Total (ha & %)

237

2,550

179,671

378,541

4,396

565,395

EASTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia sialis %Status 1 & 2: 0.49

0.04

0.45

31.78

66.95

0.78

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ15020

0

766

1,008

14,130

131

547

324

61,189

14,230

180,108 301

27,809

215

0

7,585

98

34,691

4,524

24,912

2

174

2,443

0

294,551

2,199

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 255,527 15,904 28,024 1,002 301 42,374 29,438 297,168 2,199

Total (ha & %)

97,654

23,065

254,465

294,553

2,199

671,936

WESTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia mexicana %Status 1 & 2: 17.97

14.53

3.43

37.87

43.84

0.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ15030

1,156

4,370

16,092

1,338,379

9,683

106,087

8,701

210,919

53,375

861,017 11,240

84,604

3,660

67

9,815

313

910,451

37,547

960,982

23

3,517

67,730

1

8,433,045

26,278

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,125,311 1,358,841 88,330 124,471 11,240 920,579 998,552 8,504,293 27,434

Total (ha & %)

322,907

284,803

4,090,838

8,434,224

26,278

13,159,052

MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD Sialia currucoides %Status 1 & 2: 4.62

2.46

2.16

31.09

64.10

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ16010

79

1,153

7,443

141,675

849

26,489

594

231,577

50,152

533,622 585

98,495

2,776

5

8,880

198

143,891

12,649

82,157

9

603

10,039

0

882,760

6,679

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 815,350 150,271 101,276 27,932 585 152,968 94,815 893,402 6,759

Total (ha & %)

341,557

109,746

902,528

882,848

6,679

2,243,358

TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE Myadestes townsendi %Status 1 & 2: 20.12

15.23

4.89

40.23

39.35

0.30

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ18080

1,557

118

308

12,514

2,132

3,288

382

4,932

2,115

47,379 138

12,664

307

0

214

63

98,052

3,491

28,880

2

359

5,843

0

491,155

10,343

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 54,426 12,940 12,971 5,802 138 98,329 32,373 497,356 11,900

Total (ha & %)

20,418

15,414

187,344

492,714

10,343

726,234

VEERY Catharus fuscescens %Status 1 & 2: 4.93

2.81

2.12

25.80

67.84

1.42

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ18090

1,560

206

31

12,586

198

724

160

301

147

4,581 791

349

41

0

0

0

24,099

351

13,150

0

2

3,254

0

173,189

3,633

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,029 12,822 390 1,082 791 24,099 13,501 176,445 5,193

Total (ha & %)

1,057

4,547

55,366

174,749

3,633

239,352

GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH Catharus minimus %Status 1 & 2: 2.34

0.44

1.90

23.13

73.01

1.52

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ18100

23

3,559

14,527

146,695

2,570

3,325

534

645,902

182,061

3,315,873 3,771

196,916

2,018

0

46,685

4,821

174,269

22,593

196,248

3

706

21,070

0

1,209,166

10,948

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,143,836 164,781 198,934 6,429 3,771 225,775 218,844 1,230,941 10,971

Total (ha & %)

896,338

250,415

3,837,389

1,209,192

10,948

6,204,281

SWAINSON'S THRUSH Catharus ustulatus %Status 1 & 2: 18.48

14.45

4.04

61.85

19.49

0.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ18110

13

3,482

14,236

142,187

1,609

1,497

408

640,487

179,280

3,248,693 3,712

190,814

1,922

0

46,321

4,728

136,368

20,729

180,943

2

430

17,307

0

1,003,247

5,785

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,068,460 159,905 192,736 3,515 3,712 187,418 201,673 1,020,985 5,798

Total (ha & %)

883,145

239,698

3,712,311

1,003,262

5,785

5,844,201

HERMIT THRUSH Catharus guttatus %Status 1 & 2: 19.22

15.11

4.10

63.52

17.17

0.10

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ20170

1,896

5,871

15,166

380,878

4,968

52,754

2,002

673,117

192,511

3,139,162 7,093

237,154

3,129

5

37,646

1,276

540,986

39,215

341,856

44

2,440

38,563

0

3,534,920

28,322

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,004,790 401,915 240,288 59,723 7,093 579,907 381,114 3,575,923 30,218

Total (ha & %)

961,195

342,613

4,411,982

3,536,860

28,322

9,280,971

AMERICAN ROBIN Turdus migratorius %Status 1 & 2: 14.05

10.36

3.69

47.54

38.11

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBJ22010

0

51

69

6,435

49

152

78

132,290

33,404

599,809 0

46,588

160

0

16,761

3,587

24,049

981

38,680

1

62

514

0

101,169

1,234

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 765,503 6,555 46,748 279 0 44,398 39,662 101,745 1,234

Total (ha & %)

195,801

38,869

669,050

101,170

1,234

1,006,124

VARIED THRUSH Ixoreus naevius %Status 1 & 2: 23.32

19.46

3.86

66.50

10.06

0.12

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBK01010

1,350

408

328

30,528

2,235

3,844

665

13,095

4,319

73,583 997

11,730

464

0

778

119

84,687

4,445

41,630

2

515

6,675

0

693,612

14,483

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 90,997 31,264 12,194 6,744 997 85,584 46,078 700,802 15,833

Total (ha & %)

28,761

20,195

232,090

694,965

14,483

990,493

GRAY CATBIRD Dumetella carolinensis %Status 1 & 2: 4.94

2.90

2.04

23.43

70.16

1.46

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBK04010

0

208

3,434

508,384

2,675

36,171

1,002

11,504

1,688

110,823 2,419

2,993

3,588

0

5

1

67,113

6,606

165,635

0

2

8,192

15

1,064,967

6,416

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 124,014 512,025 6,581 39,847 2,419 67,119 172,241 1,073,177 6,416

Total (ha & %)

17,387

59,679

855,391

1,064,967

6,416

2,003,840

SAGE THRASHER Oreoscoptes montanus %Status 1 & 2: 3.84

0.87

2.98

42.69

53.15

0.32

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBK06010

1,935

4,148

7,458

1,104,691

5,668

57,278

7,531

43,742

8,356

224,262 11,005

29,596

1,161

62

0

0

893,530

16,846

806,092

0

3,789

25,070

0

7,477,474

27,812

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 276,361 1,116,297 30,819 70,478 11,005 893,530 822,938 7,506,333 29,747

Total (ha & %)

86,944

116,169

3,047,174

7,479,409

27,812

10,757,508

BROWN THRASHER Toxostoma rufum %Status 1 & 2: 1.89

0.81

1.08

28.33

69.53

0.26

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBM02050

0

369

1,451

23,509

992

273

0

99,546

22,962

201,750 1,948

16,309

0

0

3,355

0

541

2,839

17,119

0

0

2,445

0

60,735

174

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 324,258 25,328 16,309 1,265 1,948 3,896 19,958 63,180 174

Total (ha & %)

120,571

29,969

244,866

60,735

174

456,316

AMERICAN PIPIT Anthus rubescens %Status 1 & 2: 32.99

26.42

6.57

53.66

13.31

0.04

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBM02060

128

2,928

13,798

1,199,409

5,364

56,453

7,610

12,605

2,802

85,537 9,043

782

11

0

0

0

506,119

15,623

810,126

0

2,913

47,897

0

6,659,607

15,726

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 100,944 1,216,135 793 69,427 9,043 506,119 825,749 6,710,417 15,854

Total (ha & %)

24,592

136,584

2,617,843

6,659,735

15,726

9,454,480

SPRAGUE'S PIPIT Anthus spragueii %Status 1 & 2: 1.71

0.26

1.45

27.69

70.44

0.17

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBN01010

1,055

1,482

8,209

132,472

1,240

22,469

714

119,510

47,495

1,140,886 1,996

73,168

3,599

5

12,603

957

134,296

12,523

129,177

40

651

14,338

0

1,123,616

12,685

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,307,891 142,164 76,772 24,423 1,996 147,857 141,739 1,138,605 13,740

Total (ha & %)

208,654

109,590

1,539,547

1,124,711

12,685

2,995,186

BOHEMIAN WAXWING Bombycilla garrulus %Status 1 & 2: 10.63

6.97

3.66

51.40

37.55

0.42

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBN01020

1,371

260

411

23,278

2,262

3,515

516

10,967

4,324

70,924 719

9,015

446

0

582

122

66,951

3,538

32,103

3

363

4,958

0

520,354

13,926

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 86,215 23,949 9,462 6,293 719 67,655 35,644 525,675 15,297

Total (ha & %)

23,450

17,315

194,491

521,728

13,926

770,909

CEDAR WAXWING Bombycilla cedrorum %Status 1 & 2: 5.29

3.04

2.25

25.23

67.68

1.81

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBR01020

921

4,372

23,791

1,272,131

5,935

166,452

6,560

48,930

16,723

363,777 14,163

35,768

5,509

0

2,296

458

808,647

25,914

639,905

20

3,383

44,416

0

7,903,339

45,834

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 429,430 1,300,293 41,277 178,947 14,163 811,401 665,839 7,951,138 46,755

Total (ha & %)

100,684

283,263

3,105,183

7,904,280

45,834

11,439,243

NORTHERN SHRIKE Lanius excubitor %Status 1 & 2: 3.36

0.88

2.48

27.15

69.10

0.40

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBR01030

2,522

5,071

33,617

1,474,338

5,440

175,654

5,224

8,446

3,762

182,162 15,968

1,170

5,543

0

0

0

741,833

18,510

644,237

0

3,230

31,916

0

7,399,673

37,141

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 194,370 1,513,026 6,712 186,318 15,968 741,833 662,747 7,434,819 39,662

Total (ha & %)

23,357

269,003

3,063,761

7,402,194

37,141

10,795,456

LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Lanius ludovicianus %Status 1 & 2: 2.71

0.22

2.49

28.38

68.57

0.34

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBT01010

2,980

11

349

35,565

1,715

4,241

2,093

2,436

1,226

38,187 4,065

6,075

109

67

158

372

287,574

5,233

250,162

62

186

7,998

0

5,636,902

27,737

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 41,850 35,925 6,252 8,049 4,065 288,104 255,457 5,645,086 30,717

Total (ha & %)

10,581

19,528

617,715

5,639,944

27,737

6,315,506

EUROPEAN STARLING Sturnus vulgaris %Status 1 & 2: 0.48

0.17

0.31

9.78

89.30

0.44

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBW01160

65

2,178

10,409

202,930

1,755

39,023

903

154,133

65,296

1,515,769 1,034

88,852

1,915

5

14,539

1,079

215,317

16,660

180,949

10

757

20,820

0

1,663,620

11,698

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,735,198 215,518 90,772 41,682 1,034 230,935 197,619 1,685,198 11,763

Total (ha & %)

262,215

155,202

2,116,908

1,663,695

11,698

4,209,718

SOLITARY VIREO Vireo solitarius %Status 1 & 2: 9.92

6.23

3.69

50.29

39.52

0.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBW01210

1,620

654

1,149

49,742

3,025

8,976

987

28,402

11,598

199,697 1,222

27,897

829

0

1,805

262

142,043

7,254

66,596

9

757

10,327

0

1,012,641

21,241

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 239,696 51,544 28,727 12,988 1,222 144,110 73,858 1,023,725 22,861

Total (ha & %)

62,540

40,393

460,287

1,014,270

21,241

1,598,732

WARBLING VIREO Vireo gilvus %Status 1 & 2: 6.44

3.91

2.53

28.79

63.44

1.33

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBW01240

1,180

122

329

13,349

1,047

3,719

157

5,338

2,371

58,180 425

13,019

222

0

158

40

68,673

2,846

23,453

2

186

4,021

0

383,184

8,826

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 65,889 13,799 13,241 4,923 425 68,870 26,300 387,391 10,006

Total (ha & %)

19,870

13,546

164,236

384,366

8,826

590,845

RED-EYED VIREO Vireo olivaceus %Status 1 & 2: 5.66

3.36

2.29

27.80

65.05

1.49

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX01040

0

0

0

0

11

70

110

39,414

11,510

195,455 27

58,817

500

0

1,197

38

30,894

196

11,971

1

16

145

0

47,038

983

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 246,379 0 59,316 192 27 32,129 12,168 47,200 983

Total (ha & %)

99,455

12,459

238,457

47,039

983

398,394

TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora peregrina %Status 1 & 2: 28.09

24.96

3.13

59.86

11.81

0.25

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX01050

0

509

1,216

26,040

2,836

5,560

753

42,129

14,582

210,124 345

35,827

666

4

2,619

264

68,634

6,885

42,342

9

761

10,876

0

611,168

13,924

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 266,835 27,765 36,497 9,149 345 71,517 49,236 622,804 13,924

Total (ha & %)

84,681

40,049

348,242

611,177

13,924

1,098,072

ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER Vermivora celata %Status 1 & 2: 11.36

7.71

3.65

31.71

55.66

1.27

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX01060

0

0

32

1,376

212

454

315

24,115

6,559

74,558 147

13,721

436

0

1,315

223

16,595

1,290

9,047

2

35

1,800

0

128,875

1,955

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 105,232 1,408 14,157 981 147 18,133 10,339 130,710 1,955

Total (ha & %)

39,398

10,792

102,038

128,877

1,955

283,060

NASHVILLE WARBLER Vermivora ruficapilla %Status 1 & 2: 17.73

13.92

3.81

36.05

45.53

0.69

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX03010

1,352

408

342

30,942

2,247

3,844

693

13,639

4,661

80,527 1,000

11,911

474

0

867

144

86,135

4,489

42,444

2

553

6,765

0

701,799

14,691

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 98,826 31,692 12,385 6,784 1,000 87,145 46,935 709,117 16,043

Total (ha & %)

29,625

20,719

241,740

703,153

14,691

1,009,928

YELLOW WARBLER Dendroica petechia %Status 1 & 2: 4.98

2.93

2.05

23.94

69.62

1.46

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX03060

87

4,570

20,649

293,671

2,189

41,146

901

891,452

236,788

3,920,105 4,836

283,100

2,617

5

56,305

4,959

301,647

30,104

274,134

10

1,570

26,800

0

1,970,434

11,768

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,048,345 318,890 285,722 44,237 4,836 362,911 304,247 1,998,805 11,855

Total (ha & %)

1,239,186

363,063

4,795,299

1,970,531

11,768

8,379,847

YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER Dendroica coronata %Status 1 & 2: 19.12

14.79

4.33

57.22

23.52

0.14

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX03080

0

1,935

506

59,500

257

534

401

469,882

152,467

2,358,272 125

165,469

1,561

0

45,778

4,621

98,218

15,176

143,718

2

514

3,356

0

622,100

3,585

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,980,621 61,942 167,030 1,192 125 148,617 158,896 625,970 3,585

Total (ha & %)

683,835

178,221

2,660,234

622,102

3,585

4,147,977

TOWNSEND'S WARBLER Dendroica townsendi %Status 1 & 2: 20.78

16.49

4.30

64.13

15.00

0.09

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX03230

1,187

125

305

12,761

518

3,621

157

4,353

2,422

64,741 378

3,016

234

0

0

0

45,479

1,720

23,752

2

243

3,645

0

364,015

8,115

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 71,516 13,190 3,250 4,295 378 45,479 25,474 367,903 9,301

Total (ha & %)

8,254

11,947

147,269

365,203

8,115

540,787

BLACKPOLL WARBLER Dendroica striata %Status 1 & 2: 3.74

1.53

2.21

27.23

67.53

1.50

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX05010

965

12

0

7,986

2

451

9

23

0

10,349 352

5

0

0

0

0

11,534

582

8,786

0

0

0

0

132,908

1,479

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 10,373 7,998 5 462 352 11,534 9,368 132,908 2,444

Total (ha & %)

42

1,034

39,016

133,873

1,479

175,444

BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER Mniotilta varia %Status 1 & 2: 0.61

0.02

0.59

22.24

76.31

0.84

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX06010

355

433

206

14,205

1,642

1,299

369

12,515

4,363

65,393 625

11,321

456

0

552

85

51,100

3,256

25,541

1

437

4,707

0

418,949

8,981

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 82,270 14,844 11,777 3,310 625 51,737 28,798 424,093 9,336

Total (ha & %)

26,901

14,372

157,232

419,305

8,981

626,791

AMERICAN REDSTART Setophaga ruticilla %Status 1 & 2: 6.59

4.29

2.29

25.09

66.90

1.43

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX10010

1,554

258

253

15,668

613

2,439

246

5,828

1,349

48,171 623

5,667

114

0

391

72

87,889

2,512

27,308

0

432

4,510

0

435,446

10,002

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 55,348 16,179 5,781 3,298 623 88,352 29,820 440,388 11,555

Total (ha & %)

13,189

11,249

179,905

437,000

10,002

651,345

OVENBIRD Seiurus aurocapillus %Status 1 & 2: 3.75

2.03

1.73

27.62

67.09

1.54

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX10020

0

115

353

6,926

1,824

1,778

376

43,120

10,817

166,261 149

23,592

962

0

3,006

912

28,527

3,265

23,928

7

342

4,078

0

294,928

8,644

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 220,198 7,394 24,554 3,978 149 32,445 27,201 299,348 8,644

Total (ha & %)

71,999

22,166

226,168

294,936

8,644

623,913

NORTHERN WATERTHRUSH Seiurus noveboracensis %Status 1 & 2: 15.09

11.54

3.55

36.25

47.27

1.39

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX11040

27

771

3,025

38,704

2,351

1,145

525

131,323

36,243

526,988 748

51,125

1,427

4

7,140

510

80,687

8,111

58,806

5

859

12,059

0

688,556

12,702

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 694,555 42,500 52,556 4,021 748 88,338 66,921 701,474 12,729

Total (ha & %)

193,569

62,520

706,463

688,587

12,702

1,663,841

MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER Oporornis tolmiei %Status 1 & 2: 15.39

11.63

3.76

42.46

41.39

0.76

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX12010

1,667

671

872

78,433

4,324

10,164

2,084

20,942

6,163

105,873 2,102

11,335

503

0

1,298

130

147,900

5,102

90,142

2

496

9,991

0

1,315,455

27,309

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 132,979 79,977 11,838 16,572 2,102 149,329 95,246 1,325,941 28,976

Total (ha & %)

39,066

32,926

426,535

1,317,124

27,309

1,842,960

COMMON YELLOWTHROAT Geothlypis trichas %Status 1 & 2: 3.90

2.12

1.79

23.14

71.47

1.48

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX16020

0

456

1,149

6,364

1,233

424

2

83,513

16,140

185,500 574

27,487

0

0

3,245

44

9,688

2,854

8,346

0

318

2,576

0

104,689

2,051

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 285,152 7,969 27,487 1,660 574 12,977 11,200 107,583 2,051

Total (ha & %)

116,252

23,186

210,475

104,689

2,051

456,654

WILSON'S WARBLER Wilsonia pusilla %Status 1 & 2: 30.54

25.46

5.08

46.09

22.93

0.45

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX24010

1,557

272

279

22,887

816

4,240

399

3,165

1,643

33,331 740

9,927

297

0

130

63

95,742

2,338

35,190

2

343

4,432

0

591,553

13,341

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 38,138 23,438 10,225 5,455 740 95,936 37,531 596,328 14,898

Total (ha & %)

14,653

13,294

188,288

593,112

13,341

822,687

YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT Icteria virens %Status 1 & 2: 3.40

1.78

1.62

22.89

72.09

1.62

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX45050

65

3,123

12,554

233,469

1,242

38,058

851

529,306

154,810

2,586,738 1,945

187,193

2,480

5

30,343

1,092

221,414

24,441

199,136

10

680

21,814

0

1,607,137

9,854

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,270,855 249,145 189,679 40,150 1,945 252,850 223,587 1,629,632 9,918

Total (ha & %)

751,887

255,250

3,243,558

1,607,212

9,854

5,867,760

WESTERN TANAGER Piranga ludoviciana %Status 1 & 2: 17.17

12.81

4.35

55.28

27.39

0.17

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX61040

1,598

367

586

31,515

2,615

5,081

610

15,907

6,748

134,356 897

18,237

507

0

702

151

114,663

4,926

46,636

3

513

6,926

0

729,201

16,543

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 157,011 32,468 18,744 8,307 897 115,516 51,565 736,639 18,142

Total (ha & %)

38,341

24,925

328,678

730,802

16,543

1,139,289

BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK Pheucticus melanocephalus %Status 1 & 2: 5.55

3.37

2.19

28.85

64.15

1.45

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX64020

2,104

3,066

15,046

848,703

10,328

82,240

6,090

106,492

21,521

395,687 10,768

49,909

5,054

18

2,434

318

503,078

23,830

494,000

8

1,309

39,987

12

5,327,205

62,882

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 523,700 866,814 54,981 98,659 10,768 505,830 517,839 5,368,513 64,986

Total (ha & %)

173,538

187,997

2,258,357

5,329,317

62,882

8,012,091

LAZULI BUNTING Passerina amoena %Status 1 & 2: 4.51

2.17

2.35

28.19

66.52

0.79

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX64030

1,719

1,861

1,832

115,976

589

29,622

562

13,541

5,612

64,770 1,749

991

170

0

0

0

182,232

4,721

77,896

0

1,038

3,367

0

1,079,932

12,429

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 83,922 119,669 1,162 30,773 1,749 182,232 82,617 1,084,337 14,148

Total (ha & %)

18,021

45,324

443,185

1,081,651

12,429

1,600,610

INDIGO BUNTING Passerina cyanea %Status 1 & 2: 3.96

1.13

2.83

27.69

67.58

0.78

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX65010

365

22

0

90,192

1,142

25,480

2,011

6

0

6,200 810

4

81

0

0

0

66,009

242

66,550

0

6

13

0

782,335

4,437

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,206 90,214 85 28,634 810 66,009 66,792 782,355 4,802

Total (ha & %)

1,181

25,816

231,771

782,700

4,437

1,045,905

DICKCISSEL Spiza americana %Status 1 & 2: 2.58

0.11

2.47

22.16

74.84

0.42

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX74010

18

203

19,024

528,062

4,039

95,169

645

11,250

2,187

114,753 117

3,176

5,719

0

0

0

111,221

7,414

190,612

0

2

7,517

15

1,488,466

7,845

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 128,190 547,289 8,895 99,854 117 111,221 198,026 1,496,000 7,863

Total (ha & %)

18,671

137,030

945,425

1,488,484

7,845

2,597,454

GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE Pipilo chlorurus %Status 1 & 2: 5.99

0.72

5.27

36.40

57.31

0.30

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX74080

1,356

2,318

33,044

758,189

4,695

151,160

1,552

17,689

8,004

204,859 9,357

16,000

3,998

4

3,214

114

225,216

9,651

263,632

2

555

14,814

0

2,923,375

26,638

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 230,551 793,551 20,002 157,406 9,357 228,545 273,285 2,938,744 27,994

Total (ha & %)

44,471

220,785

1,462,809

2,924,733

26,638

4,679,436

SPOTTED TOWHEE Pipilo maculatus %Status 1 & 2: 5.67

0.95

4.72

31.26

62.50

0.57

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX94010

2,088

5,514

22,243

1,711,332

13,353

153,093

12,544

71,453

22,969

562,078 17,426

34,924

2,465

62

3,503

322

1,244,109

36,793

1,203,812

49

4,227

74,552

1

11,645,330

42,091

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 656,500 1,739,089 37,451 178,991 17,426 1,247,934 1,240,654 11,724,110 44,179

Total (ha & %)

132,974

312,438

4,751,364

11,647,467

42,091

16,886,334

AMERICAN TREE SPARROW Spizella arborea %Status 1 & 2: 2.64

0.79

1.85

28.14

68.98

0.25

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX94020

1,099

3,109

17,938

304,653

2,476

84,323

1,045

417,374

115,677

2,114,469 1,976

158,775

4,474

5

25,070

1,100

342,536

27,333

235,985

11

1,635

25,590

0

2,176,143

20,099

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,647,520 325,700 163,255 87,844 1,976 368,706 263,329 2,203,368 21,199

Total (ha & %)

608,440

276,435

3,000,668

2,177,253

20,099

6,082,896

CHIPPING SPARROW Spizella passerina %Status 1 & 2: 14.55

10.00

4.55

49.33

35.79

0.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX94030

2,014

5,897

29,691

2,197,975

16,178

218,284

13,657

69,828

19,838

593,497 18,656

29,863

5,964

62

2,904

356

1,271,199

39,128

1,339,496

20

4,225

81,376

0

12,566,983

47,788

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 683,162 2,233,563 35,889 248,120 18,656 1,274,459 1,378,644 12,652,584 49,801

Total (ha & %)

128,894

394,637

5,434,543

12,569,017

47,788

18,574,880

CLAY-COLORED SPARROW Spizella pallida %Status 1 & 2: 2.82

0.70

2.13

29.26

67.67

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX94040

18

970

17,662

945,166

4,318

102,270

1,569

12,590

3,217

139,604 7,548

3,018

4,429

0

112

1

124,700

8,620

298,673

0

140

9,875

15

2,386,058

11,587

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 155,410 963,799 7,447 108,157 7,548 124,812 307,293 2,396,088 11,605

Total (ha & %)

21,148

146,073

1,517,274

2,386,076

11,587

4,082,159

BREWER'S SPARROW Spizella breweri %Status 1 & 2: 4.10

0.52

3.58

37.17

58.45

0.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX94050

1,986

2,274

22,907

692,829

3,704

116,759

2,036

122

0

68,709 9,477

8

0

0

0

0

134,326

3,376

228,030

0

23

25

0

2,464,783

18,447

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 68,831 718,010 8 122,500 9,477 134,326 231,406 2,464,832 20,433

Total (ha & %)

6,132

143,067

1,135,408

2,466,769

18,447

3,769,823

FIELD SPARROW Spizella pusilla %Status 1 & 2: 3.96

0.16

3.80

30.12

65.44

0.49

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX95010

1,379

4,274

41,447

2,421,710

15,551

181,913

13,871

31,383

7,327

408,442 16,709

8,155

10,296

62

623

385

1,218,903

37,620

1,491,370

14

3,383

76,449

16

14,692,167

49,664

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 447,152 2,467,430 18,513 211,335 16,709 1,219,911 1,529,004 14,772,014 51,042

Total (ha & %)

63,369

355,436

5,571,084

14,693,559

49,664

20,733,112

VESPER SPARROW Pooecetes gramineus %Status 1 & 2: 2.02

0.31

1.71

26.87

70.87

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX96010

3,616

4,670

45,943

2,590,124

16,530

235,007

15,232

37,200

10,634

529,711 18,099

20,963

10,538

62

1,953

744

1,496,651

42,391

1,658,640

18

3,559

90,611

16

17,767,934

57,688

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 577,545 2,640,737 31,563 266,769 18,099 1,499,348 1,701,049 17,862,120 61,304

Total (ha & %)

84,875

435,868

6,308,535

17,771,568

57,688

24,658,534

LARK SPARROW Chondestes grammacus %Status 1 & 2: 2.11

0.34

1.77

25.58

72.07

0.23

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX98010

2,368

3,930

33,604

2,057,228

9,444

163,886

11,740

24,856

3,466

202,080 18,206

6,512

7,825

62

0

0

1,195,963

19,538

1,373,485

0

3,173

64,807

0

15,198,042

37,316

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 230,401 2,094,762 14,399 185,070 18,206 1,195,963 1,393,023 15,266,022 39,684

Total (ha & %)

47,914

293,126

4,858,764

15,200,410

37,316

20,437,530

LARK BUNTING Calamospiza melanocorys %Status 1 & 2: 1.67

0.24

1.43

23.77

74.38

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBX99010

2,078

3,851

11,109

1,366,967

12,516

91,688

12,793

96,565

24,278

522,144 12,671

25,518

1,202

62

5,075

458

1,110,315

31,488

1,128,712

16

3,239

73,655

1

11,556,114

37,726

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 642,987 1,381,926 26,783 116,997 12,671 1,115,848 1,160,217 11,633,009 39,804

Total (ha & %)

146,764

233,879

4,153,665

11,558,209

37,726

16,130,242

SAVANNAH SPARROW Passerculus sandwichensis %Status 1 & 2: 2.36

0.91

1.45

25.75

71.66

0.23

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA0010

1,881

278

2,022

168,318

2,275

32,816

3,853

1,084

62

32,500 2,048

1,768

173

0

0

0

307,647

1,265

225,782

0

36

3,451

0

3,573,053

20,794

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 33,645 170,618 1,941 38,944 2,048 307,647 227,047 3,576,540 22,674

Total (ha & %)

5,442

39,788

740,147

3,574,933

20,794

4,381,104

BAIRD'S SPARROW Ammodramus bairdii %Status 1 & 2: 1.03

0.12

0.91

16.90

81.60

0.48

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA0020

2,078

3,135

9,640

1,342,509

11,524

91,412

12,793

18,687

5,451

283,576 10,747

6,836

1,194

62

610

458

1,104,671

28,564

1,108,019

16

3,239

70,536

1

11,445,400

37,553

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 307,714 1,355,284 8,093 115,729 10,747 1,105,738 1,136,599 11,519,176 39,632

Total (ha & %)

44,031

207,255

3,862,379

11,447,495

37,553

15,598,712

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW Ammodramus savannarum %Status 1 & 2: 1.61

0.28

1.33

24.76

73.39

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA0040

340

0

0

4,402

236

5,396

1,398

7,741

168

17,138 6

16,388

3

0

0

0

28,152

46

23,884

0

4

11

0

225,915

1,432

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 25,048 4,402 16,391 7,030 6 28,152 23,931 225,929 1,772

Total (ha & %)

24,369

5,625

74,981

226,255

1,432

332,661

LE CONTE'S SPARROW Ammodramus leconteii %Status 1 & 2: 9.02

7.33

1.69

22.54

68.01

0.43

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA0070

18

0

0

440

38

875

456

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

4,658

24

1,602

0

19

18

0

26,654

1,744

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 440 0 1,369 0 4,658 1,626 26,690 1,762

Total (ha & %)

57

917

7,156

26,672

1,744

36,545

NELSON’S SHARP-TAILED SPARROW Ammodramus nelsoni %Status 1 & 2: 2.66

0.16

2.51

19.58

72.98

4.77

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA2010

0

2,893

2,365

41,380

2,706

793

6

306,078

76,731

842,672 2,581

88,795

0

0

17,003

0

36,317

10,640

43,151

0

157

10,529

0

335,054

2,105

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,225,481 46,638 88,795 3,506 2,581 53,320 53,791 345,740 2,105

Total (ha & %)

417,631

101,059

966,108

335,054

2,105

1,821,957

FOX SPARROW Passerella iliaca %Status 1 & 2: 28.47

22.92

5.55

53.03

18.39

0.12

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA3010

1,620

685

1,432

57,524

3,055

10,606

1,004

28,065

11,547

207,063 1,347

27,453

846

4

2,014

262

144,065

7,770

69,726

9

755

11,125

0

1,055,649

22,162

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 246,674 59,641 28,304 14,666 1,347 146,340 77,504 1,067,529 23,782

Total (ha & %)

62,027

43,588

480,733

1,057,278

22,162

1,665,788

SONG SPARROW Melospiza melodia %Status 1 & 2: 6.34

3.72

2.62

28.86

63.47

1.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA3020

12

717

1,656

23,726

2,091

770

83

141,673

35,288

429,248 1,145

47,354

160

0

5,842

41

39,347

6,977

30,087

0

514

8,246

0

325,468

5,749

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 606,209 26,098 47,514 2,944 1,145 45,230 37,063 334,228 5,761

Total (ha & %)

198,192

53,137

523,635

325,480

5,749

1,106,192

LINCOLN'S SPARROW Melospiza lincolnii %Status 1 & 2: 22.72

17.92

4.80

47.34

29.42

0.52

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA4020

27

215

366

35,846

184

7,037

667

25,979

9,768

191,125 179

39,186

1,048

4

680

62

143,619

2,765

54,865

38

15

8,770

0

973,695

8,059

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 226,872 36,427 40,238 7,889 179 144,361 57,668 982,480 8,085

Total (ha & %)

66,259

29,816

426,305

973,759

8,059

1,504,198

WHITE-THROATED SPARROW Zonotrichia albicollis %Status 1 & 2: 6.39

4.40

1.98

28.34

64.74

0.54

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA4040

2

855

1,741

29,091

2,198

697

3

220,538

40,918

353,388 2,023

68,614

34

0

6,480

1

29,107

7,518

27,706

0

234

5,975

0

218,706

1,581

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 614,843 31,687 68,648 2,898 2,023 35,588 35,224 224,915 1,584

Total (ha & %)

298,919

56,885

441,318

218,708

1,581

1,017,411

WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia leucophrys %Status 1 & 2: 34.97

29.38

5.59

43.38

21.50

0.16

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA4050

1,793

1,813

1,045

113,590

2,710

17,032

2,877

50,459

15,942

209,843 2,913

26,055

459

0

2,756

149

215,364

9,537

139,310

34

861

10,136

0

2,008,769

18,013

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 276,245 116,448 26,515 22,619 2,913 218,269 148,881 2,019,767 19,806

Total (ha & %)

84,654

54,301

683,898

2,010,597

18,013

2,851,462

HARRIS'S SPARROW Zonotrichia querula %Status 1 & 2: 4.87

2.97

1.90

23.99

70.51

0.63

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA5020

105

4,734

21,420

650,586

6,762

34,691

1,755

769,950

206,335

3,241,206 7,623

249,194

8,558

5

37,512

1,131

444,463

41,522

417,788

11

1,878

40,926

15

3,390,086

20,839

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,217,490 676,739 257,757 43,209 7,623 483,106 459,321 3,432,905 20,944

Total (ha & %)

1,070,029

354,582

4,763,441

3,390,202

20,839

9,599,093

DARK-EYED JUNCO Junco hyemalis %Status 1 & 2: 14.84

11.15

3.69

49.62

35.32

0.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA6010

1,089

2,931

16,524

1,401,647

9,999

67,663

10,362

14,003

3,596

183,055 10,141

4,437

3,366

62

0

0

961,092

22,124

1,140,509

0

3,044

54,932

1

11,552,816

24,084

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 200,655 1,421,102 7,865 88,024 10,141 961,092 1,162,633 11,610,793 25,173

Total (ha & %)

34,415

168,205

3,706,869

11,553,905

24,084

15,487,478

MCCOWN'S LONGSPUR Calcarius mccownii %Status 1 & 2: 1.31

0.22

1.09

23.93

74.60

0.16

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA6020

2,336

3,276

17,010

1,440,055

10,242

74,237

12,474

32,441

10,170

290,089 10,873

5,689

3,425

62

884

650

1,085,778

29,499

1,244,417

15

3,419

67,124

1

13,958,928

30,636

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 332,700 1,460,341 9,177 96,952 10,873 1,087,312 1,273,931 14,029,472 32,972

Total (ha & %)

55,951

202,115

4,083,748

13,961,279

30,636

18,333,730

LAPLAND LONGSPUR Calcarius lapponicus %Status 1 & 2: 1.41

0.31

1.10

22.27

76.15

0.17

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA6040

1,089

2,931

16,524

1,401,647

9,999

67,663

10,362

14,003

3,596

183,055 10,141

4,437

3,366

62

0

0

961,092

22,124

1,140,509

0

3,044

54,932

1

11,552,816

24,084

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 200,655 1,421,102 7,865 88,024 10,141 961,092 1,162,633 11,610,793 25,173

Total (ha & %)

34,415

168,205

3,706,869

11,553,905

24,084

15,487,478

CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR Calcarius ornatus %Status 1 & 2: 1.31

0.22

1.09

23.93

74.60

0.16

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA8010

2,398

3,417

18,310

1,462,737

11,365

95,045

13,364

33,468

10,285

282,089 11,590

7,537

3,533

62

888

684

1,211,967

29,034

1,275,759

16

3,436

72,329

1

14,452,959

34,051

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 325,842 1,484,464 11,133 119,775 11,590 1,213,539 1,304,809 14,528,725 36,449

Total (ha & %)

60,110

229,221

4,257,569

14,455,374

34,051

19,036,324

SNOW BUNTING Plectrophenax nivalis %Status 1 & 2: 1.52

0.32

1.21

22.37

75.94

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXA9010

2,067

3,106

9,474

1,294,630

7,130

89,616

12,758

17,999

4,715

246,521 10,545

6,397

1,173

62

610

458

1,062,289

27,203

1,072,616

16

3,222

69,236

0

11,202,682

36,175

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 269,235 1,307,210 7,633 109,504 10,545 1,063,357 1,099,835 11,275,140 38,242

Total (ha & %)

38,464

201,874

3,699,422

11,204,765

36,175

15,180,700

BOBOLINK Dolichonyx oryzivorus %Status 1 & 2: 1.58

0.25

1.33

24.37

73.81

0.24

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB0010

2,036

455

1,290

145,071

4,709

27,879

4,450

6,716

2,117

68,074 2,230

6,236

517

0

230

370

289,184

5,802

181,306

3

291

16,572

0

3,187,276

28,463

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 76,907 146,817 6,753 37,037 2,230 289,784 187,112 3,204,138 30,498

Total (ha & %)

18,636

54,547

690,315

3,189,314

28,463

3,981,276

RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD Agelaius phoeniceus %Status 1 & 2: 1.84

0.47

1.37

17.34

80.11

0.72

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB2030

2,695

3,468

18,683

2,066,485

15,836

150,363

15,179

31,071

7,289

441,268 14,665

9,850

5,450

62

615

515

1,410,745

37,003

1,495,062

16

3,391

82,580

16

16,399,953

49,328

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 479,628 2,088,636 15,362 181,377 14,665 1,411,875 1,532,082 16,485,941 52,023

Total (ha & %)

64,231

301,883

5,443,483

16,402,664

49,328

22,261,588

WESTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella neglecta %Status 1 & 2: 1.64

0.29

1.36

24.45

73.68

0.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB3010

399

166

206

47,589

6,894

21,603

2,693

11,105

1,547

24,345 958

5,201

663

0

800

353

73,088

3,353

47,422

0

962

3,966

0

636,157

120,628

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 36,998 47,961 5,864 31,190 958 74,241 50,775 641,085 121,027

Total (ha & %)

25,129

31,690

196,096

636,556

120,628

1,010,098

YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus %Status 1 & 2: 5.62

2.49

3.14

19.41

63.02

11.94

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB5010

510

6

229

22,597

468

982

1,293

545

165

3,877 531

803

176

0

0

0

142,051

1,230

165,504

2

115

4,879

0

3,290,183

7,683

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,588 22,833 978 2,743 531 142,051 166,737 3,295,176 8,193

Total (ha & %)

1,938

7,661

335,854

3,290,695

7,683

3,643,830

RUSTY BLACKBIRD Euphagus carolinus %Status 1 & 2: 0.26

0.05

0.21

9.22

90.31

0.21

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB5020

3,510

525

10,751

679,707

6,770

89,919

5,248

17,394

3,809

154,440 6,053

7,523

3,921

0

340

411

429,392

14,275

503,891

32

468

20,337

15

7,641,697

32,080

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 175,644 690,983 11,444 101,937 6,053 430,143 518,199 7,662,517 35,590

Total (ha & %)

33,020

143,423

1,778,747

7,645,239

32,080

9,632,509

BREWER'S BLACKBIRD Euphagus cyanocephalus %Status 1 & 2: 1.83

0.34

1.49

18.47

79.37

0.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB6070

3,477

328

539

47,876

1,935

5,342

2,075

5,434

1,528

41,834 3,600

13,828

262

0

124

395

354,504

4,278

258,980

0

502

10,875

0

5,675,273

22,161

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 48,796 48,743 14,090 9,352 3,600 355,023 263,258 5,686,650 25,637

Total (ha & %)

22,151

23,219

708,869

5,678,750

22,161

6,455,150

COMMON GRACKLE Quiscalus quiscula %Status 1 & 2: 0.70

0.34

0.36

10.98

87.97

0.34

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB7030

4,957

12,311

71,758

3,169,214

24,695

308,632

18,202

264,970

98,952

2,891,567 28,166

132,625

13,423

67

14,773

5,614

1,963,164

83,717

2,039,431

60

6,055

128,144

16

21,606,988

336,557

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,255,490 3,253,283 146,114 351,529 28,166 1,983,551 2,123,208 21,741,203 341,514

Total (ha & %)

455,429

710,239

10,109,828

21,612,005

336,557

33,224,056

BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD Molothrus ater %Status 1 & 2: 3.51

1.37

2.14

30.43

65.05

1.01

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB9070

903

2

16

4,430

66

654

30

0

1

653 193

5

0

0

0

0

5,450

255

4,943

0

0

0

0

70,907

2,705

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 654 4,449 5 750 193 5,450 5,198 70,907 3,609

Total (ha & %)

73

927

15,699

71,811

2,705

91,214

ORCHARD ORIOLE Icterus spurius %Status 1 & 2: 1.10

0.08

1.02

17.21

78.73

2.97

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBXB9220

2,279

122

307

14,736

778

3,940

937

5,096

2,081

54,409 1,301

12,783

234

0

158

315

127,108

4,091

56,941

24

171

7,224

0

1,577,388

13,169

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 61,585 15,164 13,018 5,655 1,301 127,581 61,055 1,584,783 15,448

Total (ha & %)

19,107

18,192

255,430

1,579,691

13,169

1,885,589

BULLOCK’S ORIOLE Icterus bullockii %Status 1 & 2: 1.98

1.01

0.96

13.55

83.78

0.70

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY02010

0

0

179

598

6

0

0

132,113

17,918

51,399 35

774

0

0

0

0

0

106

79

0

0

0

0

8,387

194

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 201,431 777 774 6 35 0 185 8,387 194

Total (ha & %)

132,893

18,203

52,111

8,387

194

211,789

BLACK ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte atrata %Status 1 & 2: 71.34

62.75

8.60

24.60

3.96

0.09

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY02030

0

242

0

96

0

0

0

87,201

12,250

48,524 0

72,662

0

0

6,002

0

1,273

594

155

0

0

22

0

7,977

91

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 147,975 338 72,662 0 0 7,275 748 7,999 91

Total (ha & %)

166,107

12,866

50,047

7,977

91

237,088

GRAY-CROWNED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte tephrocotis %Status 1 & 2: 75.49

70.06

5.43

21.11

3.37

0.04

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY03010

0

3,597

11,873

135,954

1,640

1,901

623

721,074

203,640

3,445,849 3,973

256,069

1,922

1

50,853

4,850

162,344

25,031

204,512

9

783

22,276

0

1,313,383

5,929

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,370,563 151,424 257,991 4,164 3,973 218,048 229,552 1,336,442 5,929

Total (ha & %)

1,034,017

271,494

3,953,255

1,313,392

5,929

6,578,089

PINE GROSBEAK Pinicola enucleator %Status 1 & 2: 19.85

15.72

4.13

60.10

19.97

0.09

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY04020

1,072

33

433

13,625

1,246

4,550

414

35,841

13,856

366,955 635

63,729

1,405

0

6,276

536

93,252

4,045

53,961

36

86

5,008

0

527,326

10,140

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 416,652 14,092 65,135 6,209 635 100,064 58,043 532,420 11,213

Total (ha & %)

107,211

29,834

528,843

528,435

10,140

1,204,463

PURPLE FINCH Carpodacus purpureus %Status 1 & 2: 11.38

8.90

2.48

43.91

43.87

0.84

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY04030

55

794

2,870

49,237

115

284

109

152,900

33,565

333,974 68

62,522

54

5

4,715

8

76,351

7,923

37,177

0

248

8,842

0

442,861

1,827

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 520,438 52,900 62,581 508 68 81,074 45,099 451,951 1,882

Total (ha & %)

221,294

53,545

496,920

442,916

1,827

1,216,502

CASSIN'S FINCH Carpodacus cassinii %Status 1 & 2: 22.59

18.19

4.40

40.85

36.41

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY04040

117

2,768

20,632

576,038

4,267

107,871

2,229

43,491

23,201

717,943 9,204

36,704

3,617

5

8,218

783

501,916

16,326

402,604

38

1,556

24,184

0

5,794,519

28,834

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 784,634 599,437 40,326 114,367 9,204 510,917 418,968 5,820,259 28,950

Total (ha & %)

97,003

196,615

2,209,938

5,794,674

28,834

8,327,064

HOUSE FINCH Carpodacus mexicanus %Status 1 & 2: 3.53

1.17

2.36

26.54

69.59

0.35

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY05010

80

3,263

12,852

267,466

1,813

42,483

958

472,721

149,928

2,628,337 2,095

177,752

2,419

5

30,343

1,092

323,807

23,404

226,866

10

794

24,758

0

2,020,040

13,098

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,250,985 283,582 180,176 45,254 2,095 355,243 250,280 2,045,593 13,178

Total (ha & %)

686,686

256,936

3,449,534

2,020,130

13,098

6,426,385

RED CROSSBILL Loxia curvirostra %Status 1 & 2: 14.68

10.69

4.00

53.68

31.44

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY05020

6

1,002

6,488

28,496

644

782

215

394,663

100,306

1,664,703 2,678

163,208

1,487

0

33,699

4,042

81,601

7,134

92,823

6

267

3,760

0

399,895

1,980

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,159,671 35,986 164,695 1,641 2,678 119,342 99,962 403,922 1,986

Total (ha & %)

593,483

123,999

1,870,515

399,907

1,980

2,989,884

WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL Loxia leucoptera %Status 1 & 2: 24.00

19.85

4.15

62.56

13.38

0.07

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY06010

2,769

2,492

17,944

516,519

5,477

105,715

5,297

49,773

16,284

263,687 9,318

18,574

1,220

0

2,748

455

587,813

12,290

489,191

34

1,026

17,745

0

8,339,992

25,706

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 329,745 536,955 19,794 116,489 9,318 591,016 501,516 8,358,762 28,475

Total (ha & %)

80,091

171,653

1,871,826

8,342,794

25,706

10,492,070

COMMON REDPOLL Carduelis flammea %Status 1 & 2: 2.40

0.76

1.64

17.84

79.52

0.25

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY06020

2,705

2,492

13,038

205,734

3,556

8,484

4,402

44,826

14,392

209,958 7,945

18,466

1,196

0

2,748

455

534,990

10,696

303,151

6

1,026

15,439

0

5,162,622

12,922

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 269,176 221,264 19,663 16,442 7,945 538,194 313,852 5,179,087 15,627

Total (ha & %)

73,115

63,701

1,266,180

5,165,332

12,922

6,581,250

HOARY REDPOLL Carduelis hornemanni %Status 1 & 2: 2.08

1.11

0.97

19.24

78.49

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY06030

69

3,529

13,124

247,466

2,388

38,768

1,055

661,627

180,966

2,755,285 4,203

212,515

2,641

5

32,888

1,124

246,873

27,137

221,234

39

865

23,969

0

2,005,385

14,715

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,597,878 264,119 215,160 42,211 4,203 280,886 248,411 2,030,219 14,784

Total (ha & %)

913,813

287,729

3,476,122

2,005,493

14,715

6,697,871

PINE SISKIN Carduelis pinus %Status 1 & 2: 17.94

13.64

4.30

51.90

29.94

0.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY06110

3,086

1,852

2,225

185,132

2,553

35,699

3,108

28,776

12,254

235,962 4,175

30,033

695

0

1,917

511

456,222

9,731

236,989

36

1,092

20,232

0

4,239,923

25,838

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 276,992 189,209 30,728 41,360 4,175 458,650 246,756 4,261,247 28,924

Total (ha & %)

66,223

81,347

1,121,588

4,243,045

25,838

5,538,041

AMERICAN GOLDFINCH Carduelis tristis %Status 1 & 2: 2.67

1.20

1.47

20.25

76.62

0.47

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBY09020

61

3,059

11,610

195,432

890

23,067

678

452,563

144,513

2,437,024 3,048

156,156

2,052

5

29,749

1,051

208,431

21,045

184,158

37

640

20,995

0

1,560,705

6,960

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,034,100 210,101 158,212 24,635 3,048 239,231 205,241 1,582,340 7,021

Total (ha & %)

643,057

224,334

3,028,776

1,560,803

6,960

5,463,931

EVENING GROSBEAK Coccothraustes vespertinus %Status 1 & 2: 15.87

11.77

4.11

55.43

28.57

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

ABPBZ01010

2,186

111

414

35,496

1,897

4,440

2,067

3,164

2,040

57,794 4,078

14,960

156

67

0

332

305,274

5,945

252,729

62

227

8,835

0

5,669,002

25,595

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 62,997 36,021 15,183 8,405 4,078 305,606 258,736 5,678,064 27,781

Total (ha & %)

20,359

22,162

657,505

5,671,250

25,595

6,396,871

HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus %Status 1 & 2: 0.66

0.32

0.35

10.28

88.66

0.40

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01010

54

4,636

20,591

572,493

10,207

10,811

6,459

673,114

181,455

3,201,409 6,448

226,456

9,261

63

43,704

4,880

518,310

50,102

588,586

27

2,184

81,767

16

4,749,338

19,527

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,055,979 597,720 235,780 27,477 6,448 566,894 638,714 4,833,305 19,581

Total (ha & %)

960,300

358,867

4,893,784

4,749,419

19,527

10,981,895

MASKED SHREW Sorex cinereus %Status 1 & 2: 12.01

8.74

3.27

44.56

43.25

0.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01030

0

0

62

116,720

2,007

22,656

2

4,798

276

15,547 1

625

0

0

0

0

31,055

1,954

31,899

0

0

278

0

273,670

914

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 20,622 116,782 625 24,665 1 31,055 33,852 273,948 914

Total (ha & %)

7,431

25,225

195,225

273,670

914

502,464

PREBLE'S SHREW Sorex preblei %Status 1 & 2: 6.50

1.48

5.02

38.85

54.47

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01070

19

1,187

4,486

80,713

4,676

3,394

1,987

184,475

47,032

776,212 2,169

70,463

1,642

13

11,208

1,741

141,186

14,315

134,109

11

487

23,936

1

1,363,286

18,721

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,007,719 86,386 72,118 10,057 2,169 154,135 148,436 1,387,709 18,739

Total (ha & %)

272,495

96,545

1,136,390

1,363,316

18,721

2,887,467

VAGRANT SHREW Sorex vagrans %Status 1 & 2: 12.78

9.44

3.34

39.36

47.22

0.65

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01080

6

1,402

7,521

45,355

3,805

2,050

650

574,934

133,069

1,808,953 3,419

193,605

2,049

0

36,242

3,934

127,981

11,203

113,935

9

182

9,970

0

810,244

9,483

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,516,956 54,278 195,655 6,505 3,419 168,157 125,147 820,396 9,490

Total (ha & %)

810,171

169,797

2,100,292

810,259

9,483

3,900,002

DUSKY OR MONTANE SHREW Sorex monticolus %Status 1 & 2: 25.13

20.77

4.36

53.85

20.78

0.24

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01130

0

0

335

5,383

120

365

30

52,892

1,656

45,067 0

0

0

0

0

0

2,121

5

3,945

0

0

5

0

49,984

627

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 99,615 5,718 0 514 0 2,121 3,950 49,989 627

Total (ha & %)

53,012

2,364

56,546

49,984

627

162,534

DWARF SHREW Sorex nanus %Status 1 & 2: 34.07

32.62

1.46

34.79

30.75

0.39

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01150

11

642

3,924

76,824

2,911

3,013

1,192

107,661

25,355

391,155 1,218

41,850

2,487

8

5,962

1,012

69,121

8,753

85,152

5

220

15,392

6

921,882

52,702

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 524,170 81,389 44,345 7,116 1,218 76,095 93,910 937,499 52,713

Total (ha & %)

159,245

59,934

624,675

921,898

52,702

1,818,455

WATER SHREW Sorex palustris %Status 1 & 2: 12.05

8.76

3.30

34.35

50.70

2.90

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01230

98

0

31,388

840,618

1,043

37,894

4,357

529

228

193,894 15,903

269

9,798

0

0

0

590,688

3,706

459,443

0

0

14,153

0

4,880,731

8,749

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 194,651 872,006 10,067 43,295 15,903 590,688 463,148 4,894,884 8,847

Total (ha & %)

1,841

97,168

2,104,902

4,880,829

8,749

7,093,489

MERRIAM'S SHREW Sorex merriami %Status 1 & 2: 1.40

0.03

1.37

29.67

68.81

0.12

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01250

0

0

0

8

164

0

159

28,079

5,250

394,712 2

93,420

1,206

0

4,099

1,858

17,185

173

49,231

0

135

232

0

132,592

955

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 428,040 8 94,626 323 2 23,142 49,404 132,960 955

Total (ha & %)

125,897

8,720

461,297

132,592

955

729,460

PYGMY SHREW Sorex hoyi %Status 1 & 2: 18.46

17.26

1.20

63.24

18.18

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMABA01280

1,847

2,522

15,078

1,339,462

7,295

82,076

9,739

701

342

129,714 10,598

189

3,641

0

0

0

750,762

5,750

881,999

0

409

17,705

0

8,052,217

35,403

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 130,757 1,357,063 3,830 99,110 10,598 750,762 887,749 8,070,331 37,249

Total (ha & %)

11,116

124,592

3,122,275

8,054,063

35,403

11,347,449

HAYDEN'S SHREW Sorex haydeni %Status 1 & 2: 1.20

0.10

1.10

27.52

70.98

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01010

4,261

7,360

25,308

1,555,463

17,315

135,606

13,052

637,061

183,118

3,218,554 17,938

229,154

6,230

67

35,848

1,776

1,579,191

61,231

1,456,861

57

4,476

102,720

1

16,368,436

372,458

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,038,732 1,588,131 235,451 165,973 17,938 1,616,816 1,518,149 16,475,633 376,720

Total (ha & %)

931,215

515,989

7,841,127

16,372,754

372,458

26,033,542

LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS Myotis lucifugus %Status 1 & 2: 5.56

3.58

1.98

30.12

62.89

1.43

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01020

0

2

113

7,097

222

1,760

744

25,468

9,881

162,088 438

15,891

553

0

3,532

558

30,085

6,282

29,956

7

92

4,666

0

353,868

39,436

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 197,438 7,212 16,444 2,726 438 34,176 36,246 358,626 39,436

Total (ha & %)

45,208

23,813

230,409

353,875

39,436

692,742

YUMA MYOTIS Myotis yumanensis %Status 1 & 2: 9.96

6.53

3.44

33.26

51.08

5.69

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01070

3,370

9,064

56,152

1,650,608

12,731

211,860

4,715

897,529

250,691

4,422,660 19,591

303,449

10,257

5

60,594

5,379

866,529

52,472

830,584

17

2,673

59,095

15

8,646,505

59,208

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,570,880 1,715,824 313,711 229,305 19,591 932,502 883,073 8,708,289 62,578

Total (ha & %)

1,286,039

645,906

7,794,707

8,649,892

59,208

18,435,752

LONG-EARED MYOTIS Myotis evotis %Status 1 & 2: 10.48

6.98

3.51

42.28

46.92

0.32

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01090

0

2,318

7,940

454,607

5,926

7,395

1,186

127,210

89,886

1,339,375 1,658

7,293

0

0

11,103

852

22,829

36,538

318,940

0

28

72,642

16

2,148,941

4,517

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,556,470 464,865 7,293 14,507 1,658 34,785 355,478 2,221,626 4,517

Total (ha & %)

153,878

215,253

2,138,611

2,148,941

4,517

4,661,200

FRINGED MYOTIS Myotis thysanodes %Status 1 & 2: 7.92

3.30

4.62

45.88

46.10

0.10

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01110

2,993

5,639

22,466

374,044

7,019

47,694

3,221

976,760

258,171

4,201,147 10,161

306,553

3,047

5

61,097

5,307

511,208

38,035

416,422

42

1,905

41,197

0

4,915,220

38,584

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,436,078 402,150 309,605 57,934 10,161 577,613 454,499 4,958,323 41,577

Total (ha & %)

1,358,973

415,918

5,516,209

4,918,255

38,584

12,247,939

LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS Myotis volans %Status 1 & 2: 14.49

11.10

3.40

45.04

40.16

0.32

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01120

0

6

2,800

102,326

300

5,436

1,519

14,240

9,445

199,510 1,093

1,045

234

0

2,693

637

33,225

20,910

135,236

46

326

15,503

0

1,381,694

4,243

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 223,196 105,132 1,279 7,254 1,093 36,555 156,192 1,397,524 4,243

Total (ha & %)

18,610

54,967

472,909

1,381,740

4,243

1,932,468

CALIFORNIA MYOTIS Myotis californicus %Status 1 & 2: 3.81

0.96

2.84

24.47

71.50

0.22

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01140

313

4,772

48,327

2,251,312

13,613

224,555

9,402

46,759

13,045

708,402 17,582

9,922

10,485

66

4,139

550

1,070,133

39,160

1,272,245

0

3,050

85,270

16

11,351,398

37,846

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 768,206 2,304,410 20,474 247,571 17,582 1,074,822 1,311,405 11,439,734 38,159

Total (ha & %)

82,255

421,393

5,329,158

11,351,711

37,846

17,222,362

WESTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS Myotis ciliolabrum %Status 1 & 2: 2.93

0.48

2.45

30.94

65.91

0.22

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC01150

905

264

0

30,606

4

220

22

0

0

26 1

5

0

0

0

0

3,196

231

10,748

0

0

0

0

81,347

1,431

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 26 30,870 5 245 1 3,196 10,979 81,347 2,336

Total (ha & %)

273

450

44,599

82,252

1,431

129,005

NORTHERN MYOTIS Myotis septentrionalis %Status 1 & 2: 0.56

0.21

0.35

34.57

63.76

1.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC02010

2,343

5,097

21,777

329,413

3,971

44,008

2,123

832,192

230,477

3,996,820 7,632

268,283

2,779

5

57,948

5,261

418,185

35,150

368,875

41

1,700

35,757

0

4,161,318

22,432

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,059,489 356,287 271,067 50,102 7,632 481,394 404,066 4,198,774 24,775

Total (ha & %)

1,169,191

375,209

5,123,052

4,163,702

22,432

10,853,587

SILVER-HAIRED BAT Lasionycteris noctivagans %Status 1 & 2: 14.23

10.77

3.46

47.20

38.36

0.21

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC04010

2,841

7,262

23,841

1,529,683

12,992

122,945

11,157

523,953

163,827

3,245,545 14,897

186,366

3,487

67

40,429

5,166

1,288,049

53,990

1,270,110

56

4,218

95,626

1

12,365,033

44,176

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,933,325 1,560,786 189,920 147,094 14,897 1,333,644 1,324,156 12,464,878 47,017

Total (ha & %)

775,219

468,881

7,359,509

12,367,930

44,176

21,015,716

BIG BROWN BAT Eptesicus fuscus %Status 1 & 2: 5.92

3.69

2.23

35.02

58.85

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC05030

2,607

5,394

26,709

871,070

7,049

82,178

3,051

841,801

234,116

4,149,948 10,141

284,902

6,372

5

57,853

5,262

525,104

43,398

553,861

41

1,776

45,452

15

5,443,849

30,825

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,225,865 903,173 291,279 92,278 10,141 588,218 597,300 5,491,092 33,432

Total (ha & %)

1,198,776

443,486

6,113,195

5,446,497

30,825

13,232,779

HOARY BAT Lasiurus cinereus %Status 1 & 2: 12.41

9.06

3.35

46.20

41.16

0.23

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC07010

23

0

6,316

129,306

0

124

3,692

464

293

114,319 0

0

10,460

0

0

0

263,627

77

83,015

0

0

554

0

1,009,499

2,493

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 115,077 135,622 10,460 3,816 0 263,627 83,092 1,010,053 2,516

Total (ha & %)

464

17,823

593,960

1,009,522

2,493

1,624,262

SPOTTED BAT Euderma maculatum %Status 1 & 2: 1.13

0.03

1.10

36.57

62.15

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC08010

1,480

8,441

48,417

932,183

8,852

140,173

2,151

966,349

237,148

3,368,055 15,733

303,025

5,249

5

47,440

879

570,555

38,776

544,998

10

2,189

37,895

0

6,980,272

39,882

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,571,552 989,041 308,279 151,177 15,733 618,874 583,784 7,020,355 41,362

Total (ha & %)

1,336,297

508,537

5,433,681

6,981,761

39,882

14,300,158

TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT Corynorhinus townsendii %Status 1 & 2: 12.90

9.35

3.56

38.00

48.82

0.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMACC10010

8

0

3,920

64,044

0

24

2,934

162

117

30,232 0

0

5,739

0

0

0

110,632

23

40,003

0

0

394

0

565,651

680

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 30,511 67,965 5,739 2,958 0 110,632 40,027 566,045 689

Total (ha & %)

162

10,218

247,845

565,659

680

824,565

PALLID BAT Antrozous pallidus %Status 1 & 2: 1.26

0.02

1.24

30.06

68.60

0.08

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEA01020

0

1,351

8,132

28,971

510

245

53

689,412

128,877

1,204,144 3,242

213,068

538

0

27,110

28

34,504

7,765

33,104

2

46

2,587

0

175,247

3,217

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,022,433 38,454 213,606 808 3,242 61,642 40,872 177,880 3,217

Total (ha & %)

931,498

148,171

1,304,018

175,249

3,217

2,562,153

AMERICAN PIKA Ochotona princeps %Status 1 & 2: 42.14

36.36

5.78

50.90

6.84

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB01040

0

0

0

60,868

0

53

0

0

0

4,605 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

235

18,367

0

0

0

0

187,927

889

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,605 60,868 0 53 0 0 18,602 187,927 889

Total (ha & %)

0

288

83,840

187,927

889

272,945

EASTERN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus floridanus %Status 1 & 2: 0.11

0.00

0.11

30.72

68.85

0.33

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB01060

1,811

3,984

30,191

1,216,571

9,705

190,292

3,814

99,038

33,611

771,441 12,357

21,164

7,016

0

8,751

321

653,311

24,632

547,950

6

1,136

36,571

15

5,549,672

35,525

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 904,090 1,250,747 28,181 203,811 12,357 662,383 572,588 5,587,395 37,336

Total (ha & %)

143,779

322,634

3,205,459

5,551,490

35,525

9,258,887

MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus nuttallii %Status 1 & 2: 5.04

1.55

3.48

34.62

59.96

0.38

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB01070

1,794

4,380

46,287

2,126,518

8,933

234,067

7,318

502

254

126,245 20,939

254

10,571

0

0

0

773,238

8,904

987,431

0

2,509

18,003

0

9,452,775

42,869

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 127,001 2,177,185 10,825 250,318 20,939 773,238 996,336 9,473,287 44,663

Total (ha & %)

16,578

318,086

4,041,689

9,454,569

42,869

13,873,791

DESERT COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus audubonii %Status 1 & 2: 2.41

0.12

2.29

29.13

68.15

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB03010

1,469

5,268

12,329

165,958

3,451

4,360

1,371

906,776

240,801

3,675,177 4,483

295,448

2,547

1

55,124

4,759

249,833

28,369

223,174

15

607

22,922

0

1,638,374

13,709

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,822,754 183,556 297,996 9,181 4,483 309,716 251,558 1,661,903 15,179

Total (ha & %)

1,266,674

316,086

4,319,996

1,639,859

13,709

7,556,324

SNOWSHOE HARE Lepus americanus %Status 1 & 2: 20.95

16.76

4.18

57.17

21.70

0.18

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB03040

888

5,005

49,865

2,671,076

15,661

237,308

12,349

59,405

14,343

428,725 21,294

9,849

8,595

62

757

395

1,248,445

36,390

1,543,280

15

3,198

79,011

16

15,129,989

43,457

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 502,473 2,725,946 18,506 265,318 21,294 1,249,597 1,579,685 15,212,214 44,344

Total (ha & %)

93,874

425,907

5,925,248

15,130,891

43,457

21,619,376

WHITE-TAILED JACKRABBIT Lepus townsendii %Status 1 & 2: 2.40

0.43

1.97

27.41

69.99

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB03050

0

0

213

246,881

5,259

2,256

0

630

1,190

84,981 37

724

0

0

0

0

0

3,730

118,043

0

16

573

16

369,932

1,552

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 86,801 247,094 724 7,514 37 0 121,773 370,537 1,552

Total (ha & %)

6,629

7,961

449,958

369,932

1,552

836,033

BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT Lepus californicus %Status 1 & 2: 1.74

0.79

0.95

53.82

44.25

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAEB04010

0

0

89

173,901

2,330

1,113

0

272

1,240

71,288 8

537

0

0

0

0

0

6,091

74,663

0

2

1,802

15

232,029

466

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 72,800 173,990 537 3,443 8 0 80,754 233,849 466

Total (ha & %)

3,141

10,336

319,875

232,029

466

565,847

PYGMY RABBIT Brachylagus idahoensis %Status 1 & 2: 2.38

0.56

1.83

56.53

41.01

0.08

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB02020

87

2,219

38,030

1,064,435

4,737

181,358

1,520

31,797

4,418

261,091 10,664

7,093

7,365

4

0

0

260,694

8,300

368,774

0

2

15,971

15

3,216,368

16,830

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 297,306 1,104,684 14,463 187,615 10,664 260,694 377,074 3,232,357 16,917

Total (ha & %)

45,848

255,442

1,967,197

3,216,455

16,830

5,501,772

LEAST CHIPMUNK Tamias minimus %Status 1 & 2: 5.48

0.83

4.64

35.76

58.46

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB02030

0

3,808

6,847

372,479

3,179

3,149

1,282

562,493

155,482

2,407,280 2,058

140,890

334

5

25,650

926

117,653

29,476

256,068

8

316

35,939

15

1,905,682

7,116

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,125,255 383,133 141,228 7,611 2,058 144,229 285,552 1,941,952 7,116

Total (ha & %)

736,336

232,152

3,156,840

1,905,690

7,116

6,038,135

YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK Tamias amoenus %Status 1 & 2: 16.04

12.20

3.84

52.28

31.56

0.12

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB02130

0

3,593

10,031

89,513

2,764

2,893

996

564,282

189,129

2,533,734 3,886

247,811

2,040

0

49,685

4,638

168,555

20,283

177,349

13

542

6,530

0

1,052,651

6,036

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,287,144 103,137 249,852 6,653 3,886 222,879 197,645 1,059,723 6,036

Total (ha & %)

868,677

235,545

2,974,034

1,052,664

6,036

5,136,957

RED-TAILED CHIPMUNK Tamias ruficaudus %Status 1 & 2: 21.50

16.91

4.59

57.90

20.49

0.12

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB02190

0

0

23

441

0

0

0

199,806

11,618

145,567 0

24,775

0

0

0

0

0

2,532

923

0

0

961

0

33,560

222

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 356,990 465 24,775 0 0 0 3,455 34,521 222

Total (ha & %)

224,581

15,135

146,931

33,560

222

420,428

UINTA CHIPMUNK Tamias umbrinus %Status 1 & 2: 57.02

53.42

3.60

34.95

7.98

0.05

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB03020

30

2,378

17,105

178,581

1,944

44,034

381

524,993

125,193

1,485,914 5,033

125,743

422

4

32,278

293

109,626

14,731

120,892

2

250

15,315

0

1,043,670

9,009

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,136,100 198,064 126,169 46,359 5,033 142,197 135,625 1,059,235 9,039

Total (ha & %)

687,585

217,092

1,900,431

1,043,702

9,009

3,857,820

YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT Marmota flaviventris %Status 1 & 2: 23.45

17.82

5.63

49.26

27.05

0.23

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB03040

0

2,010

18

1,891

0

33

23

440,909

99,660

756,795 36

206,495

341

0

31,366

28

23,719

6,222

24,220

2

46

294

0

65,190

1,764

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,297,364 3,919 206,836 56 36 55,113 30,444 65,530 1,764

Total (ha & %)

680,825

106,596

806,685

65,192

1,764

1,661,062

HOARY MARMOT Marmota caligata %Status 1 & 2: 47.41

40.99

6.42

48.56

3.93

0.11

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB05040

409

1,119

20,910

1,041,105

6,129

38,898

9,528

3,570

2,060

93,092 902

2,740

11

62

0

0

568,516

16,275

716,559

0

2,944

57,477

0

5,558,424

17,090

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 98,721 1,063,135 2,814 54,555 902 568,516 732,834 5,618,844 17,499

Total (ha & %)

16,502

135,630

2,429,764

5,558,833

17,090

8,157,820

RICHARDSON'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus richardsonii %Status 1 & 2: 1.87

0.20

1.66

29.79

68.14

0.21

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB05050

0

296

2,252

43,178

1,005

282

0

26,206

10,346

158,898 1,924

3,575

0

4

0

0

0

2,581

22,626

0

0

5,241

0

92,572

377

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 195,450 45,725 3,579 1,287 1,924 0 25,207 97,812 377

Total (ha & %)

31,081

20,702

226,629

92,572

377

371,362

UINTA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus armatus %Status 1 & 2: 13.95

8.37

5.57

61.03

24.93

0.10

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB05070

0

1,285

2,315

113,969

0

3,370

1,013

67,546

22,649

220,015 646

20,009

9

0

4,856

395

168,685

22,093

151,976

15

2,402

24,332

0

1,428,363

2,236

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 310,210 117,570 20,018 4,382 646 173,936 174,084 1,455,097 2,236

Total (ha & %)

96,098

75,162

656,303

1,428,377

2,236

2,258,177

COLUMBIAN GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus columbianus %Status 1 & 2: 7.58

4.26

3.33

29.06

63.25

0.10

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB05090

1,861

4,559

35,271

1,869,610

10,519

201,121

12,522

1,169

621

142,637 18,868

1,333

2,688

0

0

0

1,325,581

13,634

1,201,006

0

3,412

16,374

0

12,916,605

49,692

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 144,427 1,909,441 4,022 224,162 18,868 1,325,581 1,214,640 12,936,391 51,553

Total (ha & %)

20,993

269,710

4,570,224

12,918,466

49,692

17,829,084

THIRTEEN-LINED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tridecemlineatus %Status 1 & 2: 1.63

0.12

1.51

25.63

72.46

0.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB05170

71

2,846

5,165

82,691

1,073

2,112

671

383,479

88,183

887,201 2,424

137,528

2,630

5

15,539

236

96,025

17,647

86,387

11

240

15,637

0

846,846

3,830

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,358,863 90,703 140,163 3,856 2,424 111,799 104,046 862,723 3,901

Total (ha & %)

540,706

131,610

1,155,405

846,929

3,830

2,678,480

GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus lateralis %Status 1 & 2: 25.10

20.19

4.91

43.14

31.62

0.14

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB05190

0

762

1,679

303,498

6,251

2,529

66

14,591

12,958

256,440 1,886

2,435

0

0

0

0

0

16,631

179,355

0

0

38,765

16

722,561

2,002

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 283,989 305,939 2,435 8,845 1,886 0 195,986 761,342 2,002

Total (ha & %)

24,038

72,562

741,261

722,561

2,002

1,562,425

WYOMING GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus elegans %Status 1 & 2: 6.18

1.54

4.64

47.44

46.25

0.13

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB06010

485

2,100

6,900

1,306,128

5,428

60,601

7,326

84

177

73,269 9,132

156

1,461

0

0

0

610,721

8,806

853,133

0

2,158

19,597

0

7,332,682

18,415

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 73,530 1,315,129 1,618 73,354 9,132 610,721 861,939 7,354,436 18,901

Total (ha & %)

9,927

97,543

2,859,707

7,333,167

18,415

10,318,759

BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys ludovicianus %Status 1 & 2: 1.04

0.10

0.95

27.71

71.07

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB06020

0

0

3,164

57,669

0

0

0

9,862

293

9,592 0

0

1,625

0

0

0

15,480

0

11,425

0

0

0

0

178,759

146

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 19,747 60,833 1,625 0 0 15,480 11,425 178,759 146

Total (ha & %)

9,862

5,082

94,166

178,759

146

288,014

WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys leucurus %Status 1 & 2: 5.19

3.42

1.77

32.70

62.07

0.05

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB08010

87

4,305

16,616

209,635

1,524

2,159

768

750,845

210,861

3,746,058 4,123

253,149

2,617

5

53,269

4,959

285,604

28,323

247,994

10

519

26,532

0

1,728,380

8,277

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,707,764 230,557 255,771 4,451 4,123 343,831 276,327 1,755,430 8,364

Total (ha & %)

1,063,612

292,067

4,494,186

1,728,476

8,277

7,586,618

RED SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus hudsonicus %Status 1 & 2: 17.87

14.02

3.85

59.24

22.78

0.11

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFB09020

0

3,408

10,576

122,655

1,963

1,124

456

727,192

195,165

3,353,454 4,308

211,942

1,575

0

47,805

4,821

127,612

22,871

185,842

3

437

19,674

0

1,001,420

6,420

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,275,811 136,640 213,517 3,543 4,308 180,238 208,716 1,021,531 6,420

Total (ha & %)

992,747

255,807

3,794,326

1,001,423

6,420

6,050,723

NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL Glaucomys sabrinus %Status 1 & 2: 20.63

16.41

4.23

62.71

16.55

0.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFC01040

767

7,275

45,714

2,636,569

16,239

237,358

13,924

343,599

97,989

1,763,315 21,420

89,577

8,514

66

16,282

608

1,404,958

54,344

1,565,057

18

4,794

98,037

16

14,017,158

42,082

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,204,903 2,689,557 98,157 267,520 21,420 1,421,848 1,619,418 14,120,005 42,849

Total (ha & %)

477,766

542,563

7,405,325

14,017,943

42,082

22,485,680

NORTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys talpoides %Status 1 & 2: 4.54

2.12

2.41

32.93

62.34

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFC01070

0

0

439

229,959

1,509

467

0

0

608

79,148 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4,161

119,863

0

0

515

16

328,458

1,492

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 79,755 230,398 0 1,976 0 0 124,024 328,990 1,492

Total (ha & %)

1,509

6,190

428,986

328,458

1,492

766,635

IDAHO POCKET GOPHER Thomomys idahoensis %Status 1 & 2: 1.00

0.20

0.81

55.96

42.84

0.20

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFD01010

262

2,256

22,051

1,781,111

6,057

131,239

9,031

414

228

101,036 12,128

205

7,705

0

0

0

756,802

4,933

883,184

0

303

14,535

0

7,670,541

21,063

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 101,678 1,805,418 7,910 146,327 12,128 756,802 888,117 7,685,379 21,326

Total (ha & %)

9,235

180,692

3,543,292

7,670,803

21,063

11,425,085

OLIVE-BACKED POCKET MOUSE Perognathus fasciatus %Status 1 & 2: 1.66

0.08

1.58

31.01

67.14

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFD01070

0

0

63

191,117

2,330

1,113

0

0

1,599

52,847 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,169

75,349

0

0

36

15

227,706

439

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 54,446 191,180 0 3,443 2 0 77,519 227,757 439

Total (ha & %)

2,330

4,981

319,330

227,706

439

554,785

GREAT BASIN POCKET MOUSE Perognathus parvus %Status 1 & 2: 1.32

0.42

0.90

57.56

41.04

0.08

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFD03010

260

1,895

5,870

1,697,011

5,774

127,398

8,094

360

231

95,188 12,098

202

9,569

0

0

0

714,220

1,051

650,880

0

303

639

0

6,123,135

18,573

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 95,778 1,704,776 9,770 141,265 12,098 714,220 651,932 6,124,077 18,833

Total (ha & %)

8,533

144,758

3,177,491

6,123,395

18,573

9,472,749

ORD'S KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys ordii %Status 1 & 2: 1.62

0.09

1.53

33.54

64.64

0.20

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFD05050

0

0

0

70,302

0

0

0

0

0

17,592 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

92

34,823

0

0

0

0

295,179

198

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 17,592 70,302 0 0 0 0 34,915 295,179 198

Total (ha & %)

0

92

122,717

295,179

198

418,187

HISPID POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus hispidus %Status 1 & 2: 0.02

0.00

0.02

29.35

70.59

0.05

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFE01010

2,164

1,622

7,166

279,999

6,882

32,767

3,373

110,129

26,412

420,510 4,698

43,209

2,876

8

6,002

1,026

235,335

11,585

212,178

6

740

20,336

6

2,559,383

138,598

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 557,052 288,788 46,093 43,022 4,698 242,363 223,769 2,580,465 140,763

Total (ha & %)

168,584

102,169

1,156,107

2,561,553

138,598

4,127,012

AMERICAN BEAVER Castor canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 6.56

4.08

2.48

28.01

62.07

3.36

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF02030

1,648

3,206

31,674

1,987,292

7,427

169,330

9,942

413

288

127,244 17,789

219

7,943

0

0

0

923,326

6,131

1,045,010

0

316

11,928

0

10,047,131

29,594

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 127,945 2,022,172 8,162 186,699 17,789 923,326 1,051,141 10,059,375 31,243

Total (ha & %)

11,581

227,294

4,110,603

10,048,779

29,594

14,427,850

WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys megalotis %Status 1 & 2: 1.66

0.08

1.58

28.49

69.65

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF03040

2,234

9,165

53,761

2,213,518

16,786

169,938

12,462

1,007,544

258,390

4,373,519 18,990

325,483

10,099

67

57,278

5,369

1,516,183

66,485

1,491,714

27

5,248

105,490

1

13,228,144

65,467

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,639,453 2,276,443 335,649 199,186 18,990 1,578,829 1,558,225 13,338,883 67,701

Total (ha & %)

1,421,505

669,531

9,626,453

13,230,405

65,467

25,013,364

DEER MOUSE Peromyscus maniculatus %Status 1 & 2: 8.36

5.68

2.68

38.49

52.89

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF03070

1,641

873

1,016

207,162

1,248

14,739

1,608

121

130

27,951 3,511

39

1,270

0

0

0

164,992

929

105,519

0

41

40

0

1,165,835

18,478

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 28,201 209,050 1,309 17,595 3,511 164,992 106,448 1,165,916 20,119

Total (ha & %)

2,322

18,123

510,741

1,167,476

18,478

1,717,141

WHITE-FOOTED MOUSE Peromyscus leucopus %Status 1 & 2: 1.19

0.14

1.06

29.74

67.99

1.08

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF06010

280

3,373

34,753

2,082,542

8,739

178,789

9,820

3,741

2,313

184,758 17,465

272

7,913

0

0

0

1,041,943

15,988

1,116,837

0

3,069

26,682

0

10,052,871

30,664

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 190,812 2,120,668 8,185 197,348 17,465 1,041,943 1,132,825 10,082,622 30,944

Total (ha & %)

19,195

266,437

4,453,365

10,053,151

30,664

14,822,812

NORTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys leucogaster %Status 1 & 2: 1.93

0.13

1.80

30.04

67.82

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF08090

1,371

3,549

41,321

1,253,175

7,777

177,000

2,208

524,781

107,020

1,445,302 13,739

190,360

5,617

0

24,570

262

377,812

23,054

442,801

6

559

22,198

15

3,970,211

39,016

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,077,102 1,298,044 195,976 186,984 13,739 402,644 465,861 3,992,983 40,387

Total (ha & %)

751,595

376,471

3,535,052

3,971,588

39,016

8,673,722

BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT Neotoma cinerea %Status 1 & 2: 13.01

8.67

4.34

40.76

45.79

0.45

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF09020

365

4,222

12,755

154,339

3,150

2,620

863

912,068

239,138

3,669,335 4,111

294,885

2,703

1

53,038

4,811

233,533

29,257

213,153

12

1,839

23,280

0

1,473,448

13,288

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,820,541 171,316 297,589 6,632 4,111 291,381 242,422 1,498,567 13,653

Total (ha & %)

1,269,202

314,564

4,275,334

1,473,825

13,288

7,346,212

SOUTHERN RED-BACKED VOLE Clethrionomys gapperi %Status 1 & 2: 21.56

17.28

4.28

58.20

20.06

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF10010

0

3,400

10,224

104,855

4,824

2,015

527

808,237

203,032

2,869,985 5,321

261,303

2,304

0

47,061

3,988

111,852

22,459

151,643

6

259

16,144

0

949,509

7,637

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,881,254 118,479 263,606 7,366 5,321 162,902 174,108 965,912 7,637

Total (ha & %)

1,125,084

260,166

3,244,183

949,514

7,637

5,586,586

HEATHER VOLE Phenacomys intermedius %Status 1 & 2: 24.79

20.14

4.66

58.07

17.00

0.14

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF11010

1,705

2,744

2,320

151,073

4,956

15,915

2,018

130,153

35,527

469,910 4,248

40,500

549

0

7,364

304

259,918

10,278

146,639

6

889

15,691

0

1,947,618

25,316

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 635,591 156,137 41,049 22,888 4,248 267,586 156,923 1,964,197 27,021

Total (ha & %)

186,606

80,584

1,033,806

1,949,328

25,316

3,275,640

MEADOW VOLE Microtus pennsylvanicus %Status 1 & 2: 8.16

5.70

2.46

31.56

59.51

0.77

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF11020

17

3,072

14,127

528,021

9,554

10,085

6,291

437,320

83,473

1,315,259 5,401

48,521

8,302

62

22,443

409

157,778

40,199

514,048

15

2,561

88,477

16

4,337,306

10,991

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,836,051 545,220 56,885 25,931 5,401 180,631 554,263 4,428,361 11,008

Total (ha & %)

523,471

245,073

2,526,877

4,337,338

10,991

7,643,749

MONTANE VOLE Microtus montanus %Status 1 & 2: 10.06

6.85

3.21

33.06

56.74

0.14

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF11060

535

11,228

62,117

2,531,651

19,992

258,920

11,564

834,336

226,383

3,687,219 27,272

270,456

13,710

67

40,763

1,575

1,408,321

74,331

1,512,836

30

5,489

117,153

16

13,655,693

68,673

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,747,938 2,604,997 284,233 290,476 27,272 1,450,659 1,587,197 13,778,350 69,208

Total (ha & %)

1,182,264

754,189

9,178,947

13,656,258

68,673

24,840,330

LONG-TAILED VOLE Microtus longicaudus %Status 1 & 2: 7.79

4.76

3.04

36.95

54.98

0.28

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF11140

1,556

3,540

35,649

2,156,287

10,504

204,708

11,686

691

317

252,155 19,006

296

8,102

0

0

0

1,199,975

8,656

1,274,317

0

543

31,613

0

13,474,473

45,741

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 253,162 2,195,475 8,398 226,898 19,006 1,199,975 1,282,973 13,506,629 47,297

Total (ha & %)

15,573

289,045

4,913,424

13,476,029

45,741

18,739,812

PRAIRIE VOLE Microtus ochrogaster %Status 1 & 2: 1.63

0.08

1.54

26.22

71.91

0.24

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF11190

0

284

2,139

12,084

2,604

801

7

108,158

21,319

200,357 1,193

21,968

0

0

3,358

0

5,549

3,186

11,696

0

28

4,095

0

138,659

2,088

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 329,834 14,508 21,968 3,413 1,193 8,908 14,881 142,781 2,088

Total (ha & %)

136,400

31,540

230,886

138,659

2,088

539,573

WATER VOLE Microtus richardsoni %Status 1 & 2: 31.12

25.28

5.84

42.79

25.70

0.39

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF13010

287

5,024

46,062

2,577,139

14,375

199,142

9,850

6,167

5,464

332,538 20,286

2,986

10,483

62

0

0

1,055,863

32,920

1,346,826

0

3,077

68,805

16

11,349,896

36,709

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 344,170 2,628,225 13,531 223,367 20,286 1,055,863 1,379,746 11,421,794 36,996

Total (ha & %)

31,629

362,876

5,342,580

11,350,183

36,709

17,123,978

SAGEBRUSH VOLE Lemmiscus curtatus %Status 1 & 2: 2.30

0.18

2.12

31.20

66.28

0.21

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF15010

1,957

401

463

60,406

1,708

6,468

1,727

1,661

1,148

28,551 1,720

4,747

708

0

275

227

128,024

3,728

68,332

3

365

4,771

0

989,925

310,687

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 31,359 61,270 5,455 9,903 1,720 128,525 72,062 995,060 312,644

Total (ha & %)

9,155

17,512

288,759

991,885

310,687

1,617,998

MUSKRAT Ondatra zibethicus %Status 1 & 2: 1.65

0.57

1.08

17.85

61.30

19.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFF17020

0

6

2

110

0

0

2

1,319

336

4,216 0

1,051

40

0

53

0

378

150

163

0

1

48

0

2,648

153

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,871 119 1,090 2 0 432 313 2,696 153

Total (ha & %)

2,430

576

4,869

2,648

153

10,676

NORTHERN BOG LEMMING Synaptomys borealis %Status 1 & 2: 28.16

22.76

5.40

45.61

24.80

1.43

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFH01010

0

2,056

0

281,617

0

84

0

27

0

73,014 9,723

0

0

0

0

0

32,805

629

145,804

0

0

0

0

1,586,792

2,224

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 73,041 283,673 0 84 9,723 32,805 146,433 1,586,792 2,224

Total (ha & %)

2,083

714

542,963

1,586,792

2,224

2,134,775

MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE Zapus hudsonius %Status 1 & 2: 0.13

0.10

0.03

25.43

74.33

0.10

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFH01020

1,698

1,368

7,269

216,761

7,898

23,965

3,753

210,797

52,978

853,040 2,544

76,653

2,612

17

12,412

1,833

256,429

17,421

231,307

11

1,322

31,132

1

2,335,229

44,680

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,116,815 225,398 79,282 35,617 2,544 270,674 248,739 2,367,683 46,377

Total (ha & %)

310,450

137,210

1,563,852

2,336,938

44,680

4,393,129

WESTERN JUMPING MOUSE Zapus princeps %Status 1 & 2: 10.19

7.07

3.12

35.60

53.20

1.02

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAFJ01010

2,103

6,908

27,571

996,963

9,400

95,797

3,975

989,311

262,704

4,345,113 9,859

317,978

8,725

5

59,098

5,103

741,034

46,778

600,351

15

2,601

50,810

15

5,317,518

46,420

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,597,128 1,031,441 326,707 109,173 9,859 805,235 647,145 5,370,944 48,523

Total (ha & %)

1,385,295

497,487

6,697,316

5,319,636

46,420

13,946,154

COMMON PORCUPINE Erethizon dorsatum %Status 1 & 2: 13.50

9.93

3.57

48.02

38.14

0.33

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJA01010

4,318

11,232

67,232

3,082,709

23,158

302,311

17,951

835,509

226,885

3,730,540 28,847

270,602

13,732

67

40,775

1,921

1,941,100

79,447

2,037,192

32

5,943

124,879

16

21,552,998

88,923

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,792,934 3,161,174 284,402 343,420 28,847 1,983,797 2,116,671 21,683,836 93,242

Total (ha & %)

1,187,220

816,408

10,838,424

21,557,348

88,923

34,488,324

COYOTE Canis latrans %Status 1 & 2: 5.81

3.44

2.37

31.43

62.51

0.26

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJA01030

0

4,939

9,891

364,833

11,115

11,194

2,166

1,130,170

267,293

3,541,460 5,802

357,540

2,573

67

64,274

5,442

432,960

42,382

452,086

30

5,467

56,243

16

2,820,171

14,731

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,938,922 379,663 360,181 24,475 5,802 502,675 494,498 2,881,897 14,731

Total (ha & %)

1,573,505

395,018

4,799,390

2,820,200

14,731

9,602,843

GRAY WOLF Canis lupus %Status 1 & 2: 20.50

16.39

4.11

49.98

29.37

0.15

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJA03010

2,838

5,810

36,030

2,464,832

16,645

200,801

15,551

109,609

25,998

683,191 19,965

36,213

8,131

62

3,189

757

1,569,954

44,432

1,677,922

19

4,133

90,869

16

18,194,882

48,632

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 818,798 2,506,672 44,406 232,997 19,965 1,573,900 1,722,373 18,289,900 51,470

Total (ha & %)

175,598

407,018

6,431,494

18,197,740

48,632

25,260,480

RED FOX Vulpes vulpes %Status 1 & 2: 2.31

0.70

1.61

25.46

72.04

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJA03030

2,412

2,696

21,979

1,571,727

8,947

106,425

11,812

3,710

2,113

166,823 12,014

1,048

4,138

0

0

0

1,216,282

15,791

1,254,039

0

3,049

39,947

0

14,219,314

31,869

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 172,646 1,596,402 5,186 127,185 12,014 1,216,282 1,269,830 14,262,310 34,281

Total (ha & %)

19,450

190,394

4,232,697

14,221,726

31,869

18,696,136

SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox %Status 1 & 2: 1.12

0.10

1.02

22.64

76.07

0.17

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJB01010

104

6,717

19,447

304,112

6,196

4,303

1,633

1,115,364

285,820

4,496,675 5,781

349,959

4,054

5

63,557

5,103

551,063

44,032

347,100

15

2,525

45,529

0

3,103,975

18,528

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,897,858 330,276 354,018 12,131 5,781 619,724 391,147 3,152,029 18,632

Total (ha & %)

1,544,317

408,289

5,706,368

3,104,094

18,528

10,781,597

BLACK BEAR Ursus americanus %Status 1 & 2: 18.11

14.32

3.79

52.93

28.79

0.17

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJB01020

0

6,843

9,677

146,148

8,193

5,144

1,342

1,173,263

181,822

2,657,919 6,850

446,070

2,606

5

70,680

5,142

287,037

20,488

263,105

19

820

34,790

15

1,583,023

12,084

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,013,004 162,668 448,681 14,680 6,850 362,859 283,612 1,618,647 12,084

Total (ha & %)

1,705,869

259,669

3,362,422

1,583,041

12,084

6,923,086

GRIZZLY OR BROWN BEAR Ursus arctos %Status 1 & 2: 28.39

24.64

3.75

48.57

22.87

0.18

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJE02010

2,471

2,077

825

98,766

5,051

10,646

2,526

58,762

18,900

273,263 2,641

33,127

765

0

3,018

406

289,661

9,992

145,278

8

1,012

16,633

0

2,546,860

36,399

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 350,925 101,668 33,893 18,223 2,641 293,085 155,278 2,564,504 38,870

Total (ha & %)

103,047

58,167

812,134

2,549,339

36,399

3,559,087

COMMON RACCOON Procyon lotor %Status 1 & 2: 4.53

2.90

1.63

22.82

71.63

1.02

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF01010

0

3,353

10,133

115,940

2,965

1,567

535

738,609

198,284

3,197,992 4,291

211,206

2,194

0

47,055

4,631

132,483

21,802

168,490

4

748

18,672

0

955,338

7,329

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,134,885 129,427 213,400 5,067 4,291 184,168 190,296 974,758 7,329

Total (ha & %)

1,003,937

257,283

3,619,731

955,342

7,329

5,843,622

AMERICAN MARTEN Martes americana %Status 1 & 2: 21.58

17.18

4.40

61.94

16.35

0.13

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF01020

0

2,050

1,556

68,995

488

708

569

689,190

184,404

2,735,417 156

210,995

1,824

0

47,221

4,684

118,747

21,390

154,668

4

484

7,556

0

779,281

5,517

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,609,011 72,601 212,819 1,764 156 170,652 176,062 787,320 5,517

Total (ha & %)

950,427

222,121

3,078,552

779,285

5,517

5,035,902

FISHER Martes pennanti %Status 1 & 2: 23.29

18.88

4.41

61.13

15.48

0.11

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF02010

100

6,039

13,548

324,718

7,879

10,518

2,500

851,244

228,677

3,358,912 4,630

267,620

6,639

67

40,691

1,574

522,360

60,616

531,535

30

5,340

100,643

1

4,783,894

18,400

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,438,832 344,306 274,326 20,897 4,630 564,625 592,180 4,889,878 18,500

Total (ha & %)

1,178,813

422,213

4,744,724

4,784,024

18,400

11,148,174

ERMINE Mustela erminea %Status 1 & 2: 14.36

10.58

3.79

42.56

42.91

0.17

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF02020

3,354

4,873

23,886

1,556,761

8,239

126,280

10,187

64,805

14,682

486,693 12,210

2,711

3,950

66

0

0

1,277,833

23,648

1,138,293

0

3,532

72,028

0

11,749,656

51,075

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 566,179 1,585,520 6,727 144,706 12,210 1,277,833 1,161,941 11,825,215 54,430

Total (ha & %)

84,160

264,473

4,482,042

11,753,010

51,075

16,634,760

LEAST WEASEL Mustela nivalis %Status 1 & 2: 2.10

0.51

1.59

26.94

70.65

0.31

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF02030

2,168

11,228

61,823

2,982,065

21,044

258,780

14,223

834,336

226,383

3,719,945 27,294

270,464

13,708

67

40,763

1,575

1,643,161

75,469

1,744,580

30

5,826

117,191

16

15,665,963

76,193

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,780,664 3,055,117 284,239 294,047 27,294 1,685,499 1,820,078 15,788,996 78,362

Total (ha & %)

1,183,661

754,928

10,131,350

15,668,161

76,193

27,814,298

LONG-TAILED WEASEL Mustela frenata %Status 1 & 2: 6.97

4.26

2.71

36.42

56.33

0.27

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF02040

0

0

0

188,919

1,027

22,264

0

0

0

0 0

0

15

0

0

0

160,702

0

65,433

0

0

0

0

507,143

2,773

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 188,919 15 23,292 0 160,702 65,433 507,143 2,773

Total (ha & %)

1,027

22,280

415,054

507,143

2,773

948,276

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET Mustela nigripes %Status 1 & 2: 2.46

0.11

2.35

43.77

53.48

0.29

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF02050

788

346

403

49,880

2,922

5,002

1,274

11,204

3,945

68,871 1,370

8,025

376

0

594

102

103,231

3,437

61,473

3

339

6,976

0

906,074

23,208

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 84,020 50,629 8,401 9,198 1,370 103,927 64,913 913,389 23,996

Total (ha & %)

23,430

20,240

286,098

906,865

23,208

1,259,842

MINK Mustela vison %Status 1 & 2: 3.47

1.86

1.61

22.71

71.98

1.84

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF03010

0

5,027

12,148

164,778

3,021

2,088

682

1,196,185

283,569

3,947,367 5,312

396,211

2,074

1

64,401

4,778

174,860

31,633

222,880

14

566

24,348

0

1,349,342

11,082

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,427,120 181,953 398,285 5,792 5,312 244,039 254,526 1,374,256 11,082

Total (ha & %)

1,665,410

360,637

4,515,880

1,349,356

11,082

7,902,365

WOLVERINE Gulo gulo %Status 1 & 2: 25.64

21.08

4.56

57.15

17.08

0.14

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF04010

1,579

6,464

39,042

2,552,406

17,629

205,887

14,684

156,850

43,491

873,053 21,382

53,614

10,005

62

7,614

482

1,430,940

46,148

1,636,667

18

4,141

90,077

16

16,471,115

45,557

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,073,393 2,597,911 63,681 238,200 21,382 1,439,035 1,682,833 16,565,349 47,136

Total (ha & %)

246,311

435,131

6,529,210

16,472,712

45,557

23,728,920

AMERICAN BADGER Taxidea taxus %Status 1 & 2: 2.87

1.04

1.83

27.52

69.42

0.19

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF05020

0

560

465

148,309

6,120

2,658

23

11,954

6,698

138,345 188

1,516

0

0

0

0

13,479

13,549

110,517

0

41

43,404

1

868,782

3,397

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 156,997 149,333 1,516 8,801 188 13,479 124,066 912,228 3,397

Total (ha & %)

20,191

66,774

410,862

868,782

3,397

1,370,006

WESTERN SPOTTED SKUNK Spilogale gracilis %Status 1 & 2: 6.35

1.48

4.87

29.99

63.41

0.25

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF06010

4,245

8,618

53,475

2,392,440

19,382

259,775

16,614

356,891

92,420

1,296,318 24,308

148,599

6,489

67

16,821

1,026

1,685,867

55,440

1,706,003

31

4,939

100,644

1

19,243,636

76,005

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,745,629 2,454,532 155,155 295,771 24,308 1,703,714 1,761,475 19,349,220 80,250

Total (ha & %)

555,252

569,270

7,121,617

19,247,912

76,005

27,570,056

STRIPED SKUNK Mephitis mephitis %Status 1 & 2: 4.08

2.01

2.07

25.83

69.81

0.28

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJF08010

12

612

4,603

66,392

4,161

2,293

889

109,291

25,833

373,234 1,088

42,788

2,774

8

6,002

1,021

96,317

10,252

90,672

6

714

17,141

6

1,026,836

66,495

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 508,358 71,608 45,571 7,343 1,088 103,341 100,930 1,044,697 66,507

Total (ha & %)

163,568

63,919

628,607

1,026,854

66,495

1,949,443

NORTHERN RIVER OTTER Lutra canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 11.67

8.39

3.28

32.25

52.67

3.41

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJH01020

489

6,301

45,480

672,085

8,657

151,451

1,814

1,023,037

272,847

4,416,840 7,149

330,848

5,988

5

63,415

5,050

625,821

44,100

461,584

15

2,526

44,719

0

4,222,056

36,755

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 5,712,723 723,866 336,841 161,922 7,149 694,286 505,700 4,269,301 37,245

Total (ha & %)

1,434,783

569,635

6,185,299

4,222,561

36,755

12,449,033

MOUNTAIN LION Felis concolor %Status 1 & 2: 16.10

11.53

4.58

49.69

33.92

0.30

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJH03010

0

3,834

10,054

87,269

2,784

2,100

587

854,501

219,762

3,166,565 3,330

281,204

2,019

1

52,322

4,535

154,308

19,839

174,540

10

951

16,222

0

982,617

6,210

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,240,827 101,157 283,224 5,471 3,330 211,165 194,389 999,789 6,210

Total (ha & %)

1,195,596

274,530

3,586,600

982,626

6,210

6,045,562

LYNX Lynx canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 24.32

19.78

4.54

59.33

16.25

0.10

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMAJH03020

2,096

5,526

45,292

1,488,373

11,012

206,226

4,449

235,181

65,964

1,495,062 13,678

84,501

8,580

5

13,043

991

639,199

35,319

619,900

10

1,661

42,458

15

6,090,712

53,594

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 1,796,207 1,539,190 93,086 221,686 13,678 653,233 655,229 6,134,846 55,690

Total (ha & %)

350,924

404,831

4,260,681

6,092,818

53,594

11,162,847

BOBCAT Lynx rufus %Status 1 & 2: 6.77

3.15

3.63

38.17

54.58

0.48

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALC01010

183

8,206

48,257

1,391,843

13,215

142,479

8,942

1,145,758

293,081

4,865,450 23,355

363,448

6,847

67

64,155

5,263

1,172,456

75,691

1,051,953

30

5,485

114,113

16

9,456,729

41,263

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 6,304,288 1,448,305 370,362 164,637 23,355 1,241,874 1,127,674 9,576,343 41,446

Total (ha & %)

1,600,268

685,730

8,514,082

9,456,942

41,263

20,298,284

WAPITI OR ELK Cervus elaphus %Status 1 & 2: 11.26

7.88

3.38

41.94

46.59

0.20

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALC02010

2,769

11,162

58,025

2,828,255

21,797

286,342

14,556

866,472

232,758

3,727,981 27,662

272,154

11,296

67

40,791

1,452

1,758,906

75,096

1,811,068

30

5,939

114,838

16

18,217,526

79,427

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 4,827,210 2,897,442 283,517 322,695 27,662 1,801,149 1,886,194 18,338,319 82,196

Total (ha & %)

1,218,314

779,808

10,168,511

18,220,325

79,427

30,466,384

MULE DEER Odocoileus hemionus %Status 1 & 2: 6.56

4.00

2.56

33.38

59.80

0.26

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALC02020

2,582

2,876

9,032

269,660

6,150

37,713

2,556

315,716

95,698

2,064,164 5,092

144,029

2,743

1

27,181

4,901

479,559

26,123

334,185

16

1,075

33,935

0

3,843,512

36,365

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 2,475,579 281,569 146,772 46,419 5,092 511,641 360,324 3,878,521 38,947

Total (ha & %)

497,027

210,145

3,155,217

3,846,110

36,365

7,744,864

WHITE-TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus %Status 1 & 2: 9.13

6.42

2.71

40.74

49.66

0.47

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALC03010

0

3,999

10,657

128,264

5,680

3,222

1,046

716,225

187,246

2,949,761 5,470

255,064

2,563

1

44,336

4,615

143,999

29,596

195,008

15

560

26,677

0

1,470,056

11,968

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 3,853,232 142,920 257,628 9,948 5,470 192,951 224,619 1,497,293 11,968

Total (ha & %)

1,025,863

264,577

3,423,548

1,470,071

11,968

6,196,028

MOOSE Alces alces %Status 1 & 2: 20.83

16.56

4.27

55.25

23.73

0.19

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALD01010

3,218

5,100

30,546

2,672,437

19,591

234,316

15,126

7,390

3,197

280,986 23,693

5,443

5,663

48

0

550

1,486,786

32,923

1,684,371

0

3,831

73,584

16

18,147,816

67,242

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 291,573 2,708,083 11,154 269,033 23,693 1,487,336 1,717,294 18,225,247 70,460

Total (ha & %)

41,355

380,779

6,163,462

18,151,034

67,242

24,803,872

PRONGHORN Antilocapra americana %Status 1 & 2: 1.70

0.17

1.54

24.85

73.18

0.27

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALE01010

0

0

0

0

0

7,497

0

0

0

0 0

63,284

0

67

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 0 0 63,352 7,497 0 0 0 0 0

Total (ha & %)

63,284

7,497

67

0

0

70,848

AMERICAN BISON Bos bison %Status 1 & 2: 99.91

89.32

10.58

0.10

0.00

0.00

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.
Appendix 5.2 continued. Area (ha) of predicted distribution for 425 terrestrial vertebrate species in Montana by stewardship category and management status.

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALE02010

0

761

385

6,895

22

41

0

341,184

56,930

221,699 71

122,626

0

0

10,594

0

3,622

2,325

3,711

0

26

260

0

43,703

1,421

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 619,814 8,040 122,626 62 71 14,216 6,035 43,989 1,421

Total (ha & %)

475,212

59,940

235,998

43,703

1,421

816,273

MOUNTAIN GOAT Oreamnos americanus %Status 1 & 2: 65.56

58.22

7.34

28.91

5.35

0.17

100

USFS BLM NPS FWS Other Fed Tribal State/Local Private Water/Unk

AMALE04010

0

1,614

4,306

12,532

0

342

0

67,361

16,398

119,045 104

21,841

1,861

0

1,880

5

8,425

1,280

6,405

0

86

1,776

0

59,591

1,103

Status 1

Status 2

Status 3

Status 4

NA

NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

Water NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 202,804 18,451 23,701 342 104 10,310 7,684 61,453 1,103

Total (ha & %)

92,781

25,967

146,510

59,591

1,103

325,952

MOUNTAIN SHEEP Ovis canadensis %Status 1 & 2: 36.43

28.47

7.97

44.95

18.28

0.34

100

“Other Fed” includes Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Agriculture, & Bureau of Reclamation; “Water/Unk” includes water bodies mapped in the stewardship layer, and a small area

not mapped because of boundary conflicts. To distinguish from zero values, “NA” indicates that a given combination was not observed for that species. Rounding error applies.