Ecoregional Gap Analysis of the 

Southwestern United States 

The Southwest Regional 

Gap Analysis Project 

Final Report

December 2007
SWReGAP 

i

Ecoregional Gap Analysis of the 

Southwestern United States 

The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Project Final Report 

Edited by 

Julie S. Prior-Magee 

Kenneth G. Boykin 

David F. Bradford 

William G. Kepner 

John H. Lowry 

Donald L. Schrupp 

Kathryn A. Thomas 

Bruce C. Thompson 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, 

Wildlife Conservation Section, Denver, CO, USA 

Cooperative Agreement No. 01HQAG0184 

NatureServe, Boulder, CO, USA 

US EPA, National Exposure Laboratory – ESD/LEB, 

Las Vegas, NV, USA 

Interagency Agreement No. 1434-00HQPG-0062 

USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, 

Colorado Plateau Research Station, Flagstaff, AZ, USA 

USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, 

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA 

Cooperative Agreeement No. 1434-HQ-97-RU-01572 

Research Work Order No. 40 

Remote Sensing/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, 

Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA 

Cooperative Agreeement No. 1434-HQ-97-RU-01555 

Research Work Order No. 33 

December 2007
SWReGAP 

ii

Recommended Citations: 

Entire report: 

Prior-Magee, J.S., K.G. Boykin, D.F. Bradford, W.G. Kepner, J.H. Lowry, D.L. Schrupp, K.A. Thomas, and B.C. Thompson, 

Editors. 2007. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, 

Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 1 (Introduction): 

Prior-Magee, J.S. 2007. Introduction. Chapter 1 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 2 (Land cover): 

Lowry, J. H, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, K. A. Thomas, D.L. Schrupp, W. G. Kepner, T. Sajwaj, J. Kirby, E. Waller, S. Schrader, S. Falzarano, 

L. Langs Stoner, G. Manis, C. Wallace, K. Schulz, P. Comer, K. Pohs, W. Rieth, C. Velasquez, B. Wolk, K.G., Boykin, L. 

O’Brien, J. Prior-Magee, D. Bradford and B. Thompson. 2007. Land cover classification and mapping. Chapter 2 in J.S. 

Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, 

Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 3 (Animal habitat dist): 

Boykin, K. G., B. C. Thompson, R. A. Deitner, D. Schrupp, D. Bradford, L. O’Brien, C. Drost, S. Propeck-Gray, W. Rieth, K. A. 

Thomas, W. Kepner, J. Lowry, C. Cross, B. Jones, T. Hamer, C. Mettenbrink, K.J. Oakes, J. Prior-Magee, K. Schulz, J. 

J.Wynne, C. King, J. Puttere, S. Schrader, and Z. Schwenke. 2007. Predicted animal habitat distributions and species 

richness. Chapter 3 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 4 (Land stewardship): 

Ernst, A. E., T. Schrader, V. Lopez, J. Prior-Magee, K.G. Boykin, D. Schrupp, L. O’Brien, W. Kepner, K.A. Thomas, J. Lowry, and

B. Thompson. 2007. Land stewardship. Chapter 4 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final 

Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 5 (Analysis): 

Boykin, K.G., L. Langs Stoner, J. H. Lowry, D.L. Schrupp, D.F. Bradford, L. O’Brien, K.A. Thomas, C. Drost, A.E. Ernst, W. G. 

Kepner, J. S. Prior-Magee, R.D. Ramsey, W. Rieth, T. Sajwaj, K. Schulz, B. C. Thompson. 2007. Analysis based on 

stewardship and management status. Chapter 5 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final 

Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 6 (Conclusions & mgt. implications): 

Langs Stoner, L., K.G. Boykin, J. L.Lowry, A.E. Ernst, D.F. Bradford, W.G. Kepner, J.S. Prior-Magee, K. Schulz, D.L. Schrupp, K. 

A.Thomas. 2007. Conclusions and management implications. Chapter 6 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Chapter 7 (Product use & availability): 

Prior-Magee, J.S. 2007. Product use and availability. Chapter 7 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 
SWReGAP 

iii

DEDICATION 

This report is dedicated to the people and wild resources of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, 

New Mexico, and Utah. 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 
SWReGAP 

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Gap Analysis Program is a national program with the mission of developing key 

datasets needed to assess biological diversity across the nation. The primary objectives 

of the Gap Analysis Program are: (1) Land Cover Mapping – to map the distributions of 

natural communities; (2) Animal Habitat Modeling and Mapping – to map the predicted 

habitat of native animal species; (3) Stewardship Mapping – to map the degree of 

management for biodiversity maintenance of land tracts focusing on intent; (4) Gap 

Analysis – to analyze the representation of biotic elements in the conservation network to 

identify “gaps” in long-term security; and (5) Data Distribution – to provide this 

information to the public and those entities charged with land use research, policy, 

planning, and management. 

The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) was a mapping and 

assessment of biodiversity for the five-state region encompassing Arizona, Colorado, 

Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The area comprises approximately 150 million hectares 

(560,000 square miles) representing 1/5 the coterminous United States. The primary 

objective of the project was to use a coordinated approach to create detailed, seamless 

maps of the land cover, habitat for native terrestrial vertebrate species, land stewardship, 

and management status for the Southwest region. This information was analyzed to 

identify animal species habitats and natural land cover types that are underrepresented on 

land managed for their long term conservation. SWReGAP was a multi-institutional 

effort with scientists based in all five southwest states. Regional land cover mapping 

activities were coordinated by the Remote Sensing/GIS Lab at Utah State University. 

Animal habitat modeling, stewardship mapping, and gap analysis activities were 

coordinated for the region by the U.S. Geological Survey’s New Mexico Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at New Mexico State University. Other institutional 

partners included: U.S. Geological Survey’s Southwest Biological Science 

Center/Colorado Plateau Research Station, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Bureau of 

Land Management/National Science and Technology Center, Natural Resource Ecology 

Lab at Colorado State University, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/National 

Exposure Research Laboratory, and NatureServe. 

Data Development 

Land Cover

The land cover map for the five-state region was developed using Landsat Enhanced 

Thematic Mapper (ETM+) imagery selected from 1999-2001 for three seasons: spring, 

summer, and fall. A total of 237 scenes were selected for the region focusing on optimal 

representation of seasonal phenology and minimal cloud cover. Approximately 93,000 

field samples were collected to train the land cover modeling effort. This “ground truth” 

data was collected over the course of three field seasons from 2001-2003. The region 

was divided into 20 ecologically and spectrally similar mapping zones that provided a 

functional working area for project management, data collection, and modeling. 
SWReGAP 

v

The focus of the mapping effort was on natural and semi-natural systems. The basic 

thematic mapping unit was the ecological system concept developed by NatureServe 

(Comer et al. 2003). Ecological systems represent recurring groups of biological 

communities that are found in similar physical environments and are influenced by 

similar dynamic ecological processes. They are intended to provide a thematic mapping 

unit mappable at a meso-scale level from remotely sensed imagery. Altered and 

disturbed land cover and land use classes were incorporated into the SWReGAP legend 

using descriptions adopted from either the National Land Cover Dataset 2001 legend (e.g. 

Agriculture, Developed-Medium-High Intensity) (Homer et al. 2004) or were given a 

special “altered or disturbed” designation within the SWReGAP legend (e.g. recently 

burned, invasive annual grassland, etc). 

Several avenues for image classification were investigated before choosing the decision 

tree classifier. An important consideration was the need to develop a common 

methodology that could be applied by each state land cover team to create a regionally 

consistent product. The majority of natural and semi-natural land cover classes were 

modeled using a decision tree classifier. However, recognizing that the classifier had 

difficulty discriminating certain classes adequately, other methods were employed to map 

these classes. 

The final SWReGAP land cover map contains 125 land cover classes, 109 of which are 

ecological systems. The data set retains the 30 meter pixel resolution of the core data sets 

with a minimum mapping unit of 1 acre (0.40 hectares). The natural land cover of the 

region is largely dominated by shrub/scrub ecological systems (37% of the region), 

followed by grassland/herbaceous systems (23%), evergreen forests (22%), barren lands 

(5%), woody wetlands (3%), deciduous forest (2%), mixed forest (<1%) and emergent 

herbaceous wetlands (<1%). Agricultural areas compose 5.6% of the region, altered or 

disturbed areas (1.5%), developed areas (1.1%), and open water (0.8%). 

Assessing land cover map quality is an important concern for land cover mapping 

projects. We consider our approach an internal validation: “validation” in the sense that 

our purpose is to validate the quality of the map, and “internal” because we use data 

collected for, and used within, the modeling process (Shtatland et al. 2004). The internal 

validation involved randomly selecting 20 percent of available samples stratified by land 

cover class, and withholding them from the decision tree model generation. The 

intermediate map (generated with 80 percent of the available samples) was assessed with 

the 20 percent withheld dataset, producing an error matrix and kappa statistic. Of the 125 

land cover classes mapped, 40 classes were not assessed regionally because of limited 

validation plots or they were non-natural classes and not the primary focus of the 

mapping effort. These 40 classes comprise approximately 9.5% of the region. 

The 85 classes that were validated represent 91% of the region and overall correct 

classification for these classes was 61% (KHAT statistic = 0.60; n = 17, 030). It is 

important to recognize that validation results vary by land cover class and by mapping 

zone. Lastly it is important to note that the validation results are based on the 
SWReGAP 

vi

intermediate land cover map using the 20% withheld dataset. Since the final map was 

produced using the withheld samples, we assume the final map is an improvement over 

the intermediate map that was validated. 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions and Species Richness

SWReGAP developed models for a total of 819 terrestrial vertebrate species, including 

37 species of amphibians, 130 species of reptiles, 437 species of birds, and 215 species of 

mammals. Taxa inclusion decision rules were developed to identify this final list of 819 

species for modeling. These rules described circumstances under which a species would 

not be modeled. For instance, taxa with only incidental or vagrant occurrence in the 

region would not be modeled. Taxa allocation decision rules were developed to help in 

distributing the lead modeling responsibilities among the states. These rules focused on 

the overall distribution of the species and attempted to capitalize on previous modeling 

experience and expertise. For instance, if a species occurred in only one state then that 

state would be assigned lead modeling responsibility for that species. 

The Sub-basin hydrological units (8-digit HUC) were used to delineate ranges for each 

species. A three-character coding system was used to label the HUCs for species ranges. 

These characters corresponded to distribution, reproduction, and seasonal use. The 

coding for historic/recent distribution was known (K), potential (P), or extirpated (X). 

Absence is implied for all polygons not attributed. This base coding system was 

modified based on reproductive use (breeding, non-breeding, both) and seasonal use 

(migratory, wintering, summering, year-round). A wide variety of sources were used for 

species range delineation, emphasizing the most recent published literature. 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHRs) are statements describing resources and 

conditions present in areas where a species persists and reproduces or otherwise occurs. 

Relationships can be modeled to predict habitat composition. WHRs were developed 

from a variety of sources including previous state GAP efforts. Project personnel 

identified a set of standard state and regional references to use as a starting point for the 

modeling effort. This information, along with online databases such as the NatureServe 

Explorer database, Biota Information System of New Mexico, and internal databases 

such as the Colorado Wildlife Species Database was reviewed. WHRs were constructed 

following a standard protocol that provided a user interface / template, automated tools, 

and associated reference information for defining range limits and compiling habitat 

associations for each species. Regional vegetation alliances were one of the primary 

components of the WHR models. The core set of data layers that were addressed for 

each WHR model included land cover (SWReGAP land cover map), elevation, slope, 

aspect, hydrology (distance to hydrologic features), and soils. Other layers addressed in 

the habitat-modeling protocol were mountain ranges, temperature, precipitation, and 

landform. 

To facilitate habitat modeling a set of Microsoft Accesstm databases were created based 

on the recommendations of Deitner et al (1999). The resulting databases are a tool for 

modeling and for end-users. The FrontEndArc9 database provided a series of forms or 

wizards that guide the modeler through the habitat model. The draft models and 
SWReGAP 

vii

associated data (report, range, model) were then submitted for expert review. Reviewers 

included staff from Federal and State agencies (such as State wildlife and natural 

resources agencies), university scientists, and private individuals and groups familiar with 

species occurrence and natural history in the Southwest (e.g. the Great Basin Bird 

Observatory in Nevada). The reviewers were asked to identify their level of confidence 

in the overall model, the range limits, the report content, and the individual datasets used 

in modeling. SWReGAP received more than 1,000 reviews covering most of the species 

that were modeled. 

The standard Gap Analysis assessment is a measure of agreement to describe the degree 

of concurrence between habitat model predictions, and species occurrences as 

documented by inventory studies. We obtained 14 species lists from the National Park 

Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program for the Northern Colorado 

Plateau network and have identified data from the southern Colorado Plateau Parks 

(including northern Arizona and Northern New Mexico), and the Sonoran Desert network 

of National Parks (including southern Arizona and southern New Mexico). We 

conducted an initial assessment on species lists for the Northern Colorado Plateau NPS 

network. This assessment, however, identified a bias in the outcome because accidental, 

rare, and occasional species were included with the species lists. Our protocol for 

identifying species and mapping habitat eliminated these species based on these factors. 

Thus, omission error is significantly increased by using this data. We have omitted that 

analysis from this report in an effort to further refine the assessment and provide more 

accurate analysis. 

GAP has often been associated with the mapping of species-rich areas or “hotspots.” 

Richness maps identify where the same numbers of elements co-occur in the same 

geographic locations. Total species richness is highest in southwestern New Mexico and 

southeastern Arizona (438-492 species). This area includes the Madrean Archipelago 

and is influenced by species ranging north from Mexico. In New Mexico, relatively high 

richness (391-437 species) occurs throughout the Rio Grande Valley. The Front Range 

of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado is identified as having relatively high species 

richness. This is due in part to the presence of Great Plains species and Rocky Mountains 

species. The Colorado River including the Lake Mead area is also relatively high in 

species richness. It is important to note that overall richness is weighted heavily by the 

number of bird species within the project area. 

To our knowledge these models represent the first regional habitat models for vertebrate 

species at this resolution for the American Southwest. We anticipate that as these models 

are used the end-users will identify needed modifications. The intent of the dataset and 

associated GIS tools is to provide the ability for model modification and end-user 

functionality. The maps of species habitat distributions may be used to answer a wide 

variety of management, planning, and research questions on individual species or groups 

of species. In addition to the maps, great utility may be found in the literature references 

that are assembled into the databases used to produce the maps. 
SWReGAP 

viii

Land Stewardship and Management

The term "stewardship" is used to describe the quality of land management that is 

collectively the land ownership of a parcel and the legal and administrative mandates that 

guide the management of the parcel as it affects the long-term maintenance of 

biodiversity. Land stewardship was mapped in two phases: (1) documentation of land 

ownership; and (2) assignment of biodiversity management status codes. 

Existing digital ownership datasets provided a baseline of ownership boundaries for each 

state in the region. Base ownership data came from the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for the states of Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The Arizona ownership data 

coverage is published by the Arizona State Land Department and Arizona Land Resource 

Information System. The Colorado ownership data was gathered in coordination with the 

Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection (COMaP) project at the Natural 

Resource Ecology Lab (NREL), Colorado State University. These base ownership data 

layers distinguished general administrative land ownership by private, state, and federal 

categories. In most cases, federal and state lands were then further divided by managing 

entity such as BLM, National Park Service (NPS), or State Trust Lands. Special 

management areas, such as wilderness, and other internal management units were often 

not delineated in these baseline ownership datasets. Additional boundary information for 

special management units or other internal boundaries was also collected via the Internet 

or from agency GIS personnel. 

Base data layers for each state were then converted to a common projection system and 

loaded into the SWReGAP geographic database (geodatabase). The geodatabase was 

structured to meet GAP standards and included domains described by the GAP 

Management Coding System. This Coding System assigns a four-digit code to each land 

management descriptor. For example, a BLM National Monument would be assigned a 

code of 1104. Additional attributes such as the GAP biodiversity management status 

code, individual parcel name, and source of the digital data were added to the 

geodatabase attribute table for each parcel.

Each stewardship parcel was assigned a GAP management status code using a scale of 1 

to 4 to denote relative degree of maintenance of biodiversity for each tract. Status 1 and 

2 represent permanently protected lands that are managed for biological diversity, Status 

3 lands are those lands under a management plan that prevents conversion to non-natural 

cover types but are subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type or 

localized intense type, and Status 4 represents those lands that are not managed for 

biodiversity or are not under a management plan. Status codes were determined by 

consulting management plans if they existed or interviewing agency personnel using a 

standardized questionnaire. To minimize variability in assigning management status 

codes a dichotomous key was used to ensure consistent assignment of codes. The 

dichotomous key guides users through a series of questions related to management 

documentation, legal protection, percentage of land in anthropogenic use, and 

management for natural processes. 
SWReGAP 

ix

External review meetings were held in each state to allow agency experts to review and 

comment on the stewardship data layer for that state. Attendees were able to provide 

their comments on the accuracy of boundary and ownership information, as well as the 

management status codes that were assigned to land parcels. 

In the Southwest region, federal agencies account for the largest land steward category 

managing over 51% of the landscape. BLM is the largest federal land steward 

accounting for over 30% of the total land area. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is the 

second largest federal land steward accounting for 14% of the area. Private lands are the 

second largest land steward category in the region comprising 30% of the region’s lands. 

Tribal lands and State managed lands account for 9% and 8% respectively. Regional and 

local government lands, non-governmental organization lands, and water bodies comprise 

the smallest proportion of land stewards each contributing less than 1% to the overall 

area. 

A review of the protection status of lands in the region shows that Status 1 lands 

comprise 3% of the region. Stewards managing these lands include 40% managed by 

National Park Service, 33% managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 21% by USFS, 

and 7% by BLM. State lands and non-governmental organizations account for less than 

1% of Status 1 lands. Status 2 lands comprise 9% of the region. The largest land steward 

in this category is the BLM which manages 57% of these lands. Other land stewards 

include 26% managed by USFS, 5% managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 4% 

managed by state wildlife agencies. Status 3 lands comprise 50% of the region. BLM 

manages 51% of Status 3 lands, USFS manages 23%, and Native Americans manage 

17%. Status 4 lands comprise 38% of the region. Private land stewards manage over 

80% of these lands, with State Land Board lands managing 17%. 

Analyses 

By intersecting the land stewardship and management status maps with the land cover 

and animal-habitat species distribution maps, estimates were produced of the total area 

and percent of the mapped distributions for every land cover class and animal species 

within each land stewardship and management status category. Calculations were 

generated for the entire 5-state region as well as for each state individually. As a coarse 

indicator of the conservation status of the elements, we identify for every land cover type 

and animal species, the proportion of its distribution that falls within Status 1 and 2 lands 

according to five levels of representation: 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and 

>=50%. 

Land Cover

Approximately 11.5% (160,183 km2

) of the 5-state region falls within GAP Status 1 or 2. 

In general, land cover classes at higher elevations are more likely to have a larger 

proportion of their total distribution within GAP Management Status 1 and 2 than lower 

elevation land cover classes, because much of the higher elevation land is under 

government stewardship with a mandate to protect biodiversity (e.g. Wilderness Areas). 

 
SWReGAP 

x

Six ecological systems in the region have less than 1% of their distribution within Status 

1 and 2 lands. These include: one barren type, one shrub/scrub type, one emergent 

herbaceous wetland system, and three grassland/herbaceous systems. With one exception 

(Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie) they are mostly rare, small patch types or 

peripheral types that occur on the edge of their range within the SWReGAP project area. 

Thirty-four ecological systems have between 1 and <10% of their distribution within 

Status 1 or 2 lands. Twenty-one of these ecological systems are relatively uncommon 

(<10,000 km2 mapped in the region) and all but one (Inter-Mountain Basins Wash) of the 

6 rarest types (<200 km2

 mapped), are peripheral to the region. Twenty-seven ecological 

systems have between 10 and <20% of their distribution in Status 1 or 2 lands. These 

ecological systems occur in a wide variety of environmental settings, from areas of high 

elevation with subalpine forests and wetlands to playas and salt desert scrub. Types of 

ecological systems include: 4 riparian systems, 1 aspen and 1 aspen-mixed conifer 

system, 2 montane grassland systems, 2 dune systems, and 1 badland system. Thirty-five 

ecological systems have between 20 and <50% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 

lands. Many of these ecological systems include lower- to mid-elevation forests and rock 

outcrops (e.g. barren lands). Seven ecological systems have greater than 50% of their 

distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands. With the exception of one somewhat rare system 

(Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral), all occur in higher elevation (alpine and 

subalpine) zones. 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions

Twenty-five species (3% of those modeled) have less than 1% of their habitat on Status 1 

and 2 lands within the region. These include 18 bird species, 4 reptiles, 2 mammals, and 

1 amphibian. Several of these species, such as the lesser prairie-chicken, are already the 

subject of conservation planning. There are 288 species (35% of modeled species) with 

predicted habitat of between 1 and less than 10% on status 1 and 2 lands. These include 

14 amphibian species, 144 bird species, 78 mammal species, and 52 reptile species. 

There are 385 species (47% of modeled species) with 10-<20% of their predicted habitat 

on status 1 and 2 lands within the entire region. These include 18 amphibian species, 219 

bird species, 107 mammals, and 41 reptiles. There are 108 species (13 % of those 

modeled) with 20-<50% of their predicted habitat on status 1 and 2 lands. These 108 

species include 4 amphibian species, 47 bird species, 26 mammal species, and 31 reptile 

species. Eleven species (1% of those modeled) have predicted habitat occurring on status 

1 and 2 lands greater than 50%. These species include 7 birds, 2 mammals, and 2 

reptiles. Birds include Clapper rail, dunlin, black tern, sedge wren, tricolored blackbird, 

brown-capped rosy-finch, and Mexican chickadee. Mammals include Palmer’s 

chipmunk and mountain goat. Reptiles include Sonoran shovel-nosed snake and ridgenosed rattlesnake. 
SWReGAP 

xi

Conclusions 

The Southwest is home to a diverse assemblage of plant and animal species largely, due 

to the complex topography, geology, soils, and climate patterns that occur throughout the 

region. This area faces many threats that affect not only biological resources, but the 

human populations that may directly or indirectly depend on their sustainability. Adverse 

factors include prolonged drought, invasive plant and animal species, over-utilization by 

livestock, altered fire regimes, increased land development and recreational demands, soil 

erosion, stream channelization, consumptive water use, oil and gas exploration, habitat 

fragmentation and conversion, over-harvesting of certain plants and animals, population 

isolation, and disease. 

Throughout the 5-state region, 11.5% of the total land base has been identified as 

providing protection for biodiversity in Status 1 and 2 lands. The majority of this (46%) 

is managed by BLM (largely associated with National Monuments), followed by U.S. 

Forest Service (25%), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (11%), and National Park Service 

(11%). Forty ecological systems and 309 terrestrial vertebrate species have less than 

10% of their regional distribution within Status 1 and 2 lands. An additional 36 

ecological systems and 107 terrestrial vertebrate species have greater than 10% of their 

distribution, but less than 500 km2

 total area within Status 1 and 2 lands. Ecological 

systems and terrestrial vertebrate species that have less than 10% of their distribution or 

less than 500 km2 absolute areal coverage in Status 1 and 2 lands may be underrepresented and point to “gaps” in their conservation (Schrupp et al. 2000). Although 

other major land stewards in the region (e.g. private (comprising 30% of the 5-state area), 

tribal (9%), and state land board (7%)) may not always achieve the legal mandate for 

conservation management, their lands may in fact provide protection for certain species 

and land cover types. It is important to consider the potential that each land steward may 

provide as a partner in conservation, particularly at local and ecoregional scales. 

As a separate effort, but in parallel with SWReGAP, each of the five states recently 

completed their State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). These strategies identify species of 

greatest conservation need (SGCN) and key habitats specific to each state. Also included 

in these reports is detailed information about the threats facing the different habitat types. 

The SWAP is a useful companion to SWReGAP for prioritizing ecological systems and 

species that require focused conservation efforts both within and between the Southwest 

states. 

We identified three categories of management concern to prioritize ecological systems 

and terrestrial vertebrate species that may require additional attention. The criteria used 

for these categories are the following: first priorities are ecological systems and predicted 

animal habitats with distributions of <1% within Status 1 and 2 lands; second priorities 

are those with between 1 and 10% in Status 1 or 2 lands; and third priorities are those 

with >10% but <500 km2 in Status 1 or 2 lands. We applied these criteria to the region 

and each state to enumerate their respective priority conservation concerns. Within the 

region, six ecological systems and 25 terrestrial vertebrate species were identified as first 
SWReGAP 

xii

priority management concern. Of the 25 vertebrate species identified as priorities, 11 

species were also identified as SGCN by the State Wildlife Action Plans. 

Application of SWReGAP data into conservation planning has already occurred at 

varying levels within state and federal agencies. An outreach effort has been initiated to 

provide agencies with help in understanding and implementing SWReGAP data in their 

conservation activities. These efforts further enhance the SWReGAP data set, providing 

an even greater foundation for future work by other agencies. For example, state wildlife 

agency use of SWReGAP animal habitat models should extend beyond the wildlife action 

plans to planning efforts of state land offices, parks, and other state agencies. SWReGAP 

data provides another tool for land managers to use in conservation planning and 

application in concert with current and future data sets (e.g., TNC Ecoregion Analysis, 

State Wildlife Action Plans). These and other tools when combined with human intellect 

have the capacity to provide for long term conservation in the Southwest. 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 
SWReGAP 

xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ iv

Data Development ...................................................................................................................... iv 

Land Cover.............................................................................................................................. iv 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions and Species Richness............................................... vi 

Land Stewardship and Management ..................................................................................... viii 

Analyses...................................................................................................................................... ix 

Land Cover.............................................................................................................................. ix 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions ................................................................................... x 

Conclusions................................................................................................................................. xi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. xiii 

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... xvii 

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... xix 

LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. xxi 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... xxiv 

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 

How This Report is Organized........................................................................................................ 2 

The Gap Analysis Program Mission............................................................................................ 2 

Regional objectives for GAP.................................................................................................... 3 

The Gap Analysis Concept .......................................................................................................... 3 

General Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 5 

The Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 5 

Columbia Plateau and Sierra Nevada....................................................................................... 7 

Basin and Range....................................................................................................................... 8 

Colorado Plateau .................................................................................................................... 10 

Rocky Mountains ................................................................................................................... 11 

Great Plains ............................................................................................................................ 12 

Land Management and Human Impacts to the Landscape..................................................... 12 

CHAPTER 2 LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING ....................................... 14 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 15 

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 16 

Land Cover Map Development.................................................................................................. 16 

Background ............................................................................................................................ 16 

Land Cover Mapping Methods.................................................................................................. 19 

Data Sources........................................................................................................................... 19 

Land Cover Modeling Using Decision Tree Classifiers ........................................................ 22 

SWReGAP Mapping Process................................................................................................. 23 

Land Cover Map Results ........................................................................................................... 26 

Land Cover Map Validation.......................................................................................................... 28 

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 28 

Land Cover Map Validation Methods ....................................................................................... 28 

Quantitative Assessment using Fuzzy Sets ............................................................................ 28 

Qualitative Assessment .......................................................................................................... 31
SWReGAP 

xiv

Land Cover Map Validation Results.......................................................................................... 31 

Mapping Zone Assessments................................................................................................... 31 

Regional Assessment ............................................................................................................. 31 

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 34 

Land Cover Mapping Methods.................................................................................................. 34 

Map Validation .......................................................................................................................... 36 

Project Coordination.................................................................................................................. 36 

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 37 

CHAPTER 3 PREDICTED ANIMAL HABITAT DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES 

RICHNESS.................................................................................................................................... 39 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 40 

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 42 

Taxa Inclusion Decision Rules .................................................................................................. 44 

Taxa Allocation Decision Rules ................................................................................................ 44 

Mapping Standards and Data Sources ....................................................................................... 45 

Mapping Range Extent .............................................................................................................. 47 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships................................................................................................... 50 

State Modeling Methods ........................................................................................................ 52 

Distribution Modeling................................................................................................................ 54 

Mammals................................................................................................................................ 56 

Birds ....................................................................................................................................... 56 

Reptiles................................................................................................................................... 56 

Amphibians ............................................................................................................................ 56 

Model Review............................................................................................................................ 57 

Final Models .............................................................................................................................. 58 

Accuracy Assessment ................................................................................................................ 58 

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 60 

Mammals ................................................................................................................................... 61 

Birds........................................................................................................................................... 62 

Reptiles ...................................................................................................................................... 63 

Amphibians................................................................................................................................ 64 

Species Richness ........................................................................................................................... 65 

Mammal Richness...................................................................................................................... 68 

Bird Richness............................................................................................................................. 68 

Reptile Richness ........................................................................................................................ 71 

Amphibian Richness.................................................................................................................. 72 

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 73 

Modeling Process....................................................................................................................... 73 

Expert Review ........................................................................................................................... 74 

Accuracy Assessment ................................................................................................................ 74 

Limitations of the Models.......................................................................................................... 75 

Suggestions for Future Work..................................................................................................... 76 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 78 

CHAPTER 4 LAND STEWARDSHIP........................................................................................ 79 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 80 

Methods......................................................................................................................................... 81 

Land Stewardship ...................................................................................................................... 81 

Biodiversity Management Status Categorization....................................................................... 84 

External Review......................................................................................................................... 87
SWReGAP 

xv

Regionalization .......................................................................................................................... 87 

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 88 

Land Stewards ........................................................................................................................... 88 

Biodiversity Management Status ............................................................................................... 89

Limitations and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 110 

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS BASED ON STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT STATUS 112 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 113 

Methods....................................................................................................................................... 114 

Results ......................................................................................................................................... 114 

Land Cover - Regional Analysis.............................................................................................. 115

Land Cover - State-based Analyses ......................................................................................... 121 

Arizona................................................................................................................................. 121 

Colorado............................................................................................................................... 127 

New Mexico......................................................................................................................... 133 

Nevada ................................................................................................................................. 139 

Utah...................................................................................................................................... 145 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions - Regional Analysis .................................................. 151 

Analysis of State Endemics ..................................................................................................... 158 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions – State-based Analyses............................................. 159 

Arizona................................................................................................................................. 159 

Colorado............................................................................................................................... 161 

New Mexico......................................................................................................................... 163 

Nevada ................................................................................................................................. 165 

Utah...................................................................................................................................... 167 

Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 169 

Limitations and Discussion...................................................................................................... 169 

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS ........................... 172 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 173 

Management Implications of SWReGAP Analysis..................................................................... 174 

Priority Conservation Concerns By State ................................................................................ 176 

Arizona................................................................................................................................. 176 

Colorado............................................................................................................................... 177 

New Mexico......................................................................................................................... 177 

Nevada ................................................................................................................................. 178 

Utah...................................................................................................................................... 179 

Additional Data Needs and Analyses.......................................................................................... 180

Land Cover .............................................................................................................................. 180 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions................................................................................... 181 

Land Stewardship .................................................................................................................... 182 

Gap Analyses ........................................................................................................................... 183 

Future Directions for GAP .......................................................................................................... 184 

CHAPTER 7 PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILITY.......................................................... 186 

How to Obtain the Products ........................................................................................................ 187 

Disclaimer................................................................................................................................ 187 

Metadata .................................................................................................................................. 188 

Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of These Data .................................................................. 189
SWReGAP 

xvi

LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................................ 192 

GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................ 201 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................. 207 

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 210 
SWReGAP 

xvii

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page

Table 2-1. Hierarchical structure of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification and the linkage 

with ecological systems................................................................................................................. 18 

Table 3-1. Project staff involved in development of animal-habitat distribution models for the 

SWReGAP program, and their affiliations.................................................................................... 42 

Table 3-2. Number of taxa allocated to individual projects for lead responsibility for the 

Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project............................................................................... 45 

Table 3-3. GIS coverages used in the animal species modeling process....................................... 46 

Table 3-4. Definitions and coding system identified for use in range delineation for the Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Project. ................................................................................................... 48 

Table 3-5. List of standard references used for animal-habitat distribution models .................... 49 

Table 4-1. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for the Region. ............. 92 

Table 4-2. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Arizona................... 93 

Table 4-3. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Colorado................. 94 

Table 4-4. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Nevada.................... 95 

Table 4-5. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for New Mexico. .......... 96 

Table 4-6. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Utah........................ 97 

Table 4-7. Documentation of Biodiversity Management Status 1 lands in Arizona. .................... 98 

Table 4-8. Documentation of Status 1 lands in Colorado............................................................ 101 

Table 4-9. Documentation of Status 1 lands in Nevada. ............................................................. 103 

Table 4-10. Documentation of Status 1 lands in New Mexico.................................................... 105 

Table 4-11. Documentation of Status 1 lands in Utah................................................................. 107 

Table 5-1. Representation of each land cover type in the SWReGAP project area within Status 1 

& 2 Lands, summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, and 20-<50%; 

>=50%. ........................................................................................................................................ 117 

Table 5-2. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >=50% in 

the state of Arizona...................................................................................................................... 124 

Table 5-3. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50% in 

the state of Colorado.................................................................................................................... 131 

Table 5-4. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50% in 

the state of New Mexico.............................................................................................................. 136
SWReGAP 

xviii

Table 5-5. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50% in 

the state of Nevada. ..................................................................................................................... 142 

Table 5-6: Percent distribution of each Land Cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 Lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >=50% in 

the state of Utah........................................................................................................................... 148 

Table 5-7. Number of species by Gap Status thresholds for each taxa group within region/state as 

mapped by the Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project..................................................... 152 

Table 5-8. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Management 

Status 1 or 2 for Region as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. ............. 155 

Table 5-9. Number of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species by threshold category for each state by 

threshold category for the region................................................................................................. 158 

Table 5-10. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Management 

Status 1 or 2 for Arizona as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project............. 160 

Table 5-11. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

Colorado as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. .................................... 162 

Table 5-12. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

New Mexico as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project................................ 164 

Table 5-13. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

Nevada as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. ....................................... 166 

Table 5-14. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

Utah as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project............................................. 167 

Table 6-1. Number of Ecological Systems of priority conservation concern identified within the 

SWReGAP project area and by state. (See Chapter 5, Table 5-1 for the list of relevant ecological 

systems.)...................................................................................................................................... 176 

Table 6-2. Number of modeled terrestrial vertebrate species in Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Project and Species of Greatest Conservation Need identified by each state in Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategies by priority of concern............................................................. 176
SWReGAP 

xix

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page

Figure 1-1 SWReGAP area map showing major municipalities and roads.................................... 6 

Figure 1-2 Physiographic provinces and major rivers in the SWReGAP area............................... 7 

Figure 2-1. Mapping zone boundaries for SWReGAP land cover mapping effort. ..................... 17 

Figure 2-2. SWReGAP area showing Landsat ETM+ scenes ...................................................... 20 

Figure 2-3. Overview of the SWReGAP Mapping Process ......................................................... 26 

Figure 2-4. Final land cover map showing a subset of land cover classes in the legend............ 27 

Figure 2-5. Overview of the SWReGAP fuzzy assessment process. ........................................... 30 

Figure 2-6. Example of edge-matching between UT-4 and CO-1................................................ 35 

Figure 3-1. Example Wildlife Habitat Relationship Graphical Model for Couch's spadefoot 

(Scaphiopus couchii) ITIS # 173429 for Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. ................. 55 

Figure 3-2. Potential Habitat Model for Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus). .......... 61 

Figure 3-3. Potential habitat model for Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) ............. 62 

Figure 3-4. Eastern (top) and western (bottom) habitat models for greater short-horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma hernandesi). Two models were created to reflect an elevation break between the 

two geographic areas. .................................................................................................................... 63 

Figure 3-5. Habitat model for Sacramento mountain salamander (Aneides hardii) produced in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. ................................................................................... 64 

Figure 3-6. Bat species richness for the entire Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project study 

area. ............................................................................................................................................... 66 

Figure 3-7. Species richness for rattlesnakes (genus Crotalus) for the Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project study area. .......................................................................................................... 66 

Figure 3-8. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 819 species in the Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Project...................................................................................................... 67 

Figure 3-9. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 215 modeled mammal species in 

the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project .............................................................................. 68 

Figure 3-10. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 437 modeled bird species in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project .................................................................................... 69 

Figure 3-11. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for modeled breeding bird species in 

the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project.. ............................................................................ 70 

Figure 3-12. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 130 modeled reptiles in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project .................................................................................... 71 

Figure 3-13. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 37 amphibian species in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project .................................................................................... 72 

Figure 4-1. Example of the attribute domains based on GAP Management Coding System. ..... 83 

Figure 4-3. Final stewardship map for the Southwestern U.S.................................................... 91 
SWReGAP 

xx

Figure 4-4. Final GAP management status map for the Southwestern U.S. .............................. 91 

Figure 5-1. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

and summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of 

Status 1 and 2 lands in the SWReGAP project area. ................................................................... 116 

Figure 5-2. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 

1 and 2 lands in the state of Arizona. .......................................................................................... 123 

Figure 5-3. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 

1 and 2 lands in the state of Colorado. ........................................................................................ 130 

Figure 5-4. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 

1 and 2 lands in the state of New Mexico. .................................................................................. 135 

Figure 5-5. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 

1 and 2 lands in the state of Nevada. ........................................................................................... 141 

Figure 5-6. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 

1 and 2 lands in the state of Utah. ............................................................................................... 147 

Figure 5-7. Percentage of species by taxon (amphibian, bird, mammal, reptile) occurring on GAP 

Status 1 and 2 lands within the 5 threshold categories (<1, 1-<10, 10-<20, 20-<50, >50) for 

animals modeled within the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project..................................... 154 

Figure 5-8. Total number of species by taxon by state or region on GAP Status 1 and 2 lands for 

the 5 threshold categories (<1, 1-<10, 10-<20, 20-<50, >50) for animal habitats modeled within 

the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. ........................................................................... 154 
SWReGAP 

xxi

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix Page

Appendix 1-1. List of Personnel................................................................................................. 211 

Appendix 2-1. Distribution of all samples used for mapping in the SWReGAP region. ........... 214 

Appendix 2-2. Total land cover mapped in square kilometers summarized by land cover class and 

state political boundaries. ............................................................................................................ 218 

Appendix 2-3. Ecological similarity codes, types, and descriptions for four major types of 

ecological similarity recognized within the region...................................................................... 222 

Appendix 2-4. Example of an original error matrix for mapping zone UT-5. ........................... 223 

Appendix 2-5. Example for UT-5 of ecological type similarity matrix showing the application of 

recognized similarity codes (Appendix 2-3) to off-diagonal (misclassification) cells from the 

original error matrix (Appendix 2-4)........................................................................................... 224 

Appendix 2-6. Relative similarity scoring system based on four major ecological similarity types 

(Appendix 2-3). ........................................................................................................................... 225 

Appendix 2-7. Example for UT-5 relative similarity scoring matrix showing the application of 

relative similarity scores to off-diagonal (misclassification) cells of the ecological similarity 

matrix (Appendix 2-4)................................................................................................................. 226 

Appendix 2-8. Revised error matrix: Correct and very similar are considered “correct” (i.e. 

scores 4 moved to diagonal)........................................................................................................ 227 

Appendix 2-9. Revised error matrix: Correct, very similar, and moderately similar are considered 

“correct” (i.e. scores 4 and 3 moved to diagonal). ...................................................................... 228 

Appendix 2-10. Revised error matrix: Correct, very similar, moderately similar, and somewhat 

similar are considered “correct” (i.e. scores 4, 3 and 2 moved to diagonal). .............................. 229 

Appendix 2-11. Example for UT-5. Summary of user’s accuracy for all levels of fuzzy 

assessment and the original error matrix. .................................................................................... 230 

Appendix 2-12. Example for UT-5. Summary of producer’s accuracy for all levels of fuzzy 

assessment and the original error matrix. .................................................................................... 231 

Appendix 2-13. Regional summary of land cover area and validation results sorted into 5 

validation groups and organized by NLCD land cover classes. .................................................. 232 

Appendix 3-1. List of species reviewed and modeled in Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project 

(* Indicates species not modeled in effort).................................................................................. 237 

Appendix 3-2. Decision Rules for Taxa inclusion ..................................................................... 255 

Appendix 3-3. Habitat Modeling Protocol .................................................................................. 256 

Appendix 3-4. Example habitat modeling data form ................................................................. 258 

Appendix 3-5. Complete list of references used in creating habitat models. .............................. 258 

Appendix 3-6. List of Animal Habitat Model external reviewers.............................................. 259 

Appendix 3-7. Examples of model documents including Model Report, Range, and Model ..... 261 

Appendix 3-8. Review Documentation for Habitat Models....................................................... 261
SWReGAP 

xxii

Appendix 3-9. Example Vertebrate Habitat Distribution Metadata ............................................ 262 

Appendix 3-10. Database Description......................................................................................... 277

Appendix 3-11. Species Richness by Land Cover Type ............................................................. 278 

Appendix 4-1. Management coding system for land stewardship............................................... 282 

Appendix 4-2. Standardized questionnaire used to interview land mangers to guide determination 

of biodiversity management state codes...................................................................................... 287

Appendix 4-3. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Arizona....................................................... 289 

Appendix 4-4. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Colorado..................................................... 296 

Appendix 4-5. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Nevada........................................................ 305 

Appendix 4-6. Documentation of Status 2 lands in New Mexico. .............................................. 309 

Appendix 4-7. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Utah. ........................................................... 314 

Appendix 5-1. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the 

SWReGAP project area............................................................................................................... 320 

Appendix 5-2. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within the four 

levels of GAP Management Status in the SWReGAP project area............................................. 325 

Appendix 5-3: Area (in square kilometers) of each land cover type summarized by land steward 

and GAP Management Status in the SWReGAP project area..................................................... 330 

Appendix 5-4. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the state 

of Arizona.................................................................................................................................... 351 

Appendix 5-5. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within the four 

levels of GAP Management Status in the state of Arizona. ........................................................ 355 

Appendix 5-6. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the state 

of Colorado.................................................................................................................................. 359 

Appendix 5-7. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within the four 

levels of GAP Management Status in the state of Colorado. ...................................................... 363 

Appendix 5-8. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the state 

of New Mexico............................................................................................................................ 367 

Appendix 5-9. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within the four 

levels of GAP Management Status in the state of New Mexico.................................................. 371 

Appendix 5-10. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the state 

of Nevada. ................................................................................................................................... 375 

Appendix 5-11. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within the four 

levels of GAP Management Status in the state of Nevada. ......................................................... 378 

Appendix 5-12. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the state 

of Utah......................................................................................................................................... 382 

Appendix 5-13. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within the four 

levels of GAP Management Status in the state of Utah. ............................................................. 386 

Appendix 5-14A. Percent distribution of each modeled species within 22 Land Stewardship 

categories by state and region...................................................................................................... 390
SWReGAP 

xxiii

Appendix 5-14B. Area distribution of each modeled species within 22 Land Stewardship 

categories by state and region...................................................................................................... 390 

Appendix 5-15. Area and percent distribution of each modeled species represented within the 

four levels of GAP Management Status by state and region....................................................... 391 

Appendix 7-1. List of Example GAP Applications.................................................................... 392
SWReGAP 

xxiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Many individuals and organizations contributed to the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Project (SWReGAP). Appendix 1-1 lists over 120 individuals who participated in 

various components of SWReGAP on behalf of each southwestern state. 

The regional land cover mapping lab would like to acknowledge the following 

individuals and organizations for their assistance. Foremost we would like to thank 

Collin Homer, Bruce Wylie, and Mike Coan at USGS EROS for their help with decision 

tree classifiers and the NLCD mapping tool. We would like to recognize both monetary 

and in-kind support provided by the Bureau of Land Management and in particular thank 

Diane Osborne formerly with the BLM National Science and Technology Center in 

Denver, CO for her contributions to the project. Other agencies and people we would 

like to recognize for their support include: Utah Division of Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service 

Region 4 (Ogden, UT), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Salt Lake Field Office, 

BLM Nevada State Office (Reno, NV), BLM Ely Field Office (Ely, NV), Steve Knick 

and the SageMap Program at the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 

Snake River Field Station (Boise, ID), and Northern Arizona University. 

On behalf of the habitat modelers, the regional habitat modeling lab would like to thank 

the species biologists who provided time and expertise in the review and modification of 

the SWReGAP habitat models. These individuals are listed in Appendix 3-6. We thank 

these and all others who have provided insight and thoughts in regard to regional habitat 

modeling. 

Greg Magee provided assistance in developing the description of the SWReGAP study 

area found in the Introduction chapter of this report. 

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the USGS BRD, Gap Analysis 

Program, without which completion of this project could not have been possible. And 

finally, although we are many successive generations removed, where we are today is due 

in large part to the vision of J. Michael Scott, whose leadership in the early days of GAP 

fostered an intellectual climate still being realized today. 
SWReGAP 

 

1

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Julie Prior-Magee 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 

Recommended Citation: 

Prior-Magee, J.S. 2007. Introduction. Chapter 1 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding author: J. Prior-Magee is to be contacted at jpmagee@nmsu.edu Tel. 575- 646-1084
SWReGAP 

 

2

HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED 

This report is a summation of a scientific project. While we endeavor to make it 

understandable for as general an audience as practicable, it reflects the complexity of the 

project it describes. A glossary of terms is provided to aid the reader in understanding the 

report; and for those seeking a detailed understanding of the subjects, the cited literature 

should be helpful. The organization of this report follows the general chronology of 

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

concluding with analysis of the data. It diverges from standard scientific reporting by 

embedding results and discussion sections within individual chapters. This was done to 

allow the individual data products to stand on their own as testable hypotheses and 

provide data users with a concise and complete report for each data and analysis product. 

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

limitations. We then present a synopsis of how the current biodiversity condition of the 

project area came to be, followed by chapters describing data development for land cover 

mapping, predicted animal habitat distribution, species richness, and land stewardship 

mapping and categorization. Data development leads to the Analysis chapter, which 

reports on the status of the elements of biodiversity (land cover and animal species), for 

the Southwest region. Finally, we describe the management implications of the analysis 

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

The Gap Analysis Program Mission 

The mission of the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is to prevent conservation crises by 

providing conservation assessments of biotic elements (plant communities and native 

animal species) 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 (FGDC 1997). 

2) map the predicted distribution of habitat for those terrestrial vertebrates and selected 

other taxa 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. 

3) document the representation of natural vegetation communities 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 regional or state 

level, but maintain consistency with national standards. Within the region, participation 

by a wide variety of cooperators is necessary and desirable to ensure understanding and 
SWReGAP 

 

3

acceptance of the data and forge relationships that will lead to cooperative conservation 

planning. 

Regional objectives for GAP

The lack of regional datasets and the problems of edge-matching existing state GAP data 

sets led GAP to initiate regional Gap Analysis Projects. The Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project is a mapping and assessment of biodiversity for the five-state region 

encompassing Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The primary 

objective of the project is to use a coordinated approach to create detailed, seamless maps 

of the land cover, habitat for native terrestrial vertebrate species, land stewardship, and 

management status for the entire region. 

The Gap Analysis Concept 

GAP brings together the problem-solving capabilities of federal, state, and private 

scientists to tackle the difficult issues of land cover mapping, animal habitat 

characterization, and biodiversity conservation assessment 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" 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 predicted distribution of 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 

underrepresented in existing management areas. It functions as a preliminary step to the 

more detailed studies needed to establish actual boundaries for planning and management 

of biological resources on the ground. These data and results are then made available to 

the public so that institutions as well as individual landowners and managers may become 

more effective stewards through more complete knowledge of the management status of 

these elements of biodiversity. 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 established Natural Heritage Programs in all 50 states. 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 15-10% 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. 

GAP is not designed to identify and aid protection of elements that are rare or of very
SWReGAP 

 

4

restricted distribution; rather it is designed to help "keep common species common" by 

identifying risk far in advance of actual population decline. These concepts are further 

developed below. 

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 

et al. 1988, 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 wideranging 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 land cover types mapped in GAP serve directly as a coarse 

filter, the goal being to assure adequate representation of all native vegetation community 

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 underrepresented vegetation types and animal species 

occur. 

More detailed analyses were not part of this project but are areas of research that GAP as 

a national program is pursuing. For example, a second filter could combine 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 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 tend to also 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 higher 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 movement of wide-ranging animals 

and the migration of species in response to climate change. 
SWReGAP 

 

5

General Limitations 

Limitations must be recognized so that additional studies can be implemented to 

supplement GAP. The following are general project limitations; specific limitations for 

the data are described in the respective sections: 

1. GAP data are derived from remote sensing and modeling 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 proactive: it seeks to 

recognize and manage sites of high biodiversity value for the long-term maintenance 

of populations of native species and communities before they 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. 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 

The following sources were used in preparing this description of the SWReGAP study 

area: DesertUSA 2006, Halvorson et al. 2002, Nevada Department of Wildlife 2005, 

Schrupp et al. 2000, The Official Website of the State of Utah 2005, Thompson et al. 

1996, United States Geological Survey 2006, and West and Young 2000. 

The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) area encompasses 

approximately 150 million hectares (560,000 square miles) and covers the states of 

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah (see Figure 1-1). The region is 93% 

of the size of Alaska and approximately 20% of the area of the contiguous United States. 
SWReGAP 

 

6

With elevations ranging from 21 meters along the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona to 

4,399 meters at Mount Elbert in the state of Colorado, the project area comprises an 

incredible diversity of landforms and ecosystems in four major physiographic provinces: 

the Basin and Range, Colorado Plateau, Rocky Mountains, and Great Plains (see Figure 

1-2). Small portions of the Columbia Plateau and Sierra Nevada ecoregions are also 

included in the northwest part of the project area. 

Figure 1-1 SWReGAP area map showing major municipalities and roads
SWReGAP 

 

7

Figure 1-2 Physiographic provinces and major rivers in the SWReGAP area 

Columbia Plateau and Sierra Nevada

These two ecoregions barely cross into the project area in Nevada, with the Columbia 

Plateau in the extreme northeast part of the state, and the Sierra Nevada in the extreme 

western. The Columbia Plateau is a broad expanse of semi-arid sagebrush covered 

volcanic plains and valleys and lies mostly north of Nevada. 

Slopes on the east side of the Sierra Nevada partially descend upon Nevada along its 

western border. Vegetation here is characterized by conifer communities mixed with 

sagebrush and pinyon-juniper in the lower elevations and an alpine zone characterized by 

bare rock, permanent snow fields, and few grass or forb species, including the Hidden 

Forest of the Sheep Range, home of the Hidden Forest Uinta chipmunk. Though Sierra 

Nevada barely comes into the project area, its physical presence dominates the western 

portion of the project area by dictating rainfall patterns and vegetation patterns, which in 

turn strongly influences the distribution of wildlife. 
SWReGAP 

 

8

Basin and Range

The Basin and Range of central and southern Nevada, eastern Utah, southern and western 

Arizona, and southwestern New Mexico comprises the largest portion of the project area 

and includes the great deserts of the southwest: the Great Basin, Mojave, Sonoran, and 

Chihuahuan. The major landforms in this province are a series of discrete, fault-block, 

north-south trending mountains interrupted by lower lying valleys or basins. This 

topography is the product of crustal stretching between the Sierra Nevada to the west and 

the Rocky Mountains to the east. Over time, erosion has steadily chipped away at the 

higher elevations, filling the basins between the ranges with sediments that are typically 

thousands of meters thick. Many of the valleys in the Basin and Range are closed 

drainage basins and at various times in geologic history, extensive lakes filled the basins. 

Because of the arid to semi-arid climate that exists today, most of the undrained basins 

now contain dry lakebeds or “playas.” Yet some lakes still exist in the province as 

evidenced by the Great Salt Lake, a remnant of the much larger ancient Lake Bonneville. 

Climate within the Basin and Range is quite varied. While the province as a whole is 

generally in a rain shadow created by the Sierra Nevada to the west, individual mountain 

ranges within the region can lift air masses, wringing out whatever moisture is left in 

them and creating precipitation at higher elevations. This local orographic effect creates 

a rainfall gradient, with mountains receiving noticeably more precipitation than adjacent 

basins. This climatic effect has been cited as contributing to the biotic diversity in the 

province, resulting in a “sky island and desert sea” aspect to the landscape. This 

condition also contributes to the high level of endemism found within the region. Since 

the crustal stretching and faulting are not uniform across the Basin and Range, the 

elevations of the mountains and basins vary considerably across the province. These 

regional differences have strongly influenced the flora and fauna communities and this 

large province can be further divided into different ecoregions. 

The Great Basin ecoregion includes much of central Nevada and eastern Utah, from the 

eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada near Reno, Nevada to the western slopes of the 

Wasatch Range near Salt Lake City, Utah. The entire region is a closed drainage basin 

with no outlet to the sea. Nevada is the most mountainous state in the U.S. with over 300 

mountain ranges separated by long, broad valleys. The Great Basin is characterized by 

large expanses of salt desert scrub and sagebrush shrublands. Mountainous areas include 

pinyon-juniper woodlands, mountain sagebrush, open coniferous forests, and alpine areas 

in the highest elevations. Remote mountaintops, isolated aquatic habitats in valley 

bottoms, weathered badlands, and sand dunes highlight the Great Basin’s unique 

biological diversity. While winters in the Great Basin are cold, summers are conversely 

hot and dry. A temperature swing of 40 degrees in any given summer day is not unusual. 

On average, the Great Basin receives between 18 and 30 centimeters of precipitation per 

year. Much of this falls as snow in the winter; while summer rains are often brief torrents 

that runoff before much moisture can soak into the soil. 

The Mojave Desert occupies southern Nevada, extreme southwestern Utah, northwestern 

Arizona, and southeastern California. Creosotebush, succulents, and yucca-blackbrush 

community types dominate the ecoregion. Joshua tree, a yucca species, is considered the 
SWReGAP 

 

9

indicator plant of the Mojave. As in other areas of the Basin and Range, upper elevation 

mountain communities also exist where there is a more mesic environment. This is 

where some of the ecoregion’s most isolated communities and species are found. About 

200 plant species are endemic to this desert. The Mojave is hotter and drier than the 

Great Basin, yet cooler than the Sonoran Desert. Precipitation here averages less than 13 

centimeters per year and falls more typically as rain in the winter. 

The Sonoran Desert of northwest Mexico, southwestern Arizona, and southeastern 

California is the hottest of the Southwest’s deserts. Freezing temperatures occur only for 

a few nights in the winter, while summers are extremely hot. Rainy periods occur in both 

winter and summer and produce a high biodiversity and a higher occurrence of trees than 

any of the adjacent deserts. Palo verde, ironwood, catclaw, and saguaro are some of the 

trees that dominate the landscape, while cholla cactus, saltbush, creosotebush, and 

bursages are common shrubs. Mesquite bosques, or woodlands, are found in areas where 

the water table is high. The Sonoran Desert is also the only ecoregion in the Basin and 

Range where thru-flowing streams and rivers are more common than undrained basins. 

The Gila River, a tributary of the Colorado crosses the Sonoran Desert from east to west 

and collects runoff from several side streams. Where water is not diverted for irrigation 

or other human uses, the streamside vegetation consists of Fremont cottonwood, Arizona 

ash, Arizona walnut, and willow species. The fauna of the Sonora is rich as well with 

many species derived from tropical and subtropical areas. 

Covering over 500,000 square kilometers, the Chihuahuan Desert is the largest desert in 

North America. Though most of this desert lies in Mexico, its northern limits extend into 

west Texas, southern New Mexico, and extreme southeast Arizona. This is shrub desert 

of creosotebush, mesquite, yuccas, agaves, prickly pear cactus, Mormon tea, and tarbush. 

Though historically more prevalent than today, grasslands are also an important 

vegetational component of this desert. With cool winters and hot summers, most of the 

area receives less than 25 centimeters of rainfall per year, most of which falls in torrential 

summer storms. Though most drainage basins here are closed as in the Great Basin, two 

major rivers do traverse the project area in New Mexico: the Rio Grande and Pecos 

River. Though severely impacted by human activities, these riparian systems do maintain 

limited areas of woodland comprised of cottonwood, willow, and ash trees. 

Another ecoregion found in the Basin and Range portion of the project area is the 

transitional area between the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert in southeast Arizona and 

southwest New Mexico. Here, components of the Sierra Madrean ecoregion extend into 

the U.S. from Mexico. An exceptionally large diversity of vegetation types is found from 

desert basin to mountaintop. Mammal diversity in this area is among the highest in the 

U.S., with influences from the Sierra Madre to the south, Rocky Mountains to the north, 

Sonoran Desert to the west, and Chihuahuan Desert to the east. 

The Basin and Range formation also includes the transitional areas of central and 

southern New Mexico where tall mountain ranges rise more than a 1,000 meters above 

the Chihuahuan Desert. The San Mateo, Magdalena, Sandia, Manzano, and Sacramento 

Mountain ranges exemplify this transitional area between the Basin and Range and 
SWReGAP 

 

10

adjacent provinces to the north and east. These ranges have peaks over 3,000 meters in 

elevation and biologically are in stark contrast to the desert environs below. Here the 

flora and fauna is more closely associated with the Rocky Mountains to the north with 

coniferous forests and woodlands, lush mountain meadows and grasslands, and 

permanent streams and springs. 

Colorado Plateau

The Colorado Plateau occupies the Four Corners region of the project area: southeast 

Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and southwest Colorado. It is the only 

physiographic province that lies totally within the project area. 

The sculptured beauty and brilliant colors of the Colorado Plateau's sedimentary rock 

layers have captured the imaginations of countless geologists. This is a vast region of 

plateaus, mesas, and deep canyons whose walls expose rocks ranging in age from billions 

to just a few hundred years old. In addition, volcanic cones dot the landscape and large 

volcanic mountains rise from the plateau to over 3,500 meters elevation. San Francisco 

Peaks of northern Arizona, the Abajo and La Sal Mountains of southeast Utah, and 

Mount Taylor of northwest New Mexico are examples of these volcanic highlands. 

One of the most geologically intriguing features of the Colorado Plateau is its remarkable 

stability. Relatively little faulting and folding has affected this high, thick crustal block 

within the last 600 million years or so. Although the Basin and Range and Colorado 

Plateau may seem to have little in common, their geological stories are intimately 

intertwined. In the early part of the Cenozoic Era, both regions had low elevations of 

probably less than 1 kilometer. Although geologists are still debating what came next, it 

is theorized that beginning about 20 million years ago, both the Basin and Range and 

Colorado Plateau regions were uplifted as much as 3 kilometers. Great tension developed 

in the crust, probably related to changing plate motions far to the west. As the crust 

stretched, the Basin and Range Province broke up into a multitude of down-dropped 

valleys and elongate mountains. Yet for some reason not fully understood, the 

neighboring Colorado Plateau was able to preserve its structural integrity and remained a 

single tectonic block. Eventually, the great block of Colorado Plateau crust rose a 

kilometer higher than the Basin and Range. 

As the land rose, the streams responded by cutting ever-deeper stream channels. The 

most well known of these watercourses, the Colorado River, began to carve the Grand 

Canyon less than 6 million years ago. Other major tributaries of the Colorado River in 

the Plateau include the Green River of eastern Utah, the Gunnison and Dolores Rivers of 

southwest Colorado, the San Juan River of northwest New Mexico and southeast Utah, 

and the Little Colorado River of northeast Arizona. With the exception of the Little 

Colorado, most of the major rivers of the Plateau have their headwaters high in the Rocky 

Mountains to the north and east. Millions of years of down cutting by these and other 

rivers have created a maze of brilliantly colored canyons exposing the plateau’s rich 

geologic history. 
SWReGAP 

 

11

With the exception of the higher and colder mountains, most areas of the plateau have 

cold winters, yet hot summers. Large tracts of the province receive less than 25 cm of 

precipitation annually. Moisture comes primarily as rain during mid to late summer 

months, often associated with convection currents rising from the Gulf of California or 

the Gulf of Mexico. However, snow is not uncommon in winter, especially in the higher 

mountains. Significant year-to-year variation occurs more often than not, and severe 

drought and flooding are not uncommon occurrences. This variation has a profound 

effect on plant and animal life. 

Vegetation types in the Colorado Plateau include alpine tundra, subalpine and montane 

forests, lush mountain meadows, and montane grasslands in the high elevation 

mountains. However, more area is covered in pinyon-juniper woodland and shrubland, 

including sagebrush and semi-desert shrubland. Riparian habitats are associated with the 

river systems of the plateau. 

Rocky Mountains

The Rockies form a majestic mountain barrier on the west side of the Great Plains that 

stretches from Canada to northern New Mexico. Though not obvious to the casual 

observer, the Rockies are actually a discontinuous series of mountain ranges with distinct 

geological origins. Within the project area, north-central New Mexico and central 

Colorado are associated with the Southern Rockies, northwest Colorado with the 

Wyoming Basin, and northeast Utah with the Middle Rockies. 

The Rocky Mountains took shape during a period of intense plate tectonic activity from 

about 170 to 40 million years ago. The last mountain building event during this time was 

the Laramide orogeny (about 70 to 40 million years ago) and is responsible for raising the 

Rocky Mountains. Before the Laramide orogeny, western North America suffered the 

effects of repeated collisions as slabs of ocean crust, carried along by subducting ocean 

plates, were swept into the subduction zone and onto North America’s edge. Inland from 

the coast, magma above the subducting slab rose into the North American continental 

crust and created great arc-shaped volcanic mountain ranges as lava and ash spewed out 

of dozens of volcanoes. Beneath the surface, great masses of molten rock were injected 

and hardened in place. Initially the effects of these plate collisions focused near the edge 

of the continent, but about 70 million years ago, the mountain building reached further 

inland where the present-day Rocky Mountains are found. 

The tallest peaks within the project area are found in the Rocky Mountains, with many 

ranges exceeding 4,000 meters in elevation. Though there is climatic variation within the 

province, much of the area is considered to be humid with some areas receiving over 100 

cm of rain annually. Winters are long and very cold with permanent snowfields found in 

the higher elevations. Summers are short and cool and afternoon rain showers are 

common during the warmer months. The extremes of elevation and relief are reflected in 

its diversity of habitats, ranging from alpine tundra, through sub-alpine, and montane 

forests, to montane grasslands and shrublands, and pinyon-juniper woodlands. Riparian 

habitats are dispersed throughout the area. The Rockies are the source of most of the 

major rivers in the intermountain West and the Great Plains to the east. 
SWReGAP 

 

12

Great Plains

The Interior Plains is a vast region that spreads across the stable core of North America. 

This area formed when several small continents collided well over a billion years ago. 

Most of this region remained relatively unaffected by mountain building episodes and it 

has low relief, reflecting more than 500 million years of relative tectonic stability. 

During its long geologic history, the plains were periodically inundated by shallow seas 

that deposited marine sediments. The flatness of the plains is a reflection of the platform 

of mostly flat-lying marine and stream deposits laid down in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic 

Eras. In east New Mexico and west Texas, the Llano Estacado is considered one of the 

flattest, most featureless landscapes in the United States. Most of the western portion of 

the Interior Plains is referred to as the Great Plains and these high plains of eastern 

Colorado and New Mexico are included within the project area. This portion of the 

province also received deposits from the eroding Rocky Mountains to the west. Though 

nearly flat, the landscape is occasionally interrupted by sand hills and erosion along 

stream coursed to form canyons, cliffs, and escarpments. 

Ranging in elevation from over 1,500 meters in the north to less than 1,000 meters in the 

south, the high plains portion of the project area exhibit quite a variation in climate and 

ecology. Though still considered semi-arid, northern areas are wetter and have longer 

and colder winters. Southern areas have short, mild winters and extremely hot summers. 

Eastern Colorado and northeast New Mexico are primarily covered in plains grasslands, 

while southeast New Mexico is actually considered part of the Chihuahuan Desert 

(previously described in the Basin and Range section). Rivers that originate in the Rocky 

Mountains to the west traverse the plains, the major ones being the South Platte, 

Arkansas, Canadian, and Pecos Rivers. 

Land Management and Human Impacts to the Landscape

There is evidence of human habitation within the project area that dates back nearly 

13,000 years. Lifestyles of the native peoples evolved from nomadic hunter-gathering to 

more sedentary as the climate became drier and subsistence farming became important. 

Until the time of European immigration, human influence on the vegetation was 

relatively slight. Contrasted with the 300-150 yrs of occupation by Euro-Americans, 

dramatic changes in the landscape and vegetation have since occurred (West and Young 

2000). Human influences are now seen as significant drivers of change on the landscape. 

Currently, federal agencies account for the largest land steward category managing over 

51% of the landscape. BLM is the largest federal land steward accounting for over 30% 

of the total land area. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is the second largest federal land 

steward accounting for 14% of the area. Private lands are the second largest land steward 

category in the region comprising 30% of the region’s lands. Private lands have 

particularly been impacted with direct conversion of large areas of wildland to agriculture 

and urban areas. Some regions within the project area are among the fastest growing in 

the nation and this pressure will only continue to increase. Most public lands are 

managed under multiple use and sustained yield policies, which requires the federal 

agencies to manage its resources for a combination of diverse uses while balancing longterm needs for renewable and non-renewable resources. Much of the federal lands are 
SWReGAP 

 

13

managed for recreation, livestock grazing, mining, logging, and energy development. 

These uses have and continue to alter the natural character of the land. In addition, 

desertification as related to water extraction and diversion projects, suppression of wild 

fire, and introduction of exotic weeds are ongoing threats to biodiversity of the landscape. 

There are some who suggest that human’s heaviest imprint may come from seemingly 

indirect consequences of developed infrastructures (roads, pipelines) within and between 

habitats. 
SWReGAP 

 

14

CHAPTER 2 

LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION 

AND MAPPING 

John H. Lowry, Jr., R. Douglas Ramsey, Kathryn A. Thomas, Donald Schrupp, William 

Kepner, Todd Sajwaj, Jessica Kirby, Eric Waller, Scott Schrader, Sarah Falzarano, Lisa 

Langs Stoner, Gerald Manis, Cynthia Wallace, Keith Schulz, Patrick Comer, Keith Pohs, 

Wendy Rieth, Cristian Velasquez,

, Brett Wolk, Kenneth G. Boykin, Lee O’Brien, Julie 

Prior-Magee, David Bradford, and Bruce C. Thompson. 

Recommended Citation: 

Lowry, J. H, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, K. A. Thomas, D. Schrupp, W. Kepner, T. Sajwaj, J. Kirby, E. Waller, S. 

Schrader, S. Falzarano, L. Langs Stoner, G. Manis, C. Wallace, K. Schulz, P. Comer, K. Pohs, W. 

Rieth, C. Velasquez, B. Wolk, K.G., Boykin, L. O’Brien, J. Prior-Magee, D. Bradford and B. 

Thompson. 2007. Land cover classification and mapping. Chapter 2 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., 

eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis 

Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding authors: J. Lowry is to be contacted at jlowry@gis.usu.edu, Tel. 435-797-0653, and R. D. 

Ramsey is to be contacted at dougr@gis.usu.edu, Tel. 435-797-3783. 
SWReGAP 

 

15

INTRODUCTION 

In its "coarse filter" approach to conservation biology (Jenkins 1985, Noss 1987) gap 

analysis relies on maps of dominant land cover as the most fundamental spatial 

component of the analysis for terrestrial environments (Scott et al. 1993). For the 

purposes of GAP, most of the land cover of interest can be characterized as natural or 

semi-natural vegetation defined by the dominant plant species. 

Vegetation patterns are an integrated reflection of physical and chemical factors that 

shape the environment of a given land area (Whittaker 1965). Often vegetation patterns 

are determinants for overall biological diversity patterns (Franklin 1993, Levin 1981, 

Noss 1990) which can be used to delineate habitat types in conservation evaluations 

(Specht 1975, Austin 1991). As such, dominant vegetation types need to be recognized 

over their entire range of distribution (Bourgeron et al. 1994) for beta-scale analysis 

(sensu Whittaker 1960, 1977). Various methods may be used to map vegetation patterns 

on the landscape, the appropriate method depending on the scale and scope of the project. 

Projects focusing on smaller regions, such as national parks, may rely on aerial photo 

interpretation (USGS-NPS 1994). Mapping vegetation over larger regions has commonly 

been done using digital imagery obtained from satellites, and may be referred to as land 

cover mapping (Lins and Kleckner 1996). 

Generally, land cover mapping is done by segmenting the landscape into areas of relative 

homogeneity that correspond to land cover classes from an adopted or developed land 

cover legend. Technical methods to partition the landscape using digital imagery-based 

methods vary. Unsupervised approaches involve computer-assisted delineation of 

homogeneity in the imagery and ancillary data, followed by the analyst assigning land 

cover labels to the homogenous clusters of pixels (Jensen 2005). Supervised approaches 

utilize representative samples of each land cover class to partition the imagery and 

ancillary data into clusters of pixels representing each land cover class. Supervised 

clustering algorithms assign membership of each pixel to a land cover class based on 

some rule of highest likelihood (Jensen 2005). Supervised-unsupervised hybrid 

approaches are common and often offer advantages over both approaches (Lillesand and 

Kieffer 2000). 

It is important to point out that a land cover map is never considered a perfect 

representation of the landscape. Improvements to land cover maps can, and should be 

made as additional “ground truth” information about actual land cover components and 

spatial patterns is acquired through time. These improvements should be based on 

independent assessments of the map’s quality (Stoms 1994). 

This chapter is divided into three main sections. The first section discusses land cover 

map development. It begins by providing background information on the regional 

division of labor and the regional land cover legend. It then focuses on our land cover 

mapping methods, including a description of data sources, the land cover modeling 

approach, and the general flow of the mapping process. It concludes with a description 
SWReGAP 

 

16

of the resulting land cover map product. The second section describes the process of 

validating the land cover product. Background information on our approach is presented 

along with descriptions of the methods and results of the land cover product validation. 

The final section provides a discussion of the land cover mapping experience in general. 

In this section we discuss some of the “lessons learned” from the regional mapping effort 

with hopes that future mapping efforts of this nature will benefit from our experience. 

METHODS 

Land Cover Map Development 

Background

Division of Regional Responsibilities 

The use of “spectro-physiographic” mapping areas has proven useful for satellite-based 

land cover mapping by maximizing spectral differentiation between areas with relatively 

uniform ecological characteristics (Bauer et al. 1994, Homer et al. 1997, Lillesand 1996, 

Reese et al. 2002). Dividing the 1.4 million square kilometer region into spectrophysiographic “mapping zones” provided working units distributed among the five 

collaborating states. With the diversity of biogeographic divisions across the region, we 

recognized the importance of leveraging local knowledge of the biota in each sub-region. 

We consequently determined that a geographical approach, assigning state teams to work 

in their local landscapes was the most appropriate means for distributing regional 

mapping responsibilities. Overall project tracking and management was conducted by the 

regional land cover lab at Utah State University. 

Ecoregions defined by Bailey et al. (1994) and Omernik (1987) provided a starting point 

for determining the project mapping zone boundaries. These boundaries were refined by 

screen digitizing at a scale of approximately 1:500,000 using a regional mosaic of 

Landsat TM imagery resampled to 90 meters. Initial efforts yielded 73 mapping zones 

for the region. Through a process of iterative and collaborative steps involving all land 

cover mapping teams and NatureServe, the final number of mapping zones was reduced 

to 25 (Figure 2-1). A more detailed explanation of mapping zone development is found 

in Manis et al. (2000). 

Each state was responsible for between four and six mapping zones roughly 

corresponding to state jurisdictional boundaries. Initial field data collection protocols 

were established at a workshop in Las Vegas, Nevada in the spring of 2001. Field data 

collection occurred during 2002 and 2003. Land cover workshops dedicated to ensuring 

regionally consistent mapping methods were conducted during the winters of 2002 and 

2003. Yearly meetings and monthly teleconferences involving key land cover mapping 

personnel from all five states and NatureServe ecologists proved invaluable throughout 

the collaborative mapping process. Mapping efforts were completed on a mapping zone 

by mapping zone basis by individual states, with the final integration of all mapping 
SWReGAP 

 

17

zones performed by the regional land cover lab. The seamless land cover map was 

completed and made available to the public in September 2004. 

NM-5

CO-4

CO-3

AZ-5

NV-3

AZ-4

NV-4

NM-4

UT-1

AZ-2

UT-3

UT-2

NV-2

NM-3

NV-5 NM-1

NM-2

AZ-1

CO-2

UT-4

AZ-3

CO-1

NV-1

UT-5

NV-6

120°W

120°W

115°W

115°W 110°W

110°W

105°W

105°W

100°W

35°N 35°N

40°N 40°N

WY SD

SON CHI

TX

CA

0 100 200 Miles

0 100 200 300 400 Kilometers

KS

Figure 2-1. Mapping zone boundaries for SWReGAP land cover mapping effort. 

Land Cover Legend 

The US National Vegetation Classification System (US-NVCS) has been adopted by the 

Federal Geographic Data Committee as the classification standard for all federal mapping 

projects (FGDC 1997) 1. A nested hierarchical structure of the US-NVCS defines 

classification units at the highest levels as heterogeneous units based solely on vegetative 

physiognomy and at the lower levels as more narrow and homogenous floristic units 

 

1 The FGDC set standards and policy for vegetation classification and map products to enable agencies to collect, report and map 

vegetation information in a standard format (FGDC 1997). Although the policy for applying the standard is only through the 

formation level (physiognomy only), agencies are encouraged to aid in the development of the floristic alliance and the association 

levels (FGDC 1997, pg. 4, 7). FGDC recognized that mapping applications need to be based on the requirement of the project, “The 

specific application of this standard to any mapping activities is dependent on the goals and objectives of the mapping activities...the 

classification standard merely sets a hierarchical list of classes that should be intelligently employed by the user based on the 

specifications and limitations of their particular mapping program” (FGDC 1997, pg. 9). Thus, the current FGDC standard is primarily 

for describing and classifying vegetation, whereas mapping units will reflect (1) the needs of the mapping project, (2) the technical 

tools, methods, and data available for mapping, and (3) the interactions of those factors with the vegetation classification concepts. 

The nested hierarchical structure was intended to ease applications of these classification concepts to the many and varied 

circumstances of vegetation mapping. At the time of its adoption, however, there had been limited experience in its mapped 

application at each hierarchical level. Because of difficulties in mapping at all levels, ‘compliance’ with the FGDC standard almost 

always requires some sort of crosswalk between resultant mapping units and classification units from one or more levels of the current 

FGDC hierarchy. 
SWReGAP 

 

18

(Table 2-1). The upper physiognomic levels of the NVCS framework are adapted from 

the World Physiognomic Classification of Vegetation (UNESCO 1973) and later 

modified for application to the United States by Driscoll et al. (1983, 1984). The lower 

floristic levels (e.g. Alliance and Association) are based on both structural and 

compositional characteristics of vegetation derived by Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 

(1974). The Nature Conservancy, and now NatureServe—along with the network of 

Natural Heritage Programs—have worked with others since 1985 on the systematic 

development, documentation, and description of vegetation types across the United States 

(Grossman et al. 1994, 1998). NatureServe and the Natural Heritage Network have been 

improving upon this system in recent years with significant funding supplied by GAP. 

Products from this on-going effort include a hierarchical vegetation classification 

standard (FGDC 1997) and the description of vegetation Alliances for the United States 

(Drake and Faber-Langendoen 1997, Reid et al. 1999, Sneddon et al. 1994, Weakley et 

al. 1996). An alliance is a physiognomically uniform group of Associations sharing one 

or more dominant or diagnostic species, that as a rule are found in the uppermost strata of 

the vegetation (see Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974). The basic assumptions and 

definitions for this system have been described by Jennings (1993) and Grossman et al. 

(1998). 

Table 2-1. Hierarchical structure of the U.S. National Vegetation Classification and the linkage with 

ecological systems. 

Link to 

FGDC 

standard 

Hierarchy level U.S. National Vegetation Classification Ecological 

systems 

Included Division 

Order 

Included Physiognomic 

levels 

Formation Class 

Formation Subclass 

Formation Group 

Formation Subgroup 

Formation 

Hierarchically 

linked 

Ecological 

systems 

Proposed Floristic levels Alliance 

Association 

When the SWReGAP project began in 1999 the intended thematic mapping unit was the 

NVC alliance. However, recognizing that over 500 alliances occur in the project area and 

that many alliances would be difficult to map as they do not occur in large and distinctive 

patches, we anticipated the need for a “meso” scale thematic mapping unit. In response 

to this need for a regionally consistent meso-scale land cover legend, NatureServe 

developed the Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification framework for the 

conterminous United States (Comer et al. 2003). Ecological systems are defined as 

“groups of plant community types that tend to co-occur within landscapes with similar 

ecological processes, substrates and/or environmental gradients” (Comer et al. 2003). 
SWReGAP 

 

19

Although distinct from the US-NVC, the vegetation component of an ecological system 

is described by one or more NVC alliances or associations, though this relationship is not 

strictly hierarchical. While the ecological system concept emphasizes existing dominant 

vegetation types, it also incorporates physical components such as landform position, 

substrates, hydrology, and climate. In this manner, ecological system descriptions are 

modular, having multiple diagnostic classifiers used to identify several ecological 

dimensions of the mapping unit (Di Gregorio and Jansen 2000). Diagnostic classifiers 

include environmental and biogeographic characteristics, which are incorporated in the 

ecological system name thus providing descriptive information about the system through 

a standardized naming convention. More detailed information about the Terrestrial 

Ecological Systems Classification for the United States is available at 

http://www.natureserve.org/publications/usEcologicalsystems.jsp. 

NatureServe Terrestrial Ecological Systems present one approach for mapping efforts to 

comply with Federal Geographic Data Committee standards. They are defined in terms 

of the base units (alliances and associations) of the US-NVC, and may be readily 

attributed to the upper-most levels of the FGDC hierarchy (e.g., Division, Order, Class, 

Subclass). We follow this approach by attributing all mapping units to NLCD land cover 

classes 1 and 2 (Appendix 2-3 and 2-13) which closely follow these upper FGDC levels. 

This approach facilitates application of these mapped data to these hierarchical levels. 

The initial SWReGAP target legend developed by NatureServe and the mapping teams 

identified approximately 110 potentially mappable ecological systems from the 140 that 

occur in the five-state region. Omitted ecological systems were mostly small patch 

(below minimum mapping unit) or peripheral to the region and lacked adequate training 

sites. The Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification focuses on natural and seminatural ecological communities. For SWReGAP, altered and disturbed land cover and 

land use classes were considered separately. These classes were incorporated into the 

SWReGAP legend using descriptions adopted from either the National Land Cover 

Dataset 2001 legend (e.g. Agriculture, Developed-Medium-High Intensity) (Homer et al. 

2004) or were given a special “altered or disturbed” designation within the SWReGAP 

legend (e.g. recently burned, recently logged areas, invasive annual grassland, etc.). 

Land Cover Mapping Methods 

Data Sources

Seventy-nine Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) scenes (Figure 2-2)

provided complete coverage of the five-state region, and were acquired from the USGS 

National Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) through the MultiResolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). Spring, summer, and fall images 

were provided, raising the total number of images to 237 for the region. Optimal imagery 

dates varied across the region and were selected for peak phenological differences as well 

as clarity and low cloud cover. Image acquisition dates ranged from 1999 to 2001. All 

ETM+ scenes were terrain-corrected and provided to Utah State University in NLAPS 

(National Landsat Archive Processing System) format. 
SWReGAP 

 

20

3838 3638 3538 3438 3238 3738

3138 3338

3837 3437 3737 3637

3137

3937 3537 3237 3337

3436 3936 3836 3736 3636 3536 3336 3136 3236

4035 3435 3835 3735 3335 3935 3635 3535 3235 3135

4234 4034 3334 3434 3834 3734

3234

3634 4134 3934 3534

3134

4033 4233 3333 3233

3833 3733 3633 3433 3933 4133 3533

4032 4232 3332 3232

3932 3732 4132 3832 3432 3632 3532 4332

3133

3931 3831 3731 4031 4131 3631 3531 4231

3132

4331 3431

4333

3331 3231 4431

120°W

120°W

115°W

115°W 110°W

110°W

105°W

105°W

100°W

35°N 35°N

40°N 40°N

WY SD

SON CHI

TX

CA

0 100 200 Miles

0 100 200 300 400 Kilometers

KS

Figure 2-2. SWReGAP area showing Landsat ETM+ scenes 

Our approach involved modeling image mosaics for each mapping zone (see Figure 2-1) 

including a 2 kilometer buffer (i.e. a 4 kilometer overlap between mapping zones). To 

improve image matching, image standardization for solar angle illumination, instrument 

calibration, and atmospheric haze (i.e. path radiance) was necessary. We determined the 

most practical approach was to use an image-based method as described by Chavez 

(1996). Standard protocol was to use a modified COST method (Chavez 1996). We 

found that using Chavez’ COST method over-corrected atmospheric transmittance, 

particularly for scenes in the arid Southwest. To address this over-correction, we used 

COST without TAUz (approximate atmospheric transmittance component of the COST 

equation). To facilitate image standardization, web-based scripts were developed to 

automate the process of generating corrected images on a scene-by-scene basis. 2 

 

2

 Scripts for image standardization were web-enabled making it possible for each land cover team to 

standardize their own images (see http://www.gis.usu.edu/docs/projects/swgap/ImageStandardization.htm). 

Users upload the image header file from which the script extracts the gain and bias coefficients, the solar 

zenith angle, and Julian date to produce an Imagine model (.gmd) file populated with extracted values for 

the specified correction equation. Because dark object brightness values were sometimes unavailable, or 

their selection was ambiguous in some mapping zones, an alternative script was available that converted 

brightness values to at-sensor reflectance. A single method, either the modified COST or at-sensor 

reflectance, was used within any given mapping zone (i.e. the standardization method was consistent within 

mapping zone mosaics). 
SWReGAP 

 

21

Spatial data layer preparation included both image-derived and ancillary data sets. Core 

image-derived data sets included individual ETM+ bands, the Normalized Difference 

Vegetation Index (NDVI), and brightness, greenness and wetness bands created using 

Landsat ETM+ coefficients from Huang et al. (2002). Ancillary data sets were derived 

from 30 meter digital elevation models (DEM) obtained from the USGS National 

Elevation Dataset. Digital elevation model-derived data sets were created for each 

mapping zone and included elevation, slope (in degrees), a 9-class aspect data set, and a 

10-class landform data set (Manis et al. 2001). Other ancillary data sets prepared for the 

region, but not used, included a “stitch map” of 1:500,000 scale state geology digital 

maps, a soil data set (STATSGO), and 1 kilometer resolution meteorological data 

(DAYMET). These data sets were not used because their scale was determined to be 

incompatible with the core Landsat ETM+ and 30 meter DEM-derived data sets. 

“Ground truth” data were collected primarily through ground-based field work. Field 

samples were collected by traversing navigable roads in a mapping zone and 

opportunistically selecting plots that met criteria of appropriate size (1-hectare minimum) 

and composition (stand homogeneity).3

 Plot data were collected using ocular estimates 

of biotic and abiotic land cover elements, including percent cover of dominant species by 

life form (i.e. trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs) and physical data such as elevation, slope, 

aspect and landform. Laptop computers using ArcView® software, Landsat imagery, 

digital orthophoto quads, and other ancillary information were also used for navigation 

and plot identification whenever possible. Each plot was identified with a paired UTM 

coordinate using a GPS and a visually interpreted polygon representing the survey plot.4

Generally two digital photos were taken at each plot. Field data were recorded onto 

hardcopy field forms and subsequently entered into a database. Sufficient data were 

collected to assign a NVC alliance (Grossman et al. 1998) and/or ecological system 

(Comer et al. 2003) label to each plot. Of an approximate total of 93,000 samples 

obtained for the project, roughly 45,000 were collected via ground surveys during the 

course of the two field seasons (Appendix 2-1). 

In addition to the SWReGAP ground-truthed samples as described above, these data were 

supplemented with sample plot data obtained from other projects roughly contemporary 

with the time period of our imagery (1999-2001), and via visual interpretation of aerial 

photography, digital orthophoto quads, or other remotely sensed imagery. Samples 

obtained from visual interpretation of remotely sensed imagery were given only a label 

identifying the land cover class. Appendix 2-1 presents the distribution of samples used 

in the land cover modeling process. 

 

3

 The ability to traverse all navigable roads varied by state and subsequently Colorado relied heavily on 

obtaining sample data from existing databases and visual image interpretation. In Arizona, navigable roads 

were sampled using a distance criteria coupled with assessment of vegetation homogeneity. 

4

 Arizona collected field samples as point features (GPS x/y location) with an estimate of the radius of 

vegetation type, which were subsequently polygonized using an appropriately sized buffer for each sample 

plot. 
SWReGAP 

 

22

Land Cover Modeling Using Decision Tree Classifiers

At the onset of the project Utah State University investigated several avenues for image 

classification. In particular, we experimented with methods similar to those used in 

previous large landscape mapping efforts such as the 1995 Utah GAP land cover project 

(Homer et al. 1997) and the WISCLAND project (Reese et al. 2002). Supervisedunsupervised hybrid approaches, such as those used in the Utah Gap Analysis Project and 

WISCLAND Project have proven effective for the groups that have used them. 

However, an important consideration for our project was the need to develop a common 

methodology that could be applied by five separate land cover teams to create a 

regionally consistent product. 

Classification and regression trees (CART) were developed by Breiman et al. (1984) and 

were quickly recognized as a valuable tool for discriminating complex relationships 

among environmental variables (Verbyla 1987). Early spatial applications of decision 

trees for remote sensing-based land cover classification focused on continental and global 

scale mapping using coarse resolution imagery (Hansen et al. 1996, Friedl and Brodley 

1997, DeFries et al. 1998, Friedl et al. 1999, Hansen et al. 2000, Friedl et al. 2002). More 

recently, decision tree classifiers have produced repeatable, accurate results in meso-scale 

mapping with Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery (Lawrence and Wright 2001, Brown de 

Colstoun et al. 2003, Pal and Mather 2003, Lawrence et al. 2004). 

Decision tree classifiers are well suited for land cover mapping. First, as a nonparametric classifier, decision trees require no prior assumptions of normally distributed 

training data, which is useful as many land cover classes do not exhibit a normal 

distribution in spectral feature space. Second, while incorporating ancillary data sets can 

improve land cover class discrimination (Hutchingson 1982, Homer et al. 1997, Ricchetti 

2000, Treitz and Howarth 2000), traditional parametric classifiers have difficulty dealing 

with differences in spectral and ancillary measurement scales. Decision trees readily 

accept a variety of measurement scales in addition to categorical variables. Decision tree 

classifiers have demonstrated improved accuracies over the use of traditional classifiers 

(Hansen et al. 1996, Pal and Mather 2003). Finally, decision tree software is readily 

available, computationally efficient, and by using a hierarchical approach to define 

decision rules, is intuitive to a variety of users. 

Decision tree classifiers are considered an exploratory technique used to uncover 

structure in data (Breiman et al. 1984, Clark and Pregibon 1992). Decision trees use a 

binary partitioning algorithm to successively split a multidimensional “cloud” of 

explanatory data into increasingly homogenous subsets. Each binary split is considered a 

single rule in a chain of rules defining the characteristics of the response variable. Chains 

of rules can also be thought of as branches, with the final decision represented by a “leaf” 

or terminal node. For land cover mapping, explanatory variables are the spectral and 

ancillary data sets and the response variable is the land cover classes. Typically, decision 

trees recursively split the explanatory data set until no further splits are possible. Overfitting the decision tree model in this manner usually requires “pruning” the tree, 

otherwise rules are generated for individual plots rather than groups of plots representing 
SWReGAP 

 

23

land cover classes. The challenge with pruning is to establish optimal criteria so the final 

decision tree is neither too precise nor so general as to be meaningless. 

As an alternative to pruning, “ensemble techniques” can be used to produce optimal trees. 

Ensemble techniques involve generating multiple trees to improve model accuracy and 

include “bagging” and “boosting” methods. With bagging, multiple trees are generated 

from randomly selected subsets of the data, where the final tree is produced from a 

majority “vote” by all the trees. Boosting similarly subsets the data, but generates 

multiple trees in succession focusing on branches of the tree that are most difficult to 

classify (based on misclassification rates). In this sense, boosting provides a way for an 

optimal tree to be generated by “learning” from previous tree models. This is an 

important benefit considering each split in a single, non-boosted decision tree determines 

all subsequent splits in the branch, some of which may be sub-optimal. Boosting, rather 

than bagging, has been more often employed for land cover mapping applications and has 

produced improved accuracies relative to non-boosted approaches (Pal and Mather 2003, 

Brown de Colstoun 2003, Lawrence et al. 2004). 

A significant technical challenge with using decision trees for land cover mapping lies in 

the need to spatially apply the decision tree rules within a geographic information system. 

To successfully implement a boosted decision tree approach for such a large area among 

five separate teams, an effective tool for applying the decision trees in a spatially explicit 

context was imperative. Concurrent with our project, the USGS National Center for 

Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) began developing a land cover 

mapping tool capable of integrating the decision tree software See5/C5.0 (Quinlan 1993) 

with ERDAS Imagine. The tool, developed for the National Land cover Dataset 2001 

(Homer et al. 2004) project (hereafter “NLCD mapping tool”) provided the ideal solution 

to our need for an efficient integration of the decision tree software within a spatially 

explicit modeling environment. 

SWReGAP Mapping Process

Land cover modeling was performed on a mapping zone by mapping zone basis with 

each mapping zone overlapping its adjacent mapping zone(s) with a 2 kilometer buffer (4 

km overlap). The project’s primary objective was to produce the most accurate and 

complete map possible. To accomplish this, our mapping procedures required steps we 

determined made best use of all available training samples. In general, this meant two 

things: 

First, we would rely on the decision tree classifier to discriminate the bulk of the land 

cover classes. However, recognizing that the classifier had difficulty discriminating 

certain classes adequately, other methods were employed to map these classes. Natural 

land cover classes such as lava flows and sand dunes, which are relatively rare and/or 

isolated on the landscape, were typically not modeled with the decision tree, nor were 
SWReGAP 

 

24

anthropogenic classes such as recently chained areas, agriculture, or developed land 

uses.5

 

Second, we conducted our assessment of map quality on an intermediate land cover map 

generated with a subset of samples rather than the final land cover map which was 

generated from 100 percent of the samples. We refer to this approach as an internal 

validation, which should not be confused with an accuracy assessment of the final map. 

The internal validation involved randomly selecting 20 percent of available samples 

stratified by land cover class, and withholding them from the decision tree model 

generation. The intermediate map (generated with 80 percent of the available samples) 

was assessed with the 20 percent withheld dataset, producing an error matrix and kappa 

statistic. The land cover modeling process concluded with the generation of the final 

map using 100 percent of the available data. Validation results therefore represent an 

assessment of land cover maps created using 80 percent of the training data. No 

assessment of the final map produced from 100 percent of the data was made. Details of 

our validation approach are presented in the validation section of this chapter. 

The following steps correspond with Figure 2-3 and describe the general mapping 

process in greater detail:6

1) Delineate non-modeled classes: Delineate land cover classes anticipated to not be 

modeled with the decision tree classifier. These may include agriculture, developed, water, 

recently logged, chained, mined, etc. If GIS data exist, particularly for agriculture and 

developed classes, these may be used. Alternative methods for mapping these classes 

include screen digitizing and unsupervised clustering. 

2) Prepare explanatory data sets: Explanatory data sets may be a combination of imageand DEM-derived data sets (see Data Sources). The choice of explanatory data sets may 

vary by mapping zone and is determined by the land cover analyst.

3) Prepare sample data: Sample data may be obtained from a number of sources (see Data 

Sources). All sample polygons are randomly divided into a training data set (80%) and 

validation data set (20%) using ArcView. The NLCD mapping tool requires individual 

pixels for sample observations. While each sample polygon is recognized as an 

independent observation, we use sub-samples (i.e. cluster sampling) within each polygon to 

account for spectral and environmental variability within the sample polygon. Sub-samples 

are randomly selected from each polygon with a maximum of 20 sub-samples per sample 

polygon using the Randpts extension (Jenness Enterprises 2005) in ArcView.

4) Model land cover classes with decision tree classifier using 80% of sample data: Using 

the NLCD mapping tool, explanatory variables are queried by the response variable data set 

to produce input files required by See5/C5.0. The decision tree model is created using the 

boosting option with 10 iterations in See5/C5.0. Output files from See5/C5.0 are spatially 

 

5

 The adequacy of the decision tree classifier for mapping any given land cover class was driven primarily 

by availability of sample data. Our field data collection protocol focused on natural and semi-natural 

classes with the assumption that many anthropogenic classes could be mapped from existing GIS data, or 

could be more easily delineated via screen digitizing. Given the abundance of anthropogenic classes in 

eastern Colorado, the Colorado team used the decision tree to discriminate developed and agriculture land 

cover classes using a substantial amount of image interpreted sample plots. 

6

 Steps 1-10 outline the general mapping process as established by the regional land cover lab. Steps taken 

by state mapping teams may have diverted slightly from this general process. 
SWReGAP 

 

25

applied in Imagine using the NLCD mapping tool. Modeling is an iterative process. After 

model evaluation (see step 5 below) a different combination of explanatory data sets, or 

additional samples may be tried to improve the model. At this time the analyst decides 

which land cover classes are “mappable” given the availability of training data and the 

discriminating capabilities of the model. When model improvement reaches a point of 

diminishing returns, proceed to step 6. 

5) Internal validation of intermediate land cover map using 20% withheld sample data: 

Model validation is only for those land cover classes being modeled with the decision tree. 

Using the 20% withheld sample polygons, use the ArcView Kappa extension (Garrard 

2003) to create an error matrix and calculate the kappa statistic (Congalton 1991). The 

Kappa extension intersects the validation sample polygons through the completed map. 

When the mode (i.e. most frequent) value of pixels in the land cover map agree with the 

validation polygon label, the reference site is considered correctly mapped.

6) Create final decision tree model and map using 100% of sample data: This procedure 

is the same as step 4 with the exception that 100% of the sample data are used to generate 

the decision tree. 

7) Map refinement: The land cover map produced in step 6 is carefully examined to 

determine where errors exist through a combination of visual examination and evaluation of 

the error matrix. The decision tree classifier may not have produced good decision rules for 

a number of possible reasons, such as not having an adequate number of samples for a 

given land cover class, not having sufficient samples in a given geographic region, or 

limitations of the explanatory data (spectral and/or ancillary) to discriminate between land 

cover classes. Known geographic errors can be fixed using Imagine’s Recode utility and an 

*.aoi file. Known environmental errors (e.g. mapping on incorrect slope, elevation or 

aspect) can be fixed using a conditional statement in a post-classification model (e.g. 

Imagine *.gmd file). If possible additional sample plots for a geographic area or land cover 

class are added and the preceding steps repeated.

At this step, it is also possible to correct errors associated with clouds. For example, where 

clouds exist in one date of imagery but not in others, separate models can be run (see step 

4) to correctly classify the land cover classes in the cloud covered areas. Using a 

conditional post-classification model replace the cloud covered pixels in the final map with 

those from an alternate decision tree model/map that was not as good overall, but was not 

impaired by cloud cover (e.g. model using imagery from one season rather than two). 

8) Overlay non-modeled classes onto final land cover map: Non-modeled classes retained 

from step 1 are converted to an Imagine file format, given the proper integer value, and 

combined (i.e. overlaid) with the map from step 7. This can be done with a conditional 

statement in an Imagine *.gmd model.

9) Convert to minimum mapping unit: Use Imagine’s Clump and Eliminate functions to 

generalize the image to the minimum mapping unit (i.e. 1 acre). Parameters are set to use 4 

connected neighbors for Clump and a minimum of 1 acre for Eliminate. When used 

together these steps eliminate clumps of 3 pixels or less, where the eliminated pixels 

assume the majority value of adjacent pixels. 

10) Edge-match to adjacent mapping zones: Edge-matching requires that the integer values 

for land cover classes be standardized in accordance with SWReGAP Handbook guidelines 

(e.g. S001 has value 1, S112 has value 112, D05 has value 305, etc.). Once standardized, 

adjacent images are mosaiced using Imagine’s Mosaic tool with cutline and overlap 

functions. Cutlines can be drawn as needed within the 4 km overlap area using an *.aoi 

file. 
SWReGAP 

 

26

Figure 2-3. Overview of the SWReGAP Mapping Process 

Land Cover Map Results 

State land cover mapping teams were responsible for all steps in the mapping process and 

edge-matched adjacent mapping zones within their responsibility area. Utah State 

University assembled the state mosaics to create the final regional mosaic. The final map 

product (Figure 2-4) contains 125 land cover classes, 109 of which are ecological 

systems. The data set retains the 30 meter pixel resolution of the core data sets with a 

minimum mapping unit of 1 acre (0.40 hectares). The representative fraction scale of the 

data set is considered to be 1:100,000. Appendix 2-2 provides a table showing land cover 

classes mapped for the 5-state region, their mapped area in individual states, and their 

total area in the region. The final land cover map is presented in Figure 2-4. 

Delineate non

modeled classes 

via digitizing and/or

unsupervised 

clustering.

Prepare explanatory 

data sets.

Prepare sample 

data

Training 

Dataset

(80%)

Validation 

Dataset

Retain (20%)

Model cover classes

with DT classifier

Model validation for

modeled classes 

with 20% data

Final model with 

100% data

Post-classification 

models and/or

recodes

Combine non

modeled classes

Remove pixelation

with Clump & 

Eliminate

Edge-match to 

adjacent mapping 

zone

(1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)
27

120°W

115°W

115°W 110°W

110°W

105°W

105°W

35°N40°N

SON CHI T

CA

Selected Land Cover Classes:

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland ScrubColorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea ShrublandColorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper WoodlandGreat Basin Pinyon-Juniper WoodlandInter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush ShrublandInter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert ScrubRocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane ShrublandRocky Mountain Aspen Forest and WoodlandRocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine WoodlandRocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland

Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White BursageDesert Scrub

Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert ScrubSouthern Colorado Plateau Sand ShrublandWestern Great Plains Shortgrass PrairieWestern Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland

0 100 200 Miles

0 100 200 300 400 Kilometers

Figure 2-4. Final land cover map showing a subset of land cover classes in the legend. 
SWReGAP 

28

 LAND COVER MAP VALIDATION 

Introduction 

Assessing land cover map quality is an important concern for land cover mapping 

projects. Map quality assessment provides useful information to map users about the 

reliability of the map product. Various approaches to map quality assessment are 

recognized (Foody 2002), however, making the assessment helpful to the map user 

should be of primary importance (Smits et al. 1999). Typically the quality of land cover 

maps are assessed using a probability based sampling design (Stehman and Czaplewski 

1998) with relatively large sample sizes per class (Congalton and Green 1999). These 

probability based approaches utilize data collected specifically for map quality 

assessment, and are commonly referred to as “map accuracy assessments.” 

We consider our approach an internal validation; “validation” in the sense that our purpose is to validate the quality of the map, and “internal” because we use data collected 

for, and used within, the modeling process (Shtatland et al. 2004). The approach may be 

viewed as a “split sample” or “hold out” method. This type of validation is not as 

accurate as a k-fold cross-validation (Goutte 1997) or as robust as an external validation 

(Shtatland et al. 2004). However, given the size and scope of our project, we determined it

to be the most feasible approach providing a useful quantitative measure of map quality.

Land Cover Map Validation Methods 

Quantitative validation methods were described briefly in the previous section dealing 

with the mapping process. Here we provide a more detailed explanation about the 

quantitative validation process used by SWReGAP, focusing on our use of fuzzy set 

analysis. We also describe our approach to performing a qualitative assessment of the 

map product. 

Quantitative Assessment using Fuzzy Sets

The Gap Analysis Handbook recommends the use of “fuzzy set” analysis as a means of 

providing map users additional information about the quality of the map product (Crist 

and Deitner 2000). Our approach to fuzzy set assessment is based on the work of Gopal 

and Woodcock (1994) and described by Congalton and Green (1999). Using fuzzy set 

analysis for map quality assessment has proven useful in various land cover mapping 

efforts (Falzarano and Thomas 2004, Laba et al. 2002, Woodcock and Gopal 1992, 

Reiners et al. 2000). The premise behind fuzzy set theory for thematic map assessment is 

that thematic mapping involves placing a continuum of land cover into (somewhat 

artificially) discrete land cover classes. This continuum suggests that there can be 

different magnitudes of error between/among classes. The objective of using fuzzy sets 

for thematic map assessment is to provide map users with information about the 

frequency and magnitude of map error. In other words, a reference site may have been 
SWReGAP 

29

mapped incorrectly, but how incorrect was it? An answer to this question can be 

provided by re-evaluating the error matrix within the context of recognized similarities 

among land cover classes. 

The essence of fuzzy set assessment lies in the construction of a “linguistic measurement 

scale” to assign degrees of correctness to misclassification errors. Gopal and Woodcock 

(1994) suggest five levels of linguistic values ranging from “absolutely wrong” to 

“absolutely right” which experts to use when evaluating a map product relative to the 

reference sample plots. Determining the appropriate linguistic class, or error type, for any 

given reference plot is subject to the judgment of the error assessment “expert.” 

Establishing objective criteria for assigning the level of error, therefore, is an important 

component to a fuzzy set assessment. Criteria for error assignment type may be based on 

seriousness of the error for its intended application (Reiners et al. 2000) or on some 

aspect of similarity among land cover classes. 

Establishing criteria for defining error assessment types was particularly important for a 

collaborative project such as SWReGAP. For our project, each land cover team acted as 

the “expert” responsible for error type assignment. For the fuzzy assessment to be as 

regionally consistent as possible, establishing a regional framework for error assessment 

was critical. Our approach focused on criteria based on “ecological similarity.” Fuzzy 

assessments were created for each mapping zone independent of other mapping zones 

rather than the region as a whole. Typically, fuzzy assessments are conducted as part of 

an accuracy assessment after map completion. Our approach however used the error 

matrices produced from the internal validation (see SWReGAP Mapping Process). Figure 

2-5 provides an overview of the process describing the steps in greater detail. 

1) Regionally recognized criteria for ecological similarity types. Four major types of ecological 

similarity form the criteria from which similarity among land cover classes are recognized: 

physiognomic structure, dominant species, juxtaposition of ecological systems, and special 

substrates. Appendix 2-3 presents the regionally recognized ecological similarity types.

2) Evaluate original error matrix for ecological similarity types to create ecological similarity 

type matrix. The analyst evaluates each pair of land cover classes for every off-diagonal error 

(misclassification) cell in the original error matrix within the context of the regionally recognized 

ecological similarity types. While the ecological similarity types are regionally recognized, it is 

incumbent upon the analyst to assign ecological similarity codes. This is done based on the 

analyst’s knowledge of the mapped ecological systems, and familiarity with the particular 

mapping zone being analyzed. An ecologist from NatureServe reviewed the state analysts’ 

assignment of ecological similarity codes to ensure a regionally consistent application of the 

ecological criteria. Appendix 2-4 provides an example of the original error matrix for UT-5 and 

Appendix 2-5 presents the resulting ecological similarity type matrix.
SWReGAP 

30

Regionally recognized criteria for 

ecological similarity types

(1)

Regionally recognized relative 

similarity scores

Mapping zone

original error matrix

(20% withheld data)

Evaluate Mapping Zone’s

original error matrix 

given recognized 

ecological similarity

types

Ecological similarity type matrix Assign relative similarity scores

Relative similarity scoring matrix

Produce revised error

matrices based on relative similarity 

scores and original error matrix

Revised Error Matrices

(3 total)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

Figure 2-5. Overview of the SWReGAP fuzzy assessment process. 

3) Regionally recognized relative similarity scoring system based on ecological similarity types. 

Based on the ecological similarity type or combination thereof, each cell that is misclassified in 

the original error matrix must be ranked with a numeric relative similarity score. A regionally 

recognized scoring system (Appendix 2-6) provides a consistent method for the numeric scoring 

and ranking of ecological similarities between land cover classes.

4) Assign relative similarity scores (numeric) to off-diagonal cells to create relative similarity 

scoring matrix. The analyst uses the regional similarity scoring system (Appendix 2-6) to assign 

a relative similarity score to each off-diagonal error cell (Appendix 2-7). 

5) Produce revised measure of agreement matrices: The original error matrix (Appendix 2-4) is 

re-evaluated in conjunction with the matrix of relative similarity scores (Appendix 2-7) to produce 

revised “measure of agreement” matrices (i.e. fuzzy set assessment) for each mapping zone. 

Three revised error matrices are produced including: revision recognizing land cover classes that 

are correctly mapped, or are incorrect, but are “very similar” (scores of 4 and 5) (Appendix 2-8); 

revision recognizing land cover classes that are correctly mapped, or are incorrect, but “very 

similar” or “moderately similar” (scores of 3, 4 and 5) (Appendix 2-9); and revision recognizing 

land cover classes that are correctly mapped, or are incorrect, but “very similar,” “moderately 

similar,” or “somewhat similar” (scores of 2, 3, 4 and 5) (see Appendix 2-10). Revised error 

matrices (Appendices 2-8, 2-9 and 2-10) can be summarized for both errors of commission and 

errors of omission to show overall improvement as well as by-class improvement given the 

recognized ecological similarities among mapped classes. Appendices 2-11 and 2-12 present 

summaries of fuzzy set assessments for all levels for user’s and producer’s accuracy respectively. 
SWReGAP 

31

Qualitative Assessment

It is important to recall that some land cover classes were not modeled with the decision 

tree classifier but were instead incorporated into the map as a post-modeling step. In 

addition, for some classes, withholding 20% of the available samples resulted in very few 

reference samples. Because of these shortfalls with the quantitative assessment, and 

because we believe there is value in a qualitative summary, we provide qualitative 

assessment summaries for each land cover class by mapping zone. 

Land cover qualitative summaries are brief descriptions provided by the teams involved 

in the mapping process for each mapping zone. They are intended to provide a 

qualitative evaluation from the perspective of the land cover mapping analyst of how well 

the land cover class appeared to be mapped, taking into consideration the number of 

training and reference samples available for the cover class and the team’s knowledge or 

familiarity with the mapping area. Often, the summary provides a narrative interpretation 

of the error matrix, identifying in qualitative terms where a particular land cover class is 

being misclassified geographically and with which land cover classes it is being 

confused. 

Land Cover Map Validation Results 

Mapping Zone Assessments

Model validation as described above was performed for each mapping zone separately. 

While reporting kappa statistics and presenting error matrices for all 25 mapping zones is 

beyond the scope of this paper, these data are available to the public at 

http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html. The website provides errors of omission, 

errors of commission, overall percent correctly modeled, as well as the kappa statistic for 

each mapping zone. Since our validation approach involved withholding 20 % of 

available sample plots proportionally stratified across the land cover classes, few 

reference plots for several rare land cover classes were available for validation. Rather 

than exclude the rare, or non-modeled classes (e.g. anthropogenic classes) in our final 

product, we chose to include them without validation. 

In addition to these quantitative data on model validation, the website also provides the 

qualitative evaluations provided by each state’s land cover mapping team for every land 

cover class by mapping zone. The qualitative evaluations provide brief narratives 

summarizing perceived strengths and weaknesses of the mapped class. These evaluations 

are provided for all land cover classes regardless of whether they were quantitatively 

validated or not. 

Regional Assessment

To provide a regional validation by land cover class, all mapping zone error matrices 

were combined and summarized. Appendix 2-13 presents all 125 land cover classes 

sorted into 5 validation groups and organized hierarchically into NLCD land cover 

classes. The first validation group contains classes that were not assessed regionally 
SWReGAP 

32

because of limited validation plots (n < 20 for the region) or were non-natural classes and 

not the primary focus of our mapping effort. These 40 classes comprise approximately 

9.5% of the total land area for the region, with more than half (5.5%) as agriculture. 

The second validation group contains land cover classes with validation results from a 

user’s perspective less than 30%. These three classes comprise less than 0.5% of the total 

land area for the region. All of the classes in this group are difficult to discriminate 

ecologically and spectrally (i.e. a grassland, steppe and savanna). For example, the error 

matrices for these classes reveal that the Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland was most 

confused with the Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe class, and 

the Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe class was most often confused with the Basins Big 

Sagebrush class. 

The next validation group contains classes where agreement between the validation 

samples and the map was between 30 and 49% from a user’s perspective. These 17 

classes represent approximately 9.5% of the land area. Most comprise very small portions 

of the region (less than 0.5%) with the exception of three classes. Two scrub/shrub 

classes (Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub, Chihuhuan Mixed Desert and 

Thorn Scrub) and one grassland/herbaceous class (Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert 

Grassland) represent substantial portions of the land area, covering approximately 30,000 

square kilometers each. The two desert scrub classes are confused with the ApacherianChihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe class, and with each other. The InterMountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland is mostly confused with the Intermountain 

Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe, and the Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland class. The obvious trend with these poorly and very poorly mapped classes is 

high confusion among classes that are ecologically very similar, sparsely vegetated, or 

both. 

The largest number of mapped classes (50) comprising the greatest proportion of land 

area (56.5%) are presented in the next validation group. Here agreement between the 

validation samples and the map was between 50 and 70%. The most notable classes for 

relative abundance on the landscape are the Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

(7% land area) and Inter-Mountain Basins Big Basin Sagebrush Shrubland (8% land area) 

classes, with user validation rates of 69% and 59% respectively (producer’s rates of 81% 

and 77%). 

Fifteen classes were validated with results greater than 70% agreement between the 

validation samples and the map. These 15 classes represent approximately 24% of the 

total land area. The 85 classes that were validated represent 91% of the total land area. 

Overall correct classification for these 85 classes was 61% (KHAT statistic = 0.60; n = 

17,030). 

The overall figure of 61% provides a summary measurement for the region of the 

decision tree classifier’s performance relative to the reference samples used for 

validation. It is important to recognize that validation results vary by land cover class 

(Appendix 2-13) and by mapping zone. For example, matrix-forming land cover classes 
SWReGAP 

33

(i.e. “extensive and contiguous...with wide ecological tolerances typically ranging in size 

from 2,000 to 100,000 ha” (Comer 2003)) such as certain forests, shrublands and 

grasslands typically represent a larger portion of the landscape and typically had a larger 

number of training and validation samples. These classes typically had better validation 

results than small or linear patch types with relatively few training and reference samples. 

Land cover classes on the fringe of their geographic range in some mapping zones may 

be more poorly mapped than elsewhere because the size and distribution of samples (both 

for training and validation) was limited. Lastly, it is important to note that the validation 

results are based on the intermediate land cover map using the 20% withheld dataset. 

Since the final map was produced using the withheld samples, we assume that the final 

map is an improvement over the intermediate map that was validated. 
SWReGAP 

34

DISCUSSION 

Land Cover Mapping Methods 

A primary objective of our land cover mapping process was to develop a methodology 

that was repeatable and could be consistently applied by multiple land cover mapping 

teams. In this regard we believe the decision tree classifier method was successful. The 

intuitive nature of the decision tree classifier and the easy-to-use software met this 

objective very well. Compared to hybrid supervised-unsupervised image classification 

approaches used in large land cover mapping efforts (Homer et al. 1997, Reese et al. 

2002, Ma et al. 2001) we found the decision tree classifier considerably more timeefficient. Whether decision tree classifiers are a more effective tool for discriminating 

land cover classes was not specifically researched by our project. However Hansen et al. 

(1996) and Pal and Mather (2003) observed a measure of superiority over traditional 

parametric image classification techniques. 

The use of spectro-physiographic mapping zones appeared to be a successful strategy for 

dividing the region into manageable working units and an effective means of constraining 

spectrally and environmentally similar land cover classes to logical geographic 

boundaries. Production of multi-scene mosaics for each mapping zone appeared 

successful as well. While image standardization did not result in seamless mosaics, 

satellite scene boundaries that were apparent generally were not problematic.7

 This may 

be due to the slight effects of atmospheric attenuation in the arid southwest, and may be 

of greater concern in other environments. 

Identifying the optimal combination of predictor data sets for the decision tree classifier 

was a major focus in our efforts to develop a regional mapping methodology. Initially, 

we considered establishing a regional set of standard predictor data sets for all mapping 

zones in the region. Our concern was that adjacent land cover maps would not edgematch adequately if different sets of predictors were used for model development. 

Eventually, it was decided that each land cover analyst would choose the predictor data 

sets they determined worked best for a given mapping zone. As expected, the availability 

of multiseason imagery did improve image classification in most areas. However, use of 

imagery from a single season occasionally produced better results. The suite of core 

predictor data sets to choose from was consistent throughout the region, namely three 

seasons of ETM+ imagery with the analyst’s choice of image transformations, and any 

combination of DEM derivatives (slope, aspect, landform, etc.). Concerns about edgematching adjacent land cover maps proved negligible in most instances. In fact, 

successful matching of adjacent land cover maps could indicate accurate land cover 

mapping since completely different models converged upon similar predictions of 

vegetation distribution (see Figure 2-6). Good edge-matching was also facilitated by 

frequent communication and coordination between the land cover mapping teams and the 

 

7

 Given highly seasonal spectral variability in Colorado, it seemed that scene boundaries needed to be 

accounted for. Therefore, scene boundaries were included as a predictor layer in Colorado. 
SWReGAP 

35

NatureServe ecologist who assisted in decision-making in order to maintain regionally 

consistent application of the ecological systems concepts across the project. 

Legend

Southern Rocky Mountain 

Montane-Subalpine Grassland

Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic 

Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland

Rocky Mountain Cliff and Canyon

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and 

Woodland

Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert 

Grassland

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane 

Sagebrush Steppe

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

Agriculture

4 Km Buffer Overlap

Mapping Zone Boundary

UT-4

CO-1

± 0 1 5 0 Kilometers

0 4 2 Miles

Figure 2-6. Example of edge-matching between UT-4 and CO-1 

With the exception of work by Pal and Mather (2003), we found little published literature 

testing the training data requirements of decision tree classifiers for land cover mapping. 

Pal and Mather (2003) tested increasing training dataset size and found that classification 

accuracy increased linearly with size until reaching approximately 300 samples per class, 

whereupon additional training samples added little benefit. While not tested specifically, 

it is reasonable to assume that this is a general guideline and that the optimal number of 

samples for a given land cover class will vary with the spectral and environmental 

distinctiveness of each class, as well as the rarity of the class on the landscape. 

Identifying the optimal number of training samples per land cover class per mapping 

zone remained an elusive objective throughout the project and is certainly fertile ground 

for further study. We did discover, however, that sampling proportionally to the expected 

spatial abundance of land cover classes on the landscape produced superior results over 

using a roughly equal number of samples per class, which tended to over-map spatially 

rare classes. These findings are similar to those of McIver and Friedl (2002). 
SWReGAP 

36

Given the importance of proportional sampling, the role of an adequate stratification 

strategy presents itself as another area where improvements could be made. As 

mentioned, our ground-truth collection strategy aimed primarily at obtaining as many 

samples as possible across the landscape via the road network. Some attempts were 

made to collect data in proportion to expected spatial abundance of land cover, and a 

minority of samples was collected via remote sources (e.g. aerial photography and digital 

orthophoto quads). While we were pleased with the number of samples collected for the 

region (approximately 93,000), in hindsight we recognize that more samples, more 

adequately stratified across the landscape within each mapping zone, could have been 

obtained using a more formal sampling design strategy combining ground based 

collection with a stronger effort at collecting remotely obtained samples. 

Map Validation 

Throughout the course of the project we recognized the importance of providing a 

measure of map quality to users of the land cover map. While limitations of time, money 

and logistics prohibited a formal accuracy assessment (i.e. external validation with 

probability-based sample design), we believe the methods we employed provide useful 

information to map users. Our regional framework establishing criteria for fuzzy 

assessment helped standardize the process among the five mapping teams. However, in 

hindsight the criteria for the ‘moderate’ and ‘somewhat’ similar categories may be more 

liberal than advisable, and as such validation results at these levels of the fuzzy 

assessment are more optimistic than is warranted. The ‘very similar’ category we feel 

provides a reasonable assessment of map quality given the assumptions and rational of 

fuzzy set theory for map quality assessment. We recognize that not all land cover classes 

were quantitatively assessed throughout the region, but are satisfied that our assessment 

provided some measure of quantitative assessment for 85 of the 125 classes representing 

91 percent of the land area. 

Project Coordination 

Project coordination relied heavily on frequent communication between the regional land 

cover lab, the five land cover mapping teams, and the NatureServe ecologist who were 

familiar with the ecological systems for the project area. Correspondence via email—

especially a project listserve—was critical for dissemination of information related to 

mapping methodologies and protocols. Also invaluable to project coordination were 

monthly teleconferences involving all land cover mapping personnel and the NatureServe 

ecologist. Face-to-face meetings (yearly) and hands-on workshops (three over five 

years) throughout the course of the project were essential not only for conveying 

important methodological techniques, but also as a means of fostering interpersonal 

relationships among team members. While the focus of this paper has been primarily on 

technical and methodological aspects of the land cover mapping effort, the importance of 

interpersonal relationships in a project of this nature should not be underestimated. 

Differing opinions regarding methodological and philosophical approaches to the effort 

were not uncommon. However, there was also a spirit of dedication to the work, and 

ultimately an understanding that in order to successfully complete the project, teamwork 

was essential. 
SWReGAP 

37

From a project coordination standpoint, an important consideration was the recurring 

theme of how much autonomy each state would have in making decisions independent of 

group consensus. Perhaps the most difficult decision land cover analysts faced was 

deciding if a given land cover class should be mapped. Decisions to model a given land 

cover class were primarily driven by adequate representation within the training samples 

of a particular land cover class for a given mapping zone. Thus, the adequacy of the 

sample training set was a critical deciding factor for the land cover analyst. State analysts 

decided which classes to map based on their knowledge of the landscape or the perceived 

importance of the land cover class in the mapping zone. For example, riparian areas and 

invasive annual grasses, though difficult to map, may have been included if the analyst 

felt they were important features on the landscape. Also, when compiling the regional 

map some classes that were determined to be mappable in one state were aggregated or 

eliminated in the regional product to maintain regional consistency.8

 

In hindsight, more objective procedures could have been established to determine land 

cover class mappability. The ecological system classification as a regional target legend 

was developed by NatureServe during the course of the project, and must be recognized 

as a “working classification” (Comer et al. 2003). As such, the mappability of many 

classes using meso scale satellite imagery and ancillary data is not fully known. 

Developing better methods to determine land cover class mappability over large 

geographic areas is another area ripe for future research. Lastly, other regional, national 

and local projects such as LANDFIRE, SAGEMAP, several NPS Vegetation Mapping 

Program and USFWS refuge mapping projects are already benefiting from the great 

amount of effort that was involved on behalf of the SWReGAP and NatureServe in 

developing a stable legend suitable for a project of this scope. 

CONCLUSION 

The goal of this project was to produce a land cover map that would not only be used for 

gap analysis, but would also be a useful product for individuals, agencies, and 

organizations. The methods outlined in this paper aimed at developing a land cover map 

using objective and replicable methods. We found the spatial and radiometric 

characteristics of the Landsat ETM+ sensor effective for mapping the vegetation of the 

Southwest into ecologically meaningful classes with reasonable accuracy. The decision 

tree classifier offered considerable benefits to the mapping process, and allowed us to 

map many land cover classes to our satisfaction. However, in addition to the 

sophistication of decision tree classifiers, the adequacy of training data, the establishment 

of objective criteria, and regional standards for consistency, we must recognize the 

importance of human reason in the mapping process. 

 

8

 For example not all states distinguished irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture and in the regional product 

these were combined into a single agriculture class. Also, Colorado mapped several land cover classes at 

the alliance level and mapped Conservation Reserve Program lands as a separate class. These have 

relevance for Colorado but were not included in the regional product. 
SWReGAP 

38

One may ask whether we met our objectives of producing a map that improves upon the 

state-based, first generation GAP land cover maps for the region. A rigorous comparison 

between the SWReGAP map and previous maps would be time consuming but might 

prove useful. Another approach would be to design a statistically rigorous accuracy 

assessment of our product. One measure of the quality of this map relative to first 

generation state-based land cover maps, worth noting, is that more than ten times the 

number of training samples were used for the SWReGAP map than the previous maps 

combined. Furthermore, an important accomplishment of our effort is that instead of five 

different legends, there is now one to represent the region seamlessly. Ultimately, the 

value of the map will be determined by how frequently and how well the map is used. 

For that, only time will tell. 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 
SWReGAP 

39

CHAPTER 3 

PREDICTED ANIMAL HABITAT 

DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES 

RICHNESS 

Kenneth G. Boykin, Bruce C. Thompson, Robert A. Deitner, Don Schrupp, David 

Bradford, Lee O’Brien, Charles Drost, Suzanne Propeck-Gray, Wendy Rieth, Kathryn 

Thomas, William Kepner, John Lowry, Chad Cross, Bruce Jones, Tammy Hamer, Chris 

Mettenbrink, Katy Jo Oakes, Julie Prior-Magee, Keith Schulz, J. Judson Wynne, Cynthia 

King, Jennifer Puttere, Scott Schrader, and Zach Schwenke. 

Recommended Citation: 

Boykin, K. G., B. C. Thompson, R. A. Deitner, D. Schrupp, D. Bradford, L. O’Brien, C. Drost, S. 

Propeck-Gray, W. Rieth, K. Thomas, W. Kepner, J. Lowry, C. Cross, B. Jones, T. Hamer, C. 

Mettenbrink, K.J. Oakes, J. Prior-Magee, K. Schulz, J. J. Wynne, C. King, J. Puttere, S. Schrader, 

and Z. Schwenke. 2007. Predicted animal habitat distributions and species richness. Chapter 3 in

J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding author: K.G. Boykin is to be contacted at kboykin@nmsu.edu, Tel. 575-646-6303 
SWReGAP 

40

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 which are suitable, at best, for approximating distribution at the 

regional level or counties for example. The purpose of the GAP vertebrate species maps 

is to provide more precise information about the current predicted distribution of 

individual native species’ habitats according to actual habitat characteristics within their 

general ranges and to allow calculation of predicted area of distributions and associations 

to specific habitat characteristics. 

GAP maps are produced at a nominal scale of 1:100,000 and are intended for applications 

at the landscape or "gamma" scale (heterogeneous 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) will likely reveal the limitations of this process to 

incorporate differences in habitat quality (e.g., understory condition) or necessary 

microhabitat features such as standing dead trees. 

Gap analysis uses the predicted distributions of animal species habitat to evaluate their 

conservation status relative to existing land management (Scott et al. 1993). However, the 

maps of 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 literature that is assembled into 

databases used to produce the maps. Perhaps most importantly, as a first effort in 

developing such detailed distributions, they should be viewed as testable hypotheses to be 

confirmed or refuted in the field. We encourage biologists and naturalists to conduct such 

tests and report their findings in the appropriate literature and to the Gap Analysis 

Program such that new data may improve future iterations. 

Previous to this regional effort there were five individual state-based projects in the 

Southwestern U.S., describing the likely present-day distribution of species by habitat 

type across their ranges. 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. The distribution and habitat information 

that exists for most of these species is also frequently truncated by state boundaries. 

Effective management of such wide ranging species requires a regional approach. Simply 

creating a consistent spatial framework for storing, retrieving, manipulating, analyzing, 

and updating the totality of our knowledge about the status of each animal species is one 
SWReGAP 

41

of the most necessary and basic elements for preventing further erosion of biological 

resources. 

Spatial models are an important tool for understanding wildlife-habitat relationships and 

for guiding natural resource management decisions (Stoms et al 1992, Pearce and Ferrier 

2000, Penhollow and Stauffer 2000, Brugnach et al. 2003). For predictive models to be 

useful tools in the decision making process, they must be accurate, general, and easy to 

apply (Van Horne and Weins 1991). Bolger et al. (1997) have suggested modeling 

wildlife-habitat relationships at the landscape scale because management decisions are 

often best applied at this coarse level, and the Gap Analysis Program takes this approach 

to conservation. 

The animal habitat modeling component of SWReGAP provides this kind of regional 

perspective on the distribution of vertebrate species in the Southwest. Prior to this effort, 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah all had existing GAP vertebrate 

habitat distribution models, but these earlier state-based projects used varied modeling 

approaches, different model datasets, and different methods (Edwards et al. 1995, Homer 

and Edwards 1996, Thompson et al. 1996, Schrupp et al. 2000, Halvorson et al. 2002). In 

addition, no effort was made to extrapolate range or habitat information across state 

boundaries. The data and documentation from these original efforts were not equally 

available and not all terrestrial vertebrate species were modeled by all states. Significant 

advancements in knowledge of species ecology and computer modeling technology have 

taken place since completion of these earlier efforts. Species habitat modeling for this 

project was directed at providing regional habitat models that spanned the five 

southwestern states. Our objective was to provide end users with a dynamic mapping 

solution that met Gap Analysis objectives, as well as uses and objectives suggested by 

potential end users (Deitner et al. 1999). We recognized the importance of documenting 

model attributes, and providing the capability to modify models so they could be updated 

as better information became available. We addressed these objectives for a list of over 

800 terrestrial vertebrate species (Appendix 3-1). 

This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section details the methods used to 

create animal habitat distribution models and to evaluate their completeness and 

accuracy. In the second section, we present results of the modeling process. The third 

section presents summary information on species richness, based on the animal-habitat 

distribution models. In the fourth section, we evaluate the accuracy of the models using 

standard GAP protocols. Finally we discuss the overall process, strengths and 

weaknesses of the models, potential uses of the models and associated data, and 

recommendations for further work. 
SWReGAP 

42

METHODS 

Project staff for the animal-habitat distribution modeling component of the SWReGAP 

project represented a broad range of expertise and were drawn from a variety of State, 

Federal, and university sources for each of the five states in the project area (Table 3-1). 

Personnel from the five states helped design the modeling approach, gathered literature 

sources, reviewed and synthesized habitat information, and developed and reviewed the 

corresponding models. The workload for the project was divided among the five states, 

with New Mexico also serving in a coordination role as the regional laboratory. Each 

state was allocated a list of species for which they had lead responsibility for creating, 

reviewing, and modifying models. To support the collaborative effort, we held four 

workshops, had regional breakout sessions at National GAP meetings, conducted 

monthly conference calls, and communicated through email and a listserv. 

Table 3-1. Project staff involved in development of animal-habitat distribution models for the 

SWReGAP program, and their affiliations. 

 Name Affiliation 

 

Charles Drost USGS SBSC 

Trevor Persons USGS SBSC 

Arizona 

Jut Wynne USGS SBSC 

 

Tammy Hamer NREL/CSU 

Chris Mettenbrink NREL/CSU 

Lee O’Brien NREL/CSU 

Katy Oakes NREL/CSU 

Colorado 

Don Schrupp Colorado Division of Wildlife 

 

David Bradford EPA 

Chad Cross EPA 

Bruce Jones EPA 

Nevada 

Melanie Luna EPA 

 

Ken Boykin NMCFWRU/NMSU 

Bob Deitner NMCFWRU/NMSU 

Thomas Kamienski NMCFWRU/NMSU 

Cindy King NMCFWRU/NMSU 

Suzanne Propeck-Gray NMCFWRU/NMSU 

Jennifer Puttere NMCFWRU/NMSU 

New Mexico 

(Regional Lab) 

Zachary Schwenke NMCFWRU/NMSU 

 

Utah Wendy Rieth USU 

The regional laboratory, with State inputs, created a habitat modeling protocol and 

databases (http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/SWReGAP) to ensure regional consistency. GIS 

datasets to be used in regional modeling were identified by the entire project team, and 

were obtained or created by the regional lab. Model iterations were run at the regional 
SWReGAP 

43

and Colorado lab and provided through a website and through remote networking to lead 

states. States focused on literature review, species model creation, preliminary model 

review, and model modification. The draft models and associated data (report, range, and 

model) were submitted to expert review, and were revised as needed, based on the 

reviews. 

We explored a variety of cartographic modeling techniques to represent habitat 

relationships in SWReGAP. These included the standard overlay method employed by 

Gap Analysis projects and three variations (index overlay, Bayesian methods and fuzzy 

sets) that incorporate uncertainty into the habitat representations. Index overlay offers a 

subjective consideration of the relative value of habitat variables, Bayesian methods can 

incorporate the uncertainty of knowledge-based habitat associations and base layer 

inaccuracies into the models (O’Brien 2005), and fuzzy sets allows for the inclusion of 

ambiguity at the habitat boundaries (Bonham-Carter 1994, Burrough and McDonnell 

1998, Hill and Binford 2002). For simplicity, we produced the standard GAP binary 

representations (suitable or not suitable) with embedded range information (see range 

coding below), but still see the utility of producing non-binary representations 

incorporating uncertainty. 

We defined Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (WHR) as a statement describing resources 

and conditions present in areas where a species persists and reproduces or otherwise 

occurs. Relationships can be modeled to predict habitat composition, and if the 

relationships are represented in a cartographic plane they can predict the presence of 

habitat spatially. A more detailed definition is: 

A wildlife-habitat relationship (WHR) is a statement, mathematical or textual, about a 

demonstrated or inferred association of an animal with observable and describable 

physical or biotic features on the horizontal and vertical landscape. The relationship 

need not be directly cause-effect; it can involve a correlative association of the direct 

habitat component with a feature that is more readily observed or detected. 

A WHR model is a textual, mathematical, graphical, or combination statement that 

predicts abstractly or directly what conditions are considered necessary for a taxon's 

habitat to exist and where it likely exists on a landscape. All models are inherently 

inaccurate to lesser or greater degrees depending on background knowledge of the 

taxon and the resolution of constituent spatial data used in the model. To be usable in 

a WHR model that predicts a mappable distribution of habitat for a taxon, an 

association must be able to be stated or measured in terms of an information metric 

(directly or remotely sensed) that can be defined in a coordinate system.

The following sections describe the major steps in developing a species list for the fivestate area, gathering and synthesizing habitat information, developing WHR models, and 

translating these into GIS models. 
SWReGAP 

44

Taxa Inclusion Decision Rules 

A preliminary species list for the five-state area was prepared by combining species lists 

from each state (based on the state GAP projects, plus other state and regional 

references). This list was then reviewed for errors and taxonomic changes. Taxonomy 

and scientific and common names were updated and standardized following the 

Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS, http://www.itis.usda.gov). Familiar 

synonyms and common names were retained to avoid confusion and improve the 

usefulness of the resulting information. 

We then developed “taxa inclusion decision rules” to identify the final list of species for 

modeling (Appendix 3-2). These rules are effectively “exclusion” rules, insofar as they 

identify circumstances under which we elected not to develop models. In summary, 

species-level taxa were excluded from consideration for modeling when any of the 

following were true: 

• Taxa with only incidental, accidental, or vagrant occurrence in the five-state area; 

• Taxa for which authoritative taxonomic sources have eliminated species standing; 

• Taxa that have been extirpated from the Southwest for 20 years or over five 

demographic generations (whichever is a greater time span). Taxa extirpated from 

one or more states, but still present elsewhere in the region were modeled across 

the region. 

• Taxa representing unsuccessful introductions or re-establishment in the area 

subject to distribution modeling;

• Exotic (non-native), primarily urban-dwelling taxa; 

• Exotic taxa with restricted occurrence, associated with specialized or ephemeral 

landscapes or only under human manipulation such that the taxon cannot be 

modeled effectively. 

We initially identified a total of 849 species-level taxa for modeling. Individual states 

reviewed this list and made further suggestions regarding additions and deletions. As 

species modeling progressed, 30 species were excluded from the final modeling list, 

based on the taxa inclusion rules. This resulted in a total of 819 species for which we 

developed distribution models 

Taxa Allocation Decision Rules 

We developed taxa allocation decision rules to distribute the lead modeling 

responsibilities among all projects (Table 3-2). The decision rules focused on the overall 

distribution of the species, and also attempted to capitalize on previous modeling 

experience, and expertise within the modeling team on different taxonomic groups 

(Appendix 3-2). All projects had opportunity for input on the modeling approach and 

results for all taxa, regardless of the lead assignment. The taxa allocation decision rules 

were as follows: 

• Occurring in 1 state only: assigned to that state project; 
SWReGAP 

45

• Occurring in 2 states: assigned to the state that accounts for the majority of 

the species range; 

• Occurring in 3 or 4 states: assigned to the state that accounts for the greatest 

part of the species range OR to New Mexico if widely distributed across all of 

the states; 

• Occurring in all 5 states = assigned to New Mexico. 

Table 3-2. Number of taxa allocated to individual projects for lead responsibility for the 

Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project. There were 30 species removed from final modeling 

due to decision rules. 

Project Number of Species 

 

Arizona 188 

Colorado 158 

New Mexico 389 

Nevada 73 

Utah 41 

Total 849 

Mapping Standards and Data Sources 

The minimum mapping unit (MMU) of the habitat models is 0.4 hectares (1 –acre) 

because this is the minimum for land cover mapping (see Land Cover Mapping Chapter). 

We used a set of core data layers that were addressed for each wildlife habitat 

relationship model. These core data layers included land cover (SWReGAP land cover 

map), elevation, aspect, slope, hydrology (distance to hydrologic features), and soils (soil 

texture, depth, and percent rock outcrop; see Table 3-3). Other layers specifically 

addressed in the habitat-modeling protocol were mountain ranges, temperature (mean 

annual minimum and maximum), precipitation, and landform (Manis et al. 2001). 

GIS coverages for surface waters are from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). 

Each type of water (lakes, perennial streams, etc.) is selected from the USGS NHD and a 

grid is created where each pixel is defined as the (integer) Euclidean distance (in meters) 

to nearest water type. Pixels are selected if they are less than the specified distance. 

All soils coverages were derived from the STATSGO database (State Soil Geographic 

database, available from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/statsgo/). Soils coverages include soil 

depth, texture (clay, loam, silt, cobble, etc.), and rock outcrops. Each MUID (STATSGO 

polygon ID) was reclassified to SWReGAP soil attributes (see Table 3-3). 

Through the process of compiling habitat information, several other datasets were 

identified as potentially useful (e.g. mines/caves), but because of a lack of regional 

datasets or completeness we did not use these. For range delineation we used the 8-digit 

hydrologic units (See Range Delineation). We also used two mountain range coverages. 
SWReGAP 

46

Table 3-3. GIS coverages used in the animal species modeling process. Refer to the metadata 

accompanying the digital data for more complete descriptions. 

Name Source Description 

 

usgswatersheds8 NHD 8 digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) 

regional_dem National Elevation 

Dataset 

Elevation 

disttolake NHD Distance (in m) to lakes without Great Salt Lake 

disttolakeGSL NHD Distance to lakes (in m) with Great Salt Lake 

Disttoperrflow NHD Distance (in m) to perennial streams 

disttosprings NHD Distance (in m) to Springs 

disttowetlands NHD Distance (in m) to Wetlands 

distTointerFlow NHD Distance (in m) to Intermittent Springs 

disttointerstill NHD Distance (in m) to intermittent lakes, playas, etc. 

swlandcover this project The SWReGAP land cover map 

swregapstatsgo STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of clay. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of loam. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of stone. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of silt. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of gravel. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of boulder. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of sand. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of cobble. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of rocky. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of shallow. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of pan soils. 

STATSGO Soils polygons containing greater than 50% of deep soils. 

STATSGO Soils polygons with rock outcrop up to 15%. 

STATSGO Soils polygons with rock outcrop 16-30%. 

STATSGO Soils polygons with rock outcrop 31-65%. 

STATSGO Soils polygons with rock outcrop greater then 65%. 

landform this project Same as used by SW GAP land cover (Manis et al. 2001) 

gapmtn Regional DEM Mountain range data set created by using a roughness coefficient algorithm on 

DEM 

StateBoundary USGS DLG For display 

MajorRoads USGS DLG For display 

Rivers USGS DLG For display 

aspect Regional DEM Derived from regional DEM. Aspect (in degrees) was reclassed to SWReGAP 

categories (See Handbook). 

slope Regional DEM Derived from regional DEM. Value is (integer) slope in degrees. 

Mountains Regional DEM 

GAP land cover 

Screen digitized mountain ranges based on DEM and previous Gap Analysis 

land cover dataset. 
SWReGAP 

47

One coverage was derived using a roughness coefficient based on the DEM and the other 

was a screen-digitized layer based on elevation and previous land cover maps. The 

default for modeling was the roughness coefficient, but the screen digitized dataset was 

used in specific models. 

To facilitate modeling, all datasets were converted to ERDAS Imagine .img files (See 

Distribution Modeling). For modeling purposes two sets of data were created: 1) 240 m 

resolution for model review and testing; and 2) 30 m resolution for final model 

production. 

Mapping Range Extent 

We used the Sub-basin hydrological cataloguing units (8-digit HUC: USGS/Office of 

Water Data Coordination) to delineate ranges for each species and used a coding system 

to label each polygon. Species ranges can be readily described by HUCs and HUCs are 

tractable for GIS. The 8-digit HUCs provided polygon units to create range maps for 

each species. 

We used a 3-character coding system to label HUCs for species ranges (Table 3-4). The 

coding for historic/recent distribution was known (K), potential (P), or extirpated (X). 

Absence is implied for all polygons not attributed. This base coding system was 

modified based on reproductive use (breeding, non-breeding, both) and seasonal use 

(migratory, wintering, summering, year-round). For example, a species that is known in 

the HUC, and breeds and summers in the watershed was labeled K13. We used a wide 

variety of sources for species range delineation, emphasizing the most recent published 

literature. Previous Colorado GAP and New Mexico GAP data were also incorporated, as 

was a dataset of element occurrence within watershed obtained from NatureServe. To 

ensure consistency, all states consulted and reviewed a set of regional and national 

references for range depiction (Table 3-5). 
SWReGAP 

48

Table 3-4. Definitions and coding system identified for use in range delineation for the Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Project. The code consists of three characters, corresponding to (in order) 

distribution, reproduction, and seasonal use (e.g. K14). 

Species Range Delineation Code 

 

Occurrence Description 1st Character 

Known Species is known or probably occurs within the 

watershed. Species may have been repatriated recently 

in a portion of the historical range.

K 

Potential 1 No known locations, but species could be within the 

watershed based on proximity and habitat 

characteristics.

P 

Extirpated Species with historical occurrence that have been chosen 

to be modeled. 

X 

Reproductive Use 2nd Character 

Breeding2 Species is known to breed within the watershed. 1 

Non-Breeding* Species is known to occur within the watershed when 

non-breeding. 

2 

Both* Species is known to occur within the watershed 

throughout the year. 

3 

Seasonal Use 3rd Character 

Migratory Species is known to occur within the watershed during 

its regular migration in Spring and/or Fall. 

1 

 Wintering Species in known to winter within the watershed. 2 

 Summering Species in known to summer within the watershed. 3 

Winter and Summer Species uses watershed during summer and winter 4 

1

 Potential was identified in the model process but was largely included within the K code with the addition of 

“probable” in the definition. 

2

Breeding and non-breeding habitat may apply to bird species, bats, and some other mammal species. 
SWReGAP 

49

Table 3-5. List of standard references used for animal-habitat distribution models 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Degenhardt, William G., Charles W. Painter, and Andrew H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Hammerson, Geoffrey, A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, 2nd ed. University Press of Colorado and 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Niwot, Colorado. 

Lannoo, M.J., ed. 2005. Amphibian Declines: Status and Conservation of United States Species. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Lowe, C.H. 1964. The amphibians and reptiles of Arizona. Pages 153-174 In C.H. Lowe (editor). The Vertebrates of 

Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Lowe, C.H., C.R. Schwalbe, and T.B. Johnson. 1986. The venomous reptiles of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix 

Schwin, M.A., and L. Minden. 1979. Utah reptile and amphibian latilong distribution. Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publication No. 80-1. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd edition, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

Birds 

Alcorn, J.R. 1988. Birds of Nevada. Fairview West Publishers, Fallon, Nevada. 418 pp. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. American Ornithologists’ 

Union, Washington, D.C. 

Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 442 pp. 

Hayward, C.L., C. Cottam, A.M. Woodbury, and H.H. Frost. 1976. Birds of Utah. Brigham Young University Press, 

Provo, Utah. 

Kingery, H.E (Editor). 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 636 pp. 

Ligon, J.S. 1961. New Mexico Birds and Where to Find Them. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. 360 pp. 

Monson, G., and A.R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. 2nd edition, University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson. 

Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1983. The Birds of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

220 pp. 

Poole, A.F., P. Stettenheim, and F.B. Gill (Editors). 1992. The Birds of North America. The American Ornithologists’ 

Union and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Walters, R.E., and E. Sorenson, editors. 1983. Utah bird distribution: latilong study. Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publication 83-10. 

Mammals 

Cockrum, E.L. 1960. The Recent Mammals of Arizona - Their Taxonomy and Distribution. The University of Arizona 

Press, Tucson, Arizona. 276 pp. 

Durrant, S.D. 1952. Mammals of Utah – Taxonomy and Distribution. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of 

Natural History 6:1-549. 

Feldhamer, G.A., B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (Editors). 2003. Wild Mammals of North America – Biology, 

Management, and Conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 1216 pp. 

Findley, James S. 1987. The Natural History of New Mexican Mammals. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 164 pp. 

Findley, James S., Arthur H. Harris, Don E. Wilson, and Clyde Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. The University 

of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 360 pages 

Fitzgerald, James P., Carren A. Meaney, and David M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of 

Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 467 pp. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America, 2nd ed. Wiley Interscience, New York, N.Y. 

Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Las Vegas, Nevada. 710 pages [1995 is a 

reprinting]. 

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Tucson. 602 pp. 

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, editors. 1993. Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic 

Reference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Wassink, Jan L. 1993. Mammals of the Central Rockies. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. 161 

pp.
SWReGAP 

50

Wildlife Habitat Relationships 

WHRs were developed from a variety of sources including previous GAP efforts in the 5-

state region (Edwards et al. 1995, Thompson et al. 1996, Schrupp et al. 2000). Where 

possible, we used “legacy” information from the past state-based GAP modeling efforts. 

However, most of this information was more than 10 years old, and differences in land 

cover legends necessitated comparing the original information and current information to 

associate species with the SWReGAP land cover legend. Because of differences in 

methods and datasets, much of this information could not be used. Project personnel 

identified a set of standard state and regional references to use as a starting point for the 

modeling effort (Table 3-5). We began by reviewing this information, along with online 

databases including the NatureServe Explorer database 

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/), Biota Information System of New Mexico 

(http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/states/nm.htm), Colorado GAP Analysis 

( http://ndis1.nrel.colostate.edu/cogap/gapframe.html ), and internal database such as the Colorado 

Wildlife Species Database. These sources were considered the minimum for habitat 

information, and habitat modelers used a variety of sources to search for additional 

habitat references as time allowed. 

WHRs were constructed following a standard protocol (Appendix 3-3). The protocol 

provides a user interface / template, automated tools, and associated reference 

information for defining range limits and compiling habitat associations for each species. 

The template could also be printed for use as a hard copy form for recording habitat 

association information (Appendix 3-4). Appendix 3-3 lists the main habitat components 

included in the WHR database and protocol, and provides a link to the full protocol. 

Regional vegetation alliances were one of the primary components of the WHR models. 

We modified vegetation alliance data to fit with the final SWReGAP legend of 125 

ecological systems, national land cover dataset classes, and disturbed classes. Modelers 

selected vegetation / land cover classes that were most similar to habitat descriptions in 

published accounts for each species. This process was aided by a cross-walk of familiar 

habitat classes frequently used in habitat descriptions (e.g. Merriam’s life zones) to the 

GAP vegetation classes (see Land Cover chapter). Many references list one or more 

individual plant species (e.g. creosote bush or juniper) in describing species habitats. In 

these cases, we attempted to match the plant species to the corresponding vegetation class 

(or classes), or ecological system. Alliances were subsequently cross-walked into the 

appropriate ecological systems. 

We identified elevation attribute parameters based on regional elevation ranges. In some 

cases state elevation limits were combined to get a range for the entire SWReGAP area, 

and in other cases we had to extract elevation data from sources that covered a broader 

area. In these latter cases, we frequently had to trim the elevation range to values that 

reflect the five-state Southwest project area (e.g. by eliminating low-elevation records for 

a species, when those low elevations are from the species’ range in Mexico). Species 

experts and field location points were also queried when data were available. Separate 

models were created if elevation extremes for one or two states were very different from 

the rest, for example, greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi). 
SWReGAP 

51

We did not use slope for the majority of the species habitat models. This attribute was 

selected only if a species account indicated it was important. Aspect was also not 

included for the majority of the species habitat models. This was due to lack of 

information for these parameters for most species in published accounts. 

Proximity to hydrological features was an important modeling component. We created 

different data layers for perennial streams, perennial lakes, intermittent streams, 

intermittent lakes, wetlands, and springs/seeps. In many cases the perennial stream 

coverage provided a surrogate for riparian vegetation that is often difficult to map with 

TM imagery (See land cover chapter). We used distance categories for modeling (0-50m 

0-100m, 0m-500m, 0-1000m, or if >1000m the explicit number). If explicit data were 

available we used that information. For species that have a hydrologic association but do 

not occur within the hydrologic feature itself we modified the model to exclude the water 

body (e.g. many species occur near lakes but not in the lake itself). 

For soil identification we used the STATSGO dataset and identified 3 modeling 

components of soil texture, soil depth class, and percent rock outcrop (Thompson et al. 

1996). Because of the scale of the STATSGO dataset (1:250,000) this layer was 

considered a constraining layer. Soil polygons were identified in STATSGO as 

possessing that soil texture if the polygon contained >50% of that soil type. Rock 

outcrops were identified based on the percentage of outcrop within the polygon (see 

Table 3-3). 

Mountains were included in a model only if the species was limited to mountainous 

areas. Once the species’ overall range limits had been delineated, it was constrained to all 

mountains within the selected watersheds, using as a mask the regional mountain range 

coverage based on roughness coefficient. Some species are known (based on literature 

and/or museum records) to occur only in specific mountain ranges. In these cases, we 

used a separate polygonal coverage to limit the model to those specific mountain ranges. 

We compiled bibliographic references for each model to document model attributes used 

(Appendix 3-5). We did not limit references by a specific time frame and inclusion of 

information was based on current applicability to each species modeled and was at the 

judgment of the teams compiling the WHRs. 

We were not able to model some species using the above WHRM procedure. Several 

species required multiple models because of differences in habitat over the range of the 

species or variation in elevational range due to latitudinal differences over the study area. 

For these species, two models were created. Several species models (Amargosa toad, 

Bufo nelsoni; Jemez Mountains Salamander, Plethodon neomexicanus) had to be 

modified and run after creation of the model file to fit specific life history or distribution 

traits of the species. 
SWReGAP 

52

State Modeling Methods

The availability of distribution and habitat data for vertebrate species varied among 

states. This included both published material (e.g. Nevada has a dearth of recent 

published compilations on vertebrate species in the state) and also information from 

previous modeling efforts. For this reason, details of the modeling work varied 

somewhat among the five state teams. These differences are described below. 

Arizona 

Arizona completed models for 170 species. Habitat and distributional range narratives for 

each species were developed from exhaustive literature reviews. The approach of the 

Arizona team was as follows: first, five on-line abstract services (Science Direct, 

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts Internet Database Service, Kluwer Online, Springer 

Online, and Blackwell Publishing Synergy Online) were searched for each species. 

Then, the literature cited section of each published and unpublished report that was 

obtained was reviewed for additional relevant literature sources. Also, all literature cited 

within a given literature source was verified. For example, if Strong and Bock (1990) 

stated “acorn woodpeckers select for cottonwood granary trees (Phillips et al. 1964),” this 

statement was confirmed within Phillips et al. (1964). For each species, a literature-cited 

summary and an assessment of the literature used was written. Arizona used a set of 

decision rules for model parameterization. 

Colorado 

Colorado completed models for 153 species. Colorado produced two models for the two 

subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse, and also produced two separate models for browncapped rosy-finch and sandhill crane, for a total of 155 models. Colorado used the 

habitat affinity data from the Colorado Wildlife Species Database (CWSD) along with 

other state databases (breeding bird atlas, amphibian surveys, etc.) to derive habitat 

relationships for the original Colorado Gap Analysis Project (COGAP). This COGAP 

database was used as the starting point for compiling habitat relationships for the 

SWReGAP project. Colorado cross-walked the Anderson Level II land cover types used 

in COGAP to the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) types used in 

SWReGAP. These land cover associations were combined with other parameters from 

CWSD (hydrology, elevation, soils, etc.) to pre-populate the SWReGAP WHR database. 

Literature and database searches were then conducted to incorporate more recent 

information and to extend the models beyond Colorado's borders. Much of the 

information gathered was from recent taxa accounts, local studies, and on-line databases 

such as the Cumulative Index for Mammalian Species and NatureServe. CWSD is a 

thoroughly referenced database created by species experts citing original studies and 

literature. When habitat association information was gleaned from this data source, 

“CWSD” was cited as the source instead of citing the original references. Land cover 

assignments were made by cross-walking habitat relationship data from other 

classification systems or by interpreting descriptions in species accounts in the literature. 

Most references used dominant plant species to describe habitat type, but in a few cases, 

there were direct matches to community descriptions to NVCS Ecological Systems. All 

relevant land cover associations were included, anticipating that range, elevation, and 
SWReGAP 

53

other limits would effectively trim the modeled habitats. New references were captured 

during the species expert review workshops if they supported substantial modifications to 

the current modeling variables. 

Nevada 

Nevada completed models for 69 species. The Nevada group produced two models for 

the greater short-horned lizard, so the state produced a total of 70 models. Nevada used 

literature that was pertinent to the data layers available to build models. First, general 

sources were reviewed that likely had habitat information for a species (e.g., field guides, 

and state and regional references on taxonomic groups), and sources that compiled 

information from original sources (NatureServe Explorer, Mammalian Species Accounts, 

Catalog of American Amphibians and Reptiles, state wildlife databases). From these 

and other sources, additional references were identified that were likely to provide 

information particularly pertinent to the available model parameters, such as studies on 

habitat conducted within the 5-state area. The Nevada team did not do an extensive 

search of the primary literature and cited only literature that was sufficient to justify the 

parameters selected for the model. 

New Mexico 

New Mexico completed models for 387 species. New Mexico produced two models for 

Virginia rail, so the state produced a total of 388 models. As the regional laboratory, 

New Mexico modeled those species that occurred throughout the region. NM-GAP 

(1996) data were used as the initial starting point to identify habitat associations and 

references. Other online data sources such as NatureServe Explorer and Biotic 

Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M) were also used. From this starting 

point, combined with standard state and regional references, further literature was sought 

through reference search engines including SciSEARCH, BIOSYS, and Wildlife 

Worldwide. Every attempt was made to obtain original citations to ensure proper 

synthesis. Literature cited within the models was focused on those sources either directly 

related to the model parameters or those that identified potential future modeling 

modifications. 

Utah 

Utah completed habitat models for 39 species. Utah produced two models for the black 

rosy-finch, so the state produced a total of 40 models. First, a variety of databases were 

searched for primary literature on species’ habitat and range, including Biological and 

Agricultural Abstracts, BIOSIS Previews, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, CABDirect, 

Geobase, and Wildlife Worldwide. If there were many publications available for a 

particular species, as with many game and sensitive species, only those studies that were 

from or near the SWReGAP region were reviewed. Government documents and the Utah 

State University library database were also searched for potentially relevant books and 

theses. The state and regional references identified by the project were always consulted 

and cited if a species occurred in the particular state (e.g., Mammals of Utah by Durrant) 

and these were typically the best sources for initial generalizations and range delineations 

by state. Tertiary sources and internet databases (including Utah-GAP, CA-WHR, 

CWSD, BISON-M, and NatureServe Explorer) were used to check for missed references 
SWReGAP 

54

but Utah avoided citing these sources in most cases. The primary literature provided the 

most detailed and rigorous information on habitat, particularly when the study 

specifically addressed habitat issues or was conducted in the SWReGAP region. In 

addition, primary literature was important in gathering the most up-to-date information, 

given that some of the state references are decades old and even the internet databases 

were at least a few years out of date. Once literature was collected, notes were compiled 

and summaries were written for each species to assess the state of knowledge about a 

species range and habitat, as well as to aid in generating an overall concept of a species’ 

habitat. Utah originally composed lengthy species accounts but these were later edited to 

fit within the 500 word limit imposed by the database, and to include only relevant 

information that would justify the range map and selection of model attributes. 

Distribution Modeling 

To facilitate habitat modeling we created a set of Microsoft Accesstm databases based on 

the recommendations of Deitner et al. (1999). The intent was to create a database that 

could be used to manage information and construct each species’ wildlife habitat 

relationships model. The resulting databases are a tool for modeling and for end-users. 

Included within the database is a user-friendly method to define range limits using the 8-

digit HUCs (drainage sub-basins). The FrontEndArc9 database provides a series of 

forms or wizards that guide the modeler through the habitat model. Data are stored in the 

WHRDataStore database. This structure allows more than one user to access and work 

on any given model. All previously discussed model attributes were available for use in 

modeling including DEM derived datasets (slope, aspect, elevation, landform), hydrology 

datasets (distance to streams, lakes, wetlands, intermittent streams, and intermittent 

lakes), mountain ranges, and soil (see Table 3-3). WHRDataStore stores the data in 

clauses defining model attributes for each species. 

The FrontEndArc9 database gives modelers the ability to select model attributes in plain 

text, to provide references to document the model development, and to update model 

background information,. The database also allows the modeler to compile an ERDAS 

Imagine script to facilitate modeling (Figure 3-1). The script can either be run 

immediately or sent to a queue that can batch process the models. Scripts are then 

queued in a third database (GISEngine.mdb) that manages the Imagine Graphical model 

Files (.gmd) and runs the models in batch mode. Figure 3-1 shows a sample model 

equation for Couch’s spadefoot with the database code defined as: 

SmartOverlay($[And matrix], $[SWReGAP 173429 Watersheds], $[SWReGAP 173429 

Elevation], $[SWReGAP 173429 EcolSystems], $[SWReGAP 173429 LandForm]) 
SWReGAP 

55

Figure 3-1. Example Wildlife Habitat Relationship Graphical Model for Couch's spadefoot 

(Scaphiopus couchii) ITIS # 173429 for Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. The model depicts 

(from top down) the watershed relationship, the elevation association, the ecological system 

associations, and the landform associations. End-users can modify these as needed. 

We created two regional datasets for use in the modeling. A 240 m resolution dataset 

was used to test models and provide models quickly to experts for review. A 30 m 

resolution dataset was created for the final model. Because of the size of the region and 

physical size of the model datasets, the 240m models took 2-5 minutes to complete, 

while the 30m resolution models could take 1 - 3 hours. 

We created a fourth database to help in model development and internal and external 

review (SWReGAP-VSA.mdb). This database was linked to ArcGIS and provided 

habitat modelers a real time visual sensitivity analysis (VSA). Though not a quantifiable 

process like Gonzales-Rebeles et al. (2002), this tool gave habitat modelers the ability to 

add layers to the model in sequence to observe the sensitivity of the model to each data 

set. This process also allowed verification of models created through scripting. 
SWReGAP 

56

After draft models were completed for all species, the models were reviewed (See Model 

Review). Comments from the reviews were provided to the lead state for each species to 

make adjustments to the models. Model modification was an iterative process, as 

modelers reviewed and incorporated expert information. Once modified models were 

reviewed we compiled and ran the final models. 

There was some variation in development of models among the different taxonomic 

groups, due to differences in life history and the habitat components that were generally 

most important. Some examples of these differences are noted below. 

Mammals

Modification of distance to water for mammals occurring near lakes but not in lakes was 

done post model file (.gmd) creation. This was particularly useful in rodent species that 

are riparian obligates but not aquatic species. For some species (e.g. bats), large distanceto-water associations were used with an “and” statement of land cover. Bats were 

modeled with varying range codes to account for their seasonal life history (e.g. 

migratory species with distinct summer and winter ranges). 

Birds

We modeled all bird habitats including breeding, migratory, and wintering. There is 

increasing recognition of the importance of managing and protecting habitat used 

throughout a species’ life cycle. This is true for birds, in particular, which may have 

critical needs for migratory stopover habitats and winter habitats, in addition to their 

breeding habitats. Habitat modelers had the ability to separate breeding, migration, and 

winter habitat by land cover type or by range. For most species (those whose breeding 

and winter distributions do not overlap), range was sufficient to distinguish between these 

categories. 

Reptiles

Soils attributes were used for many reptiles, from the STATSGO soils dataset. Soil 

characteristics are frequently important for reptiles, particularly burrowing species, 

however the coarse scale of this dataset limited its usefulness. Many reptile models had 

to be modified to allow the distance to water dataset to model species near lakes but not 

in lakes. This was completed after creation of the model gmd file. 

Amphibians

Most amphibian models were based on our hydrology datasets to a greater or lesser 

extent. We had to modify our model procedures to create maps for species such as the 

Amargosa toad (Bufo nelsoni), which has such a limited range that we had to create a 

polygon specifically to limit the model extent to the species’ small known range. We 

recognized the need to separate lakes by size for modeling some amphibians, but did not 

include this step in our current effort because of dataset complexity. 
SWReGAP 

57

Model Review 

Each state reviewed all of the models for the species for which they were responsible. 

We conducted an additional internal review by having each state review the models 

created by other states. Finally, we had an external review that used outside experts to 

review the range information, habitat data, and resulting models for the species included 

in the SWReGAP area. Consistency in modeling effort was a considerable task given the 

number of habitat modelers (Table 3-1), the number of species, and the broad spectrum of 

data available for each species. Our internal review was intended primarily to ensure an 

adequate degree of consistency across all species included in the modeling effort. The 

purpose of the external review was to evaluate model correctness. The internal review 

included dividing species by taxonomic groups and reviewing the basic modeling 

attributes of the models (e.g. use of vegetation types vs. hydrology vs. soils or other 

habitat characteristics). We also reviewed the extent of literature available for each 

species, how that literature was used to select habitat parameters, and which habitat 

parameters went in to each species model.

The external review process was undertaken once the internal review was completed. 

External reviews were solicited from individuals and groups who had expertise with 

particular species or taxonomic groups. Reviewers included staff from Federal and State 

agencies (such as State wildlife and natural resources agencies), university scientists, and 

private individuals and groups familiar with species occurrence and natural history in the 

Southwest (e.g. the Great Basin Bird Observatory in Nevada)(Appendix 3-6). We 

provided the external reviewers with a standard briefing about the GAP animal-habitat 

distribution models, along with an explanation of the type of critique and comments we 

were looking for in the model review. Workshops for purposes of external review were 

held in Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. These workshops discussed the 

process of modeling, the limitations of the process, and the intent of the habitat models. 

We asked reviewers to look at three review documents including the species report, 

range, and model (Examples in Appendix 3-7). The report contained all the information 

that was used in the model in plain text. The range map depicted the range limits of the 

species including our range coding scheme. The habitat distribution model was the 

spatial depiction (including overall range and habitat) of our final model. All were 

provided via the web or through paper copy. We asked reviewers to identify their level 

of confidence in the overall model, the range limits, and the report content, and also the 

individual datasets used in modeling (Appendix 3-8). We also provided areas for the 

reviewer to include comments and suggest additions to the map and/or model. We asked 

that they provide references when possible; otherwise comments were cited as personal 

communication. 

In Colorado, three centralized introductory workshops were held in February 2005, and 

follow-on workshops in Grand Junction in March 2005. Some expert review meetings 

were design to leverage work being done for development of Colorado’s Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Subsequent workshops were held on an individual basis 

with taxa experts as necessary. In Nevada, the external review consisted of two 

workshops held in Las Vegas in April 2005. The Great Basin Bird Observatory was 
SWReGAP 

58

contracted to complete reviews for all bird species. In Utah, one workshop was held in 

March 2005 and a subsequent workshop was held in July 2005. In New Mexico, we 

began working with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) in August 

2004. In conjunction with the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy we worked 

with NMDGF biologists identifying suitable habitat for each species of greatest 

conservation concern (SGCN). Several subsequent workshops were held with other 

experts specifically for bats and small mammals. In Arizona, the external review 

consisted of online document reviews. Experts were contacted by phone and briefed on 

the process for the review. 

Final Models 

Model reviews generated wide interest throughout the region. We received more than 

1000 external reviews covering most of the species that were modeled. Comments and 

suggestions from both the internal and external reviews were directed to the modeling 

team responsible for each species. The lead team then reviewed and evaluated the 

comments. Although all comments were recorded, not all were incorporated into the 

models. Recommended changes that were not supported by references or verifiable data, 

for example, were not included in the final models. Model modification was an iterative 

process as modelers reviewed and incorporated expert information, as it was received. 

Although models were frequently modified based on information from species experts, 

any errors in modeling remain the responsibility of the SWReGAP team. Habitat 

modelers made final judgments regarding model attributes. 

Once model review and modification was completed, all model information was 

submitted to the regional lab in New Mexico. The New Mexico lab, in turn, compiled 

and ran the final models with assistance from the Colorado Team. 

Accuracy Assessment 

Assessing the accuracy of the predicted animal-habitat 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 variability in habitat use over extensive ranges, year-to-year 

variations in abundance, and the difficulty of detecting many species at low numbers. 

These are described further in the Background section of the Vertebrate Distribution 

Assessment chapter of the GAP Handbook available from “Conducting a Gap Analysis” 

page at the website http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov. It is useful to provide some measure of 

confidence in the results of the gap analysis for species collectively, if not individually or 

by taxonomic group (comparison to stewardship and management status), and to allow 

users to judge the suitability of the distribution maps for their own uses. We feel it is 

important to provide users with a statement about the accuracy of GAP-predicted animalhabitat distributions but were limited by available resources and practicalities of such an 

endeavor. We acknowledge that habitat distribution maps are never finished products but 

are continually updated as new information is gathered. This reflects not only an 

improvement over the modeling process, but also the opportunity to map true changes in 

species habitat distributions over time. Assessing the accuracy of the current maps would 

be useful to potential users. 
SWReGAP 

59

Our goal was to produce maps that predict distribution of terrestrial vertebrate habitats 

and from that, derive total species richness and species habitat extent with an accuracy of 

80% or higher. There is an effort in the GAP process, however, to err on the side of 

commission. In other words, to attribute species as possibly present when they are not. 

There are two primary reasons for doing so: first, few species have systematic, unbiased 

known ranges and we believe science is best served by identifying a greater potential for 

sampling and investigation than a conservative approach that may miss such 

opportunities; second, in conducting the analysis of conservation representation (see the 

Analysis Chapter), we believe it most appropriate to identify a species that may need 

additional conservation attention that is then refuted by further investigation rather than 

identifying a species as sufficiently protected that is discovered not to be by its 

subsequent loss. 

The standard Gap Analysis assessment is a measure of agreement to describe the degree 

of concurrence between habitat model predictions, and species occurrences as 

documented by inventory studies. We obtained 14 species lists from the National Park 

Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) program for the Northern Colorado 

Plateau network and have identified data from the southern Colorado Plateau Parks 

(including northern Arizona and Northern New Mexico), and the Sonoran Desert network 

of National Parks (including southern Arizona and southern New Mexico). These species 

lists are contemporary with the SWReGAP land cover mapping and animal-habitat 

modeling effort. Each dataset identifies species that occur or probably occur within the 

park. We conducted an initial assessment on species lists for the Northern Colorado 

Plateau NPS network. This assessment, however, identified a bias in the outcome 

because accidental, rare, and occasional species were included with the species lists. Our 

protocol for identifying species and mapping habitat eliminated these species based on 

these factors. Thus, omission error is significantly increased by using this data. We have 

omitted that analysis from this report in an effort to further refine the assessment and 

provide more accurate analysis. Further research is warranted to understand the nature of 

the omission and commission errors. GAP prefers to err on the side of commission errors 

and these types of errors may be due to error in selecting model parameters, error in 

model input datasets, or the detectability of the species in the field. Omission errors may 

be the result of model parameters, model datasets, or may be related to listing species that 

probably occur within the park but actually do not or listing species with accidental or 

transitory occurrence. Our models excluded ranges where the species was identified as 

transitory or accidental. 
SWReGAP 

60

RESULTS 

We reviewed information on a total of 849 species listed as occurring in the five-state 

SWReGAP region. Of these, 30 were not modeled, primarily because they were 

vagrants, or had very few records of occurrence in the SWReGAP region. Out of the 

total of 849 species on our preliminary list, then, we developed models for a total of 819 

species. This included 215 species of mammals, 437 species of birds, 130 species of 

reptiles, and 37 species of amphibians. We were also able to map seasonal distribution of 

bird habitat and some mammal habitat when data were available. 

In addition, we developed two different models for five species that had disjunct ranges, 

or otherwise had range characteristics that warranted splitting the range into separate 

models. These species were the greater short-horned lizard, Virginia rail, sandhill crane, 

black rosy-finch, and brown-capped rosy-finch. Also, we produced two models for the 

sharp-tailed grouse, for the two subspecies that occur in the study region (the Columbian 

sharp-tailed grouse and the plains sharp-tailed grouse; Tympanuchus phasianellus 

columbianus and T. p. jamesi, respectively). Hence, considering the extra models 

produced for these six species, we developed a total of 825 different models. 

Land cover and elevation were the most used habitat associations. The detail of the land 

cover map provided ecoregional differences needed to differentiate between species 

habitat use throughout the range. The use of landform proved to be useful in some 

instances but was not as widely applicable as we initially anticipated. Soil characteristics 

are an important aspect of habitat for many species, but the soils datasets are not of 

sufficient detail to be used in most models. When SSURGO data (Soil Survey 

Geographic database, being developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service) become available for the 5-state area, the finer scale of those data may allow 

significant enhancement for habitat models using soil characteristics. 

 Least Chipmunk (Tamias minimus) 

Photographer: John J. Mosesso, NBII Digital Image Library 
SWReGAP 

61

Mammals

We mapped habitat for 215 mammal species in the five-state region of SWReGAP (e.g. 

Figure 3-2). An additional six species were initially included on the list but were not 

modeled, either because they have very marginal occurrence in the five-state area (e.g. 

ocelot, Leopardus pardalis), or because of taxonomic changes that resulted in a species 

that was originally on our list being excluded from the area (e.g. Townsend’s ground 

squirrel, Spermophilus townsendii, was originally on our list; this group has recently been 

split, and the species now bearing the name S. townsendii is restricted to southern 

Washington state). Bats were difficult to model because of the relative lack of 

information on foraging habitat, and the relatively poor understanding of the life history 

of the group. Much sampling for bats is focused around water and thus biases available 

habitat information. As with many of our bird models, we included seasonal range within 

bat models when appropriate. 

Some rodent species (e.g. chipmunks and squirrels) presented a challenge in modeling 

because of their requirements for microhabitat features that are not mappable on a 

regional scale, and also because of the paucity of habitat information for other species. 

Many of these models could use further modification. 

Figure 3-2. Potential Habitat Model for Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus). 
SWReGAP 

62

Birds 

We created 437 bird species habitat models for the SWReGAP region (e.g. Figure 3-3). 

We initially included an additional 17 species on our working list, but did not produce 

models for them. Almost all of these species had very limited occurrence within the fivestate project area (most of these were eastern vagrants, or Mexican species that rarely 

stray north into southern Arizona and New Mexico). We were able to model most 

species’ habitat with just one model, based on varying range and land cover associations. 

Four species had to have two models created to separate breeding and non-breeding 

habitat (Virginia Rail, Sandhill Crane, Black Rosy-finch, and Brown-capped Rosy-finch). 

Figure 3-3. Potential habitat model for Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) 
SWReGAP 

63

Reptiles 

We mapped habitat for 130 reptile species in the five state region. Five additional species 

originally on our working list were not modeled because they were introduced species 

restricted to a few urban areas (Mediterranean house gecko, Hemidactylus turcicus, and 

black spiny-tailed iguana, Ctenosaura hemilopha), or because they were modeled as part 

of another species due to taxonomic changes (variable skink, Eumeces gaigeae, Big Bend 

patch-nosed snake, Salvadora deserticola – modeled as part of S. hexalepis, and Tantilla 

planiceps – split from what is now called the southwestern black-headed snake, T. 

hobartsmithi in our area). One species (Phrynosoma hernandesi) was modeled using two 

models based on differing elevations (Figure 3-4). Soil type was often used for this 

taxonomic group. The availability of finer scaled soils data (SSURGO) would likely 

enhance models. 

Figure 3-4. Eastern (top) and western (bottom) habitat models for greater short-horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma hernandesi). Two models were created to reflect an elevation break between the two 

geographic areas. 
SWReGAP 

64

Amphibians 

We mapped habitat for 37 amphibian species within the five states (Figure 3-5). An 

additional five species were researched but were not modeled because of taxonomic 

changes, loss of the species from our area, or because of marginal occurrence. The 

western chorus frog, Pseudacris triseriata, and spotted frog, Rana pretiosa, are no longer 

considered to occur in our area; we modeled the boreal chorus frog, P. maculata, and the 

Columbia spotted frog, R. luteiventris, instead. The Ramsey Canyon leopard frog, Rana 

subaquavocalis, is now considered conspecific with the Chiricahua leopard frog, R. 

chiricahuensis. The Tarahumara frog, R. tarahumarae, has been extirpated from its 

limited U.S. range for over 20 years (though a reintroduction program is underway). The 

African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis is an introduced species limited to a few artificial 

ponds in the Tucson area. Hydrology was an important component in modeling 

amphibians. The models for most frog species incorporated hydrology or riparian land 

cover types. Toads were modeled over broader expanses because of their ability to use 

intermittent ponds that are often not adequately included within hydrography data sets. 

Figure 3-5. Habitat model for Sacramento mountain salamander (Aneides hardii) produced in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 
SWReGAP 

65

SPECIES RICHNESS 

GAP has often been associated with the mapping of species-rich areas or "hotspots." 

Richness maps identify where the same numbers of elements co-occur in the same 

geographic locations. (In the case of our data, the total numbers of animal species per 

drainage area or smaller geographic unit, across the five-state Southwest area.) These are 

color coded or shaded in intensity from the highest numbers of known or possible cooccurrence (richness) to the lowest. Richness is only one of many pattern metrics that 

may be derived using the data. Richest areas may or may not indicate best conservation 

opportunities. They may occur in already protected areas or may represent mostly already 

protected species or those not at risk. Still, they are often a useful starting point to 

examine conservation opportunities in combination with other analyses described in this 

report's Introduction and in the Analysis section. We also feel they may be useful for 

other rewarding applications such as identifying places of interest for wildlife observation 

and study. 

We believe the individual species models are of greater value than just the richness 

summaries. Having distribution models for all species allows more detailed analysis of 

species habitat overlap by looking at the complementarity of different species’ ranges. 

Aggregating individual models offers the opportunity to evaluate the spatial assemblages 

of species and to compare and contrast habitat values across the landscape. We present 

species richness maps for selected taxonomic groups to illustrate potential use of the data. 

Because of the dataset size, we did not complete an evaluation of richness for all species. 

Figure 3-6 displays species richness of bats throughout the five-state region, and Figure

3-7 shows species richness of rattlesnakes in the genus Crotalus in the region. 

The individual species models contributing to richness metrics should be considered in 

the different spatial locales that have similar richness values, in that those locales may 

support predominantly different assemblages of species. 
SWReGAP 

66

Figure 3-6. Bat species richness for the entire Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project study area. 

Figure 3-7. Species richness for rattlesnakes (genus Crotalus) for the Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project study area. 
SWReGAP 

67

Richness is depicted for all mapped taxa (Figure 3-8), and by taxonomic groups (Figures 

3-9 to 3-13). Richness is presented by HUC and by 1-km grid cell with ramped colors 

from cool (low richness) to hot (high richness). Natural breaks within the data are used 

to provide classification within these maps. Seasonality and reproductive use are not 

included. 

Total species richness is highest in southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona 

(Figure 3-8). This area includes the Madrean Archipelago and is influenced by species 

ranging north from Mexico. Species richness in southern New Mexico is also augmented 

by Chihuahuan desert species. In New Mexico, relatively high richness (391-437 

species) occurs throughout the Rio Grande Valley. The Front Range of the Rocky 

Mountains in Colorado is identified as having relatively high species richness. This is 

due in part to the presence of Great Plains species and Rocky Mountains species. The 

Colorado River including the Lake Mead area is also relatively high in species richness. 

It is important to note that overall richness is weighted heavily by the number of bird 

species within the project area and both spatial depictions are similar (cf. Figure 3-10). 

 

Figure 3-8. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 819 species in the Southwest Regional 

Gap Analysis Project.
SWReGAP 

68

Mammal Richness 

Species richness within the mammals exhibited an east west pattern following many of 

the mountainous areas of the region. (Figure 3-9). Southwestern New Mexico and 

southeastern Arizona are high in species richness (85-96 species). The Rio Grande Valley 

is also an area of higher richness as are the mountainous regions of northern New 

Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. Richness is also high along the Mogollon Rim in Central 

Arizona. 

Areas in Utah and Nevada with high mammalian species richness are associated with 

mountains such as the Wasatch in Utah and the Sierra Nevada in western Nevada. In 

southern Utah, the richness is associated with several desert ecosystems occurring within 

a transition zone from the Great Basin desert. The area of high richness in southwestern 

New Mexico and southeastern Arizona comprises the Madrean Archipelago and is 

influenced by species extending north from Mexico. 

Figure 3-9. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 215 modeled mammal species in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project.
SWReGAP 

69

Bird Richness 

Bird species richness follows a roughly similar pattern to that shown by mammals, with 

the Madrean ecosystem highest in species richness (Figure 3-10). The Rio Grande 

corridor is also an area of high bird species richness as is the Front Range of the Rocky 

Mountains in Colorado. Areas of lowest species diversity are desert areas within Nevada, 

Arizona, and Utah and some of the Great Plains grasslands of Colorado and New Mexico. 

Breeding bird richness (Figure 3-11) shows a decidedly different pattern from year-round 

richness. The number of species by HUCs transitions into a broader pattern with large 

portions of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah identified as having high species numbers, along 

with southeastern and central Arizona, and southwestern, central, and northern New 

Mexico. The deserts of southwestern Arizona, the plains of eastern Colorado, and the 

eastern New Mexico border area have relatively low numbers of breeding species. 

Figure 3-10. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 437 modeled bird species in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project.
SWReGAP 

70

Figure 3-11. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for modeled breeding bird species in the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. Breeding Birds data includes hydrologic units with 

specific breeding and year round residents.
SWReGAP 

71

Reptile Richness 

The greatest reptile richness occurs in the southern part of the SWReGAP project area 

(Figure 3-12) in New Mexico and Arizona. Similar to amphibian richness, this may be 

due to the confluence of the Madrean, Chihuahuan, Rocky Mountains and Great Plains 

ecoregions. Additional ecoregion influences are the Sonoran and Mojave deserts. The 

lowest richness is found primarily in the mountainous regions of Utah and Colorado (3-

17 species). Reptile species richness shows a pronounced north to south cline in 

increasing species numbers. This pattern is obviously modified by elevation, particularly 

in the Rocky Mountains and the mountains of north-central Utah. 

Figure 3-12. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 130 modeled reptiles in the Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Project.
SWReGAP 

72

Amphibian Richness 

Amphibian richness is highest in the south and southeastern portions of the SWReGAP 

study area (Figure 3-13). This includes a large portion of New Mexico and southeastern 

Arizona. This is likely a factor of many ecoregions combining in these areas including 

the Great Plains, Madrean, Rocky Mountains and Chihuahuan Desert. The majority of 

Nevada and the western deserts of Utah have relatively few amphibians, as do most of the 

higher Rocky Mountain HUCS (2-5 species). 

Figure 3-13. Species Richness by 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit for 37 amphibian species in the Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Project.
SWReGAP 

73

DISCUSSION 

Modeling Process 

We modeled 819 species with varying degrees of confidence. We focused our efforts at 

the species level except for one species, the sage-grouse. Sage-grouse populations in the 

region show distinct habitat differences, and the species is of special conservation 

concern in the areas where it occurs. The models were based on detailed literature review 

to develop Wildlife Habitat Relationships. Literature information included data for 

delineating species ranges and categorical and classification variable requirements for 

animal-habitat modeling. The WHR protocol and related MS Access database user 

interface served as a general guideline for model development, but we recognized that 

each species was different and could not always be modeled the same way. 

The resulting models predict habitat for vertebrates of the Southwest within the known 

distribution range of each species. Regional habitat modeling is subject to several 

assumptions: 

1. The models are based on suitable habitat for each species; 

2. The models do not depict different degrees of habitat quality; 

3. The models do not attempt to project species abundance; and 

4. The models show habitat where the species may occur at some point in its life 

history. 

Range limits depicted in the SWReGAP habitat models are defined in terms of watershed 

units (HUCs). Defining range limits in this way tends to overpredict species ranges to a 

greater or lesser extent. Finer scale HUCs (14-digit) or topologically derived watersheds 

may provide a truer range delineation but difficulty in delineation may be significantly 

increased. These finer scale partitions would better approximate distributions. Ranges for 

species varied and because of the regionalization we may have over -generalized these 

ranges. We suggest end-users take our models as a baseline and modify them based on 

the needs of the region in which they are working. 

Vegetation structure is an important component in habitat selection. The land cover map 

provided partial structure given the ecological system definition (woodland, forest, etc.), 

however smaller structure changes and successional states are not available. Microhabitat 

features are also important particularly to the smaller and less vagile species. These 

features are difficult to model at local scales much less at the regional level. 

Our modeling effort did not take into account a number of potentially important factors 

affecting habitat suitability, including prey sources, competition with other species, or 

predation. Competitive exclusion was mentioned by reviewers in several workshops and 

further research regarding this may be useful. Similarly, we initially considered 

temperature and precipitation as potential habitat components within the models, but 

ended up excluding these data also because of the general lack of information available 

for each species and the scale of the dataset. 
SWReGAP 

74

Biogeographical factors such as patch size, distance to habitat patches and habitat edge 

were also not included in the modeling effort. In general, it was not possible to include 

these factors because of limitations on our knowledge of species ecology, or because we 

lacked adequate capabilities for depicting these factors within GIS models of this scale. 

We did include patch size (the size of habitat area needed for a species to successfully 

persist over time) in our review of habitat modeling literature. However, we found little 

specific data to model patch size for any species in the region. This is an important 

species specific modeling consideration and one in that would help elucidate metapopulation dynamics. We considered using home range size to estimate patch size, but 

home-range size is not necessarily directly related to patch size. Information on 

maximum distance between occupied patches would also be needed to successfully 

model patch size effects. Patch size was not included in the final models, but information 

is available within the database to post-process the final SWReGAP models. 

Expert Review 

Review of draft models by state and regional experts was an important part of the 

modeling process for SWReGAP. Experts ranged from personnel with state and Federal 

wildlife agencies, to university biologists, NGOs, and biological consultants. Overall, 

more than 80 reviewers took part in the review, evaluating the model information and 

range depictions for 680 of the 819 species that were modeled. There were a total of 

1023 reviews, including species that were reviewed more than once. Our original goal 

was to have each model reviewed by an expert in each state inhabited by the species. 

However this was not possible given limited time and available reviewers. Instead, we 

modified our approach to attempt to have each species reviewed at least once.

Reviews ranged from corroboration of species range to reviews of the entire model. 

These reviews helped to identify errors within models and provided additional references 

and data to enhance models. The overall impressions of reviewers concerning draft 

models ranged from good to poor. With some models, the experts were more pleased 

with the models than were our habitat modelers. The review identified several concerns 

with literature derived modeling efforts. Our literature review was necessarily brief 

given the scale and scope of the project. Reviewers were able to provide more detailed 

specific information and provided specific references that were not identified in our 

initial data-gathering. 

Accuracy Assessment 

Assessment of accuracy is useful but should be an iterative process. Withholding data 

that may improve a model may not provide an assessment as much as ensure a model will 

suffer from either omission or commission errors. Further assessment of the habitat 

models is warranted and we encourage these efforts. There are species occurrence 

datasets from the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, NatureServe, natural 

heritage programs, and others that can be used in that endeavor. These datasets would 

provide another metric for measuring agreement with habitat models. As good inventory 

data becomes available, this data should also be used to analyze the distribution models 
SWReGAP 

75

throughout the region. We encourage land managers to assess these models and provide 

feedback. 

Limitations of the Models 

Several limitations were noted through the modeling process. The first limitation is 

limited available habitat information for many species – a limitation that has been 

consistently identified in past GAP efforts. We had a broad array of species to deal with 

and extreme variability in the data available for use in the modeling. Another limitation 

was the size of the region that we modeled. We may have very precise information in 

one area of the range but very limited knowledge in other parts of the range. Another 

limitation was the lack of structural data that we could incorporate into the modeling 

aspect. Habitat information may be specific to a seral stage or age class of dominant 

plant species but the land cover map did not provide that depth of detail. This is not a 

new problem with deductive modeling as the limitations of modeling microhabitat at 

large landscape scales is well documented (Van Horne and Wiens 1991, GonzalesRebeles et al. 2002). 

Depicting detailed species distribution models over a large biogeographic region was one 

of the main motivations for the SWReGAP project, but the regional aspect of the project 

was limited in many cases by the lack of availability (or poor quality) of regional 

datasets. For example, a comprehensive GIS layer showing mines and caves would be 

useful in modeling bat habitat, but regional datasets were considered incomplete. 

Because many important reference sources are based on state boundaries, there were 

other inconsistencies exhibited at a state level. There were also some major regional 

features that required special treatment. For example, the Great Salt Lake provided a 

major issue in modeling. We created two data layers, one to remove the Great Salt Lake 

from fresh water lakes, and one including the Great Salt Lake with all other lakes. Prior 

to this, we identified errors in habitat models such as the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas) and 

Beaver (Castor canadensis).

There were also limitations in terms of available literature to develop models. State 

based references range from detailed, authoritative compilations to very general works, 

and the usefulness of these references for our purposes was correspondingly quite 

variable. For example, published reptile and amphibian data sources are available for 

New Mexico (Degenhardt et al. 1996) and Colorado (Hammerson 1999), but are lacking 

or are outdated in the other 3 project states. These provided excellent resources and this 

effort would have benefited by similar works in the other states. Similarly, references for 

mammals (Fitzgerald et al. 1994) and birds (Andrews and Righter 1992) were also dated 

except for the recent work for Colorado. 

Different states also took a more or less extensive approach to reviewing species / habitat 

literature. A few states conducted a relatively exhaustive review of available literature, 

while others focused on the major references that pertained to particular species and their 

state or region. The expert review process did identify references we were unaware of 

and in some cases substantially added to the models. We encourage identification of 
SWReGAP 

76

other references that may enhance these models. Habitat studies have become more 

popular and published more often. The SWReGAP models should be viewed as 

dynamic, and should be modified to reflect changing knowledge as it becomes available. 

We took an approach that put state modelers in the lead for developing individual 

models. This created a focus of habitat modelers on “their” species and inadvertently 

resulted in less communication among states than would have been desirable for wideranging species. We did include a step after draft models were produced, in which each 

state reviewed models from other states of all species that occurred within that state (we 

referred to this as “internal review;” e.g. Arizona reviewed and commented on all models 

of species occurring in Arizona, regardless of which state produced the model). This step 

improved the quality and regional consistency of the final models. Local datasets and 

knowledge could be incorporated in this way, and the step would also facilitate expert 

review. 

The completeness of the hydrography dataset was questionable but did prove useful on a 

regional basis. Modification of this dataset has been occurring on a state by state basis 

and further updates would improve our models. We used the medium resolution data 

(1:100,000), and our modeling effort would likely be enhanced by using the finer scale 

(1:24,000) dataset, if appropriately attributed. 

In a project such as this, timing can also play a limiting role. Our database was a work in 

progress through much of the project. The final product is a useful and efficient tool to 

collect and maintain wildlife habitat relationship data, but our habitat modelers and 

database programmer learned an extensive amount as we progressed to the current stage. 

Insofar as possible, a better approach would be to have the database created prior to 

initiating the habitat modeling phase. 

Over the course of the SWReGAP project, our modelers came up with some novel 

approaches to modeling species. However, the need for regional consistency and to 

complete the project on time sometimes took precedence over this creative thinking. We 

had to choose between what was best for the regional product versus what would make 1 

or 2 species models better. We endeavored to capture this information in the database so 

that it might be used in the future. We did model several species with specific, nonstandard modifications, including the Amaragosa toad, Jemez Mountains salamander, and 

the spotted bat. Amargosa toad and Jemez Mountains salamander both used individual 

range limits. The spotted bat model incorporated a distance to cliffs dataset created 

toward the end of the project specifically for this species. 

Suggestions for Future Work 

Our SWReGAP models are based on a deductive modeling approach and should be 

useful in providing the sampling frame for field efforts and conservation planning. 

Deductive modeling approaches such as we used for the regional animal habitat 

distribution models provide a variety of useful information to land managers and 

conservation planning. We provide species habitat models for 819 terrestrial vertebrate 

species at a coarse scale. In general, models are useful when they provide more 
SWReGAP 

77

information then previously available (Johnson 2001). However, there are alternatives to 

the approach we used, and there are many additions and improvements that can be made 

in future efforts. 

Peterson (2005) compares and contrasts GAP methods to the Genetic Approach to Rulebased Production (GARP) approach The arguments made by Peterson do highlight the 

differences between a deductive modeling approach such as GAP and an inductive 

modeling approach such as GARP. The SWReGAP process allows end users to modify 

models to be either more specific to their area of interest or to include newer information 

or correct information in the existing model. This is something that an inductive 

approach may have a more difficult time doing. If adequate field observations are 

available for some species, classification-tree based models should be developed. For 

example, we explored the use of datasets such as precipitation and temperature data in 

our modeling approaches, but these are more suited for an inductive modeling approach 

such as GARP or Maximum Entropy (Phillips et al. 2006). Inductive modeling 

techniques provide a way to get past the lack of information within the literature to 

include these types of datasets. 

Modeling approaches such as those used in SWReGAP provide general habitat suitability 

models in a binary fashion (though this binary model has been extended for some State 

GAP efforts). Regional maps show areas as either suitable or unsuitable for a given 

species, and it would obviously be more useful to have models with more information 

that show varying degrees of habitat quality. Such models represent a further step up in 

complexity, particularly given our limited knowledge of many species, and the 

computing power required to produce models at large scales like the Southwest region. 

Although quantitative models may not always be possible on such a large scale for so 

many species, models focusing on habitat quality may be possible at least on a number of 

the species within the region. O’Brien (2005) provides a description of such a 

quantitative deductive modeling approach. 

Other suggestions for future habitat modeling efforts include incorporation of additional 

regional datasets such as the Level IV Ecoregions. HUCs provide a range constraint as 

do mountain ranges, but the inclusion of this dataset may provide additional constraining 

power to those models predicting habitat on the edges. To help in land cover review, it 

would be useful to develop a list of land cover types by hydrologic unit. This would 

allow reviewers and modelers to ensure land cover within the range of the species was 

not omitted. Our review process allowed commission errors to be identified, but not 

necessarily omission error. 

The Visual Sensitivity Analysis provides for the use of gradient or weighted information 

within the modeling process. During the creation and modification of individual models, 

we used visual sensitivity analysis to evaluate the contribution of the STATSGO soils 

dataset as a modeling layer. This on-the-fly pseudo-modeling effort would also be useful 

in an expert workshop effort to identify optimum or marginal habitat. O’Brien’s (2005) 

Bayesian methodologies provide another rationale for weighted models. 
SWReGAP 

78

CONCLUSIONS 

To our knowledge these models represent the first regional habitat models for vertebrate 

species at this resolution for the American Southwest. We anticipate that as these models 

are used, errors will be identified. Our database and the production of graphical models 

provides the foundation for these model modifications. The intent of the dataset and 

associated GIS tools is to provide end-users functionality and the ability for model 

modification. We hope some provision is made for maintaining and evolving these into 

the future. 

The maps of species habitat distributions may be used to answer a wide variety of 

management, planning, and research questions on individual species or groups of species. 

In addition to the maps, great utility may be found in the literature references that are 

assembled into databases used to produce the maps. 

Habitat distribution maps are never finished products but should be continually updated 

as new information is gathered. This reflects not only improvements in the modeling 

process, but also the opportunity to map true changes in species habitat distributions over 

time. Perhaps most importantly, as a first effort in developing such detailed distributions, 

they should be viewed as testable hypotheses to be confirmed or refuted in the field. We 

encourage biologists and naturalists to conduct such tests and report their findings in the 

appropriate literature and to the Gap Analysis Program such that new data may improve 

future versions of these models. Ultimately, the validation of these models will come 

from those that use them. 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 
SWReGAP 

79

CHAPTER 4 

LAND STEWARDSHIP 

Ernst, Andrea E., Scott Schrader, Veronica Lopez, Julie Prior-Magee, Kenneth G. 

Boykin, Don Schrupp, Lee O’Brien, William Kepner, Kathryn Thomas, John Lowry, and 

Bruce Thompson. 

Recommended Citation: 

Ernst, A. E., S. Schrader, V. Lopez, J. Prior-Magee, K.G. Boykin, D. Schrupp, L. O’Brien, W. Kepner, K. 

Thomas, J. Lowry, and B. Thompson. 2007. Land stewardship. Chapter 4 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et 

al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis 

Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding author: A E. Ernst is to be contacted at ernstae@nmsu.edu, Tel. 575-646-3355 
SWReGAP 

80

INTRODUCTION 

The analytical mission of GAP is to compare the mapped distribution of biota with their 

representation in different categories of stewardship. These comparisons do not measure 

viability, but are a start to assessing the likelihood of future threats to biota through 

habitat conversion--the primary cause of biodiversity decline. We have utilized 

"stewardship" to describe the quality of land management that is collectively the land 

ownership of a parcel and the legal and administrative mandates that guide the 

management of the parcel as it effects the long-term maintenance of biodiversity. Legal 

ownership does not necessarily equate to the entity charged with management of the 

resource; hence we refer to ‘land stewards’ as those entities that are actually charged with 

management of biotic resources. The mix of owners and managers is a complex and 

rapidly changing condition. A single land owner, such as a national forest, may be 

subject to several different legal and/or administrative mandates for management of land 

cover and vertebrate species. 

The purpose of comparing natural land cover and vertebrate distributions with stewardship is 

to allow land stewards to assess their relative contribution to the overall management of the 

distribution of a vertebrate or plant community and identify other stewards sharing that 

responsibility. This information can reveal opportunities for cooperative management that 

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 single 

category and does not differentiate individual tracts or owners, unless the information was 

provided voluntarily to recognize a long-term commitment to biodiversity maintenance. 

After comparison to stewardship, it is also necessary to compare biotic distributions to 

biodiversity management status categories. This comparison can identify species or plant 

communities that are underrepresented in lands managed for biodiversity maintenance. 

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 where information is not available to assign a potentially higher rating. 

We recognize a variety of limitations in our approach, although we maintain certain 

principles in assigning the status level. Our first principle is that land stewardship is not 

the primary determinant in assigning status. The second principle is that the legal and 

administrative mandates informing management of a parcel also reflect management 

intent. In other words, if a land steward institutes a program backed by legal and 

institutional arrangements that are intended for permanent biodiversity maintenance, we 

use that as the guide for assigning status. 
SWReGAP 

81

The characteristics used to determine status are as follows: 

z Permanence of legal or administrative protection from conversion of natural land 

cover to unnatural (human-induced barren, exotic-dominated, arrested 

succession). 

z Relative amount of the tract managed for natural cover. 

z Inclusiveness of the management, i.e., single feature such as a historical, 

geological, or archeological site or a single species versus all biota. 

z Type of management and degree that it is mandated through legal and institutional 

arrangements. 

The four status categories are defined by GAP as follows (after Scott et al. 1993, 

Edwards et al. 1995, Crist et al. 1996): 

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, and intensity) are allowed to proceed 

without interference or are mimicked through management. 

Status 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 use or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural 

communities. 

Status 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 

or localized intense type. It also confers protection to federally listed endangered and 

threatened species throughout the area. 

Status 4: Lack of irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion of natural 

habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types. Allows for intensive anthropogenic use 

throughout the tract, including those tracts for which the existence of such restrictions or 

sufficient information to establish a higher status is unknown. 

METHODS 

Land stewardship data was developed in two phases: (1) documentation of land 

ownership; and (2) assignment of biodiversity management status codes.

Land Stewardship 

We began by collecting existing digital ownership datasets to provide a baseline of 

ownership boundaries for each state in the region. These data distinguished general 
SWReGAP 

82

administrative land ownership by private, state, and federal categories. In most cases, 

federal and state lands were then further divided by managing entity such as Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), or State Trust Lands. Special 

management areas, such as wilderness, and other internal management units were often 

not delineated in these baseline datasets. 

Sources of base ownership data for each state include the following: 

Arizona –The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) and Arizona Land 

Resource Information System (ALRIS) publish the state-wide surface ownership 

coverage. Three agencies update this dataset: federal boundaries are updated by 

BLM, Indian reservation boundaries are updated by Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

State Land boundaries are updated by ASLD. The data used included the last full 

BLM update from 1994 with partial updates in January 2001, the BIA update 

from 1997, and the ASLD lands which are updated on a weekly basis. 

Colorado – The Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection (COMaP) 

project at the Natural Resource Ecology Lab (NREL) of Colorado State 

University began mapping status and trends of Colorado’s protected areas to build 

a statewide protected areas map (Wilcox et al. 2006). NREL and the SWReGAP 

stewardship lab coordinated the acquisition of base information to be used for the 

SWReGAP and COMaP products. Data represented in COMaP v2-SWReGAP 

were last updated August 2004. 

Nevada – The Mapping Sciences Division of the Nevada State Office of BLM 

updates and manages the polygon layer representing and identifying land 

ownership status and boundaries of BLM, private, and other public land 

throughout Nevada. The polygon layer was updated in September 2003 using 

BLM field office data. 

New Mexico - The New Mexico State Office of BLM coordinated ownership data 

collection from various BLM field offices and the New Mexico State Land 

Office. Surface ownership data was generally digitized from 1:24,000 USGS 

quads or on-screen digitized using the BLM's Master Title Plats as the original 

data source. The version used by SWReGAP reflected the latest updates 

contained in the 64 100k ownership tiles for New Mexico from June 2004. 

Utah – BLM produced and maintains the Utah Land Status/Administrative 

Ownership Data Layer in collaboration with regional partners. The information 

for federal ownership is derived from a number of sources, but primarily from the 

BLM’s Master Title Plats maintained by the Utah BLM Lands and Realty 

program and from the BLM’s LR2000 database. Information is also incorporated 

from the State and Institutional Trust Lands agency (SITLA), the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), counties, and other government agencies. The data layer 

used was version 1.2, last updated April 2005. 
SWReGAP 

83

Base data layers acquired for each state were then converted to a common projection 

system and loaded into the SWReGAP geographic database (geodatabase). The 

geodatabase, a more modern GIS data model, was structured to meet GAP Standards and 

included domains described by the GAP Management Coding System (see Appendix 4-

1). Additional attributes such as the GAP biodiversity management code, individual 

parcel name, alternative name, and source of the digital data were added to the 

geodatabase attribute table (see Figure 4-1). 

GAP_Status 1,2,3,or 4 

Class_Desc Federal Lands, State Lands, Tribal Lands, etc. 

Owner_Desc BLM, USFS, BOR, TNC, State Wildlife Reserve 

Manager_Desc ACEC, RNA, Wilderness Area, Recreation Area 

Division BLM Field Office, Regional Offices 

Parcel_Name Gunnison Gorge NCA, Dinosaur NM 

Alt_Name Important Bird Area, Name of Management Area 

Source_SWReGAP Colorado State BLM Office, Gila National Forest

Figure 4-1. Example of the attribute domains based on GAP Management Coding System. On the 

left are the geodatabase domain and attribute titles and on the right are possible, but not all 

inclusive, attributes for a parcel delineated in the SWReGAP dataset. 

The next step in stewardship mapping involved separating source data for individual land 

ownership categories (e.g., Nevada BLM lands) from the larger state-wide dataset. Each 

individual land ownership category was then attributed according to the standard GAP 

Management Coding System. Additional boundary information for special management 

units or other internal boundaries was also collected via the internet or from agency GIS 

personnel. For example, the statewide data layer depicting Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) was received from individual state BLM offices. These 

datasets were also individually loaded into the geodatabase and attributed with the GAP 

Management Coding System and additional geodatabase attributes. Other individual 

digital data sources included The Nature Conservancy (TNC) preserves and easement 

boundaries collected from state TNC offices, National Forest GIS and ownership data 

collected from each individual forest, and other agencies such as State Wildlife Agencies, 

Division of State Parks, and several county and city GIS programs. In addition, 

throughout the region over 100 local land trusts were contacted for potential data 

acquisition. 

Once all boundary files for a major ownership category (e.g., BLM) were imported into 

the geodatabase and appropriately attributed, the dataset was merged into one, continuous 

feature dataset. Spatial integrity between the datasets was built and maintained by using 

geodatabase topology. Topologies contain rules about how features share geometry. The 

rules SWReGAP used to define the behavior of the features were ‘must not have gaps’ 

and ‘must not have overlaps.’ The process of validation was then used to show areas 

where the dataset broke the topology rules. Edits to the line work geometry were then 

executed to features that share common polygon boundaries. Once validation and errors 

in the topology were addressed for a particular ownership category, new internal 
SWReGAP 

84

management data layers were combined in the same manner until the entire individual 

state dataset was complete. Water boundaries extracted from the National Hydrography 

Dataset (Medium Resolution) were the last dataset to be attributed and merged. 

Biodiversity Management Status Categorization 

To reduce conflicting information about management of a particular parcel every attempt 

was made to collect the most current management plan describing management actions 

for each land tract. These management plans provide the overall guiding principal for 

management of the land tract. Federal resource management plans are usually developed 

for compliance with federal laws such as the National Forest Management Act, the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and usually span a 10-15 year management timeframe. Collection of 

management plans included National Park Service General Management Plans or 

Statements of Management, BLM Field Office Resource Management Plans with 

corresponding Records of Decisions, Forest Service Forest Plans and Amendments, 

Bureau of Reclamation Management Plans, and Fish and Wildlife Service 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 

In previous GAP efforts, land management units were added to the stewardship map if 

the land unit was likely to be categorized in a GAP management status higher than the 

status of surrounding land. For example, most multiple use land receives a management 

status of 3, with internal units having a potential to receive a status 2 or higher. Although 

SWReGAP attempted to create a detailed map including all parcels regardless of 

management status, we used this general rule of thumb when delineating management 

status. For example, if general information indicated that a parcel might receive a higher 

status code (i.e. a status 1 instead of a status 4) more effort was made to obtain 

management information. The goal was to make a seamless stewardship map for the 

region, not to just distinguish the management status 1 or 2 lands. When management 

plans were received they were individually reviewed to evaluate the potential 

management status on a site by site basis. In other words, parcels of the same 

management type were not given a blanket status code and status coding was evaluated 

on an individual parcel by parcel basis. For example, there are instances of Pristine or 

Primitive management techniques within the same wilderness. These different 

management techniques may receive different management status codes. Another 

example, BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern may be managed differently 

between field offices and/or among different states, and thus needed to be evaluated 

independently.

Not all land parcels had management plans available to be used for management status 

categorization. For example, most parcels not under federal jurisdiction do not have 

existing written management plans. State Lands are not required by law to have a 

management plan supported by written documentation. Therefore, in certain cases, the 

guiding management document is the state constitution or master plans. When plans 

were not available, an Internet search often provided information that could lead to an 

appropriate assignment of a biodiversity management status category to a land parcel. In 

other cases, telephone interviews were conducted with agency personnel to determine 
SWReGAP 

85

management practices. A standardized questionnaire was used in conducting these 

interviews (see Appendix 4-2). Lands tracts such as state parks or private lands received 

a uniform management status category. Non-governmental lands status assignments 

were based on telephone interviews and information obtained from the Internet. TNC 

preserves were one example of a land parcel where adequate information was obtained 

via the Internet to make the determination of management category for most preserves.

To minimize variability in the categorization of any one land tract GAP developed a 

dichotomous key (see Figure 4-2) to ensure consistent assignment of management 

categories (Crist et al. 1995). This key was applied throughout the assignment of 

biodiversity management status categories for SWReGAP. To further remove variability 

all biodiversity management status codes for biodiversity were assigned by one person, 

the regional stewardship coordinator. The decisions made were documented and saved in 

Excel spreadsheets and were indexed to the dichotomous key. 
SWReGAP 

86

A-1: If the management intent can be determined through agency or institutional 

documentation GO TO A-2, if not, GO TO A-5

A-2: If the land unit is subject to statutory or legally enforceable protection from 

conversion to anthropogenic use of all or selected biological features by state or 

federal legislation, regulation, private deed restriction, or conservation easement 

intended for permanent status, GO TO B-1; if not, GO TO A-3

A-3: If ecological protection is not legally enforceable, temporary, or lacking but 

managed by a plan intended for permanent status, GO TO A-4; if not, GO TO A5

A-4: Management to benefit biological diversity is provided by a written plan in place 

or in process under an institutional policy requiring such management - Status 3

A-5: Not subject to an adopted management plan or regulation that promotes 

biological diversity, or management intent is unknown - Status 4

B-1: If the total system in the land unit is conserved for natural ecological function 

with no more than 5% of the land unit in anthropogenic use, GO TO B-4; if 

conservation provisions apply only to selected features or species, GO TO B-2

B-2: If management emphasizes natural processes including allowing or mimicking 

natural ecological disturbance events, but also allows low anthropogenic 

disturbance, renewable resource use, or high levels of human visitation on more 

than 5% of the land unit - Status 2; if not, GO TO B-3

B-3: Management allows intensive, anthropogenic disturbance such as resource 

extraction, military exercises, or developed or motorized recreation on more than 

5% of the land unit, but includes ecological management for select features - 

Status 3

B-4: If management strives for natural processes including allowing or mimicking 

natural ecological disturbance events - Status 1; if not, GO TO B-5

B-5: Managed for natural processes, but some or all disturbance events are 

suppressed or modified - Status 2

Figure 4-2. A dichotomous key for categorization of biodiversity management status of land units. In using 

the terms "permanent" and "legally enforceable" we recognize that all conditions are subject to change, 

even in wilderness and national parks, but the intent is for the condition to be long term extending over 10 

years time.
SWReGAP 

87

External Review 

Because the processes described above are interpretive in both editing of source boundary 

information and the assigning of biodiversity management status codes, a variety of end 

users were asked to review and quality check the preliminary stewardship products. To 

do so, each state project coordinator helped host, organize, and facilitate a one-day 

conservation review meeting. 

These review meetings consisted of a presentation by the state project coordinator 

offering an overview of SWReGAP methods, products, and project objectives. This was 

followed by a more detailed presentation focused specifically on the stewardship aspect 

of GAP. These meetings were held in one or two key locations in each state and a variety 

of agency experts were invited to attend. During these meetings questions and concerns 

were addressed and copies of the state draft stewardship maps were provided. After the 

initial meeting attendees had one month to examine the draft maps and provide their 

overall review, comments, and suggestions for data quality and improvements. 

Occasionally new boundary files were provided and incorporated into the overall dataset. 

Status codes were changed if sufficient documentation was provided by the land steward 

for a parcel of land. The stewardship product greatly benefited from this examination by 

providing a variety of agencies with differing management strategies the ability to review 

and comment on the stewardship dataset as part of the development process. 

Regionalization 

Changes to the draft maps were incorporated based on comments provided during the 

external review. Once complete, each state dataset was imported into the final regional 

stewardship geodatabase. Parcel boundaries that extended across state boundaries were 

sometimes moved to ensure alignment across state lines. An additional topological rule 

of “must be covered by” was used to expand or contract parcels along the edge of the 

state. This rule was used to precisely fit the stewardship map into the pre-existing state 

boundaries. Some information in the attribute table was updated or changed for regional 

consistency. 
SWReGAP 

88

RESULTS 

The stewardship geodatabase, consisting of records and fields, is described in the 

accompanying metadata for this data set. We extracted summary statistics from the 

stewardship database to develop a summary of land stewardship and biodiversity 

management conservation status by region and by each state. We also developed cross 

tabulation statistics of stewardship and management conservation status (Tables 4-1

through 4-6), again by region and for each state. When read by row, these tables show 

the area and proportion of each biodiversity management status category for each 

stewardship type. When read by columns, the tables show the area and proportion of 

stewardship types comprising each of the four management status categories. Tables 4-7

through 4-11 present a summary of documentation and management plans that 

specifically provided sufficient information to assign a management status category of 1 

for land tracts in each state. Appendices 4-3 thru 4-7 summarize documentation and 

management plans that provided information for Status 2 lands. 

Land Stewards 

In the region, federal agencies account for the largest land steward category managing 

over 51% of the landscape (Figure 4-3). BLM is the largest federal land steward 

accounting for over 30% of the total land area. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is the 

second largest federal land steward accounting for 14% of the area. Private lands are the 

second largest land steward category in the region comprising 30% of the region’s lands. 

Tribal lands and State managed lands account for 9% and 8% respectively. Regional and 

local government lands, non-governmental organization lands, and water bodies comprise 

the smallest proportion of land stewards each contributing less than 1% to the overall 

area. 

Federal land stewards manage 42% of Arizona (Figure 4-3) with the BLM and USFS 

managing 17% and 15% respectively. Arizona contains a higher percentage of tribal 

lands than any other state in the region with approximately 28% of the state in this 

category. Private lands and State-managed lands account for 17% and 13% respectively. 

Regional and local government lands, non-governmental organization lands, and water 

bodies comprise less than 1% of the state. 

Colorado has the largest proportion of private lands in the region with over 57% under 

private stewardship (Figure 4-3). Federal land stewards manage 36% of the state, with 

the USFS being the largest land management agency, managing over 21% and the BLM 

managing over 12% of the state. State-managed lands comprise 5% of the state, and 

Tribal lands, regional and local government lands, non-governmental lands, and water 

represent slightly more than 2% of the area in Colorado. 

Within the region, Nevada has the highest proportion of land area under federal 

stewardship with 85% (Figure 4-3). The majority, or 67%, of these lands are managed by 

BLM. Other federal stewards include USFS and Department of Defense/Department of 

Energy managing 8% and 5% respectively. Private land comprises 13% of Nevada. 
SWReGAP 

89

Tribal lands, regional and local government lands, State-managed lands, nongovernmental organizations, and water bodies make up less than 3% of Nevada lands 

combined. 

New Mexico has 43% of the area under private land stewardship (Figure 4-3). Federal 

lands are the second largest land steward managing 34% with BLM managing 17% as the 

largest federal land steward in the state, and USFS the second largest federal land steward 

with 12%. State-managed lands including State Land Board lands, State Parks, and State 

Wildlife Areas, make up 12% of New Mexico. Tribal lands comprise 10% of the state, 

with regional and local government lands, non-governmental organization lands, and 

water bodies combined accounting for less than 1%. 

Federal land stewards manage 64% of Utah lands (Figure 4-3). BLM manages 42% of 

those federal lands while USFS manages 15%. Private lands in Utah comprise 21% of 

the state. State-managed lands and Tribal lands account for 8% and 5% respectively. 

Other lands such as regional and local government lands, non-governmental organization 

lands, and water bodies are less than 4% of the state combined. 

Biodiversity Management Status 

Status 4 lands comprise 38% of the region (Figure 4-4). Private land stewards manage 

over 80% of these lands, with State Land Board lands managing 17%. Status 4 lands 

account for 31% of Arizona, 58% of Colorado, 13% of Nevada, 57% of New Mexico, 

and 28% of Utah. 

Status 3 lands comprise 50% of the region. BLM manages 51% of these lands, USFS 

manages 23%, and Native Americans manage 17%. Status 3 lands comprise 55% of 

Arizona, 32% of Colorado, 72% of Nevada, 37% of New Mexico, and 56% of Utah. 

Status 2 lands comprise 9% of the region. The largest land steward in this category is the 

BLM which manages 57% of these lands. Other land stewards include 26% managed by 

USFS, 5% managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 4% managed by state wildlife 

agencies. Status 2 lands include 9% of Arizona, 8% of Colorado, 12% of Nevada, 6% of 

New Mexico, and 12% of Utah. 

Status 1 lands comprise 3% of the region. Stewards managing these lands include 40% 

managed by National Park Service, 33% managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

21% by USFS, and 7% by BLM. State lands and non-governmental organizations 

account for less than 1% of these lands. Status 1 lands include 5% of Arizona, 3% of 

both Colorado and Nevada, 2% of Utah, and less than 1% of New Mexico. The majority 

of the Status 1 lands are small, isolated tracts.
90
91

Figure 4-3. Final stewardship map for the Southwestern U.S. 

Figure 4-4. Final GAP management status map for the Southwestern U.S. 
SWReGAP 

 92 

Table 4-1. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for the Region. 

Steward Category Area (km2

) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) %

Bureau of Land Management 423,009 30.52 2,541 6.93 70,381 56.99 350,087 50.82 — — — — 

Bureau of Reclamation 1,767 0.13 — — — — 375 0.30 943 0.14 448 0.09

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 18,363 1.32 11,912 32.47 6,133 4.97 318 0.05 — — — — 

U.S. Forest Service 197,519 14.25 7,568 20.63 31,788 25.74 158,163 22.96 — — — — 

Department of Defense &/or 

Department of Energy 44,413 3.20 — — — — 1,244 1.01 41,433 6.02 1,736 0.33

National Park Service 24,181 1.74 14,573 39.72 3,391 2.75 6,217 0.90 — — — — 

Agricultural Research Service 952 0.07 — — — — 293 0.24 659 0.10 — — — — 

Department of Commerce 7 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 0.00

Tribal Land 131,047 9.45 — — — — 1,038 0.84 116,416 16.90 13,593 2.58

State Parks & Recreation 2,223 0.16 — — — — 172 0.14 2,051 0.30 0 0.00

State Land Board 98,045 7.07 — — — — 1,538 1.25 9,831 1.43 86,676 16.47

State Wildlife Reserves 5,216 0.38 2 0.01 5,169 4.19 39 0.01 6 0.00

Other State Land 529 0.04 — — — — 5 0.00 518 0.08 6 0.00

Regional Government Land 534 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — 534 0.10

City Land 509 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — 509 0.10

County Land 655 0.05 — — — — — — — — 55 0.01 600 0.11

Audubon Society 5 0.00 4 0.01 0 0.00 334 0.05 — — — — 

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement 1,268 0.09 — — — — 934 0.76 — — — — — — — — 

The Nature Conservancy 2,306 0.17 89 0.24 1,032 0.84 1,185 0.17 — — — — 

Private Conservation 

Easement/ Conservation Deed 

Restriction

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Institution Managed for 

Biodiversity 4,604 0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,604 0.87

Private Land Unrestricted for 

Development/ No Known 

Restriction

418,213 30.17 — — — — — — — — 567 0.08 417,647 79.35

Water* 10,707 0.77 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

TOTAL 1,386,072 100.00 36,690 100.00 123,493 100.00 688,816 100.00 526,366 100.00

Total Land Area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

*The complexity of ownership, water rights, managing entities, and protection level categories of water 

resources are addressed in the aquatic component of GAP. 
SWReGAP 

93 

Table 4-2. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Arizona. 

Steward Category Area (km2

) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) %

Bureau of Land Management 50,251 17.01 156 1.11 14,928 58.49 35,167 21.60 — — — — 

Bureau of Reclamation 432 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — 432 0.47

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 6,865 2.32 6,106 43.20 759 2.97 — — — — — — — — 

U.S. Forest Service 45,068 15.26 706 5.00 6,990 27.38 37,372 22.95 — — — — 

Department of Defense &/or 

Department of Energy 11,151 3.78 — — — — 1,244 4.87 9,907 6.08 — — — — 

National Park Service 9,336 3.16 7,153 50.60 409 1.60 1,774 1.09 — — — — 

Agricultural Research Service 217 0.07 — — — — — — — — 217 0.13 — — — — 

Department of Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Tribal Land 81,298 27.53 — — — — 353 1.38 77,613 47.66 3,333 3.62

State Parks & Recreation 289 0.10 — — — — 28 0.11 261 0.16 — — — — 

State Land Board 37,265 12.62 — — — — 544 2.13 100 0.06 36,622 39.74

State Wildlife Reserves 211 0.07 — — — — 189 0.74 16 0.01 5 0.01

Other State Land — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Regional Government Land 488 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — 488 0.53

City Land 191 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — 191 0.21

County Land 202 0.07 — — — — — — — — 2 0.00 200 0.22

Audubon Society 4 0.00 4 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement 154 0.05 — — — — 3 0.01 151 0.09 — — — — 

The Nature Conservancy 337 0.11 9 0.06 78 0.30 250 0.15 — — — — 

Private Conservation 

Easement/ Conservation Deed 

Restriction

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Institution Managed for 

Biodiversity — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Land Unrestricted for 

Development/ No Known 

Restriction

50,892 17.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — 50,892 55.22

Water* 695 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

TOTAL 295,349 100.00 14,135 100.00 25,524 100.00 162,830 100.00 92,164 100.00

Total Land Area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

*The complexity of ownership, water rights, managing entities, and protection level categories of water 

resources are addressed in the aquatic component of GAP. 
SWReGAP 

94 

Table 4-3. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Colorado. 

Steward Category Area (km2

) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) %

Bureau of Land Management 33,786 12.53 40 0.59 5,654 27.32 28,092 32.99 — — — — 

Bureau of Reclamation 5 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 5 0.00

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 353 0.13 118 1.72 142 0.69 93 0.11 — — — — 

U.S. Forest Service 58,482 21.68 4,299 62.87 10,156 49.08 44,027 51.71 — — — — 

Department of Defense &/or 

Department of Energy 1,771 0.66 — — — — — — — — 1,623 1.91 148 0.09

National Park Service 2,787 1.03 2,358 34.49 236 1.14 193 0.23 — — — — 

Agricultural Research Service 68 0.03 — — — — 68 0.33 — — — — — — — — 

Department of Commerce 7 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 0.00

Tribal Land 3,093 1.15 — — — — 643 3.11 — — — — 2,450 1.57

State Parks & Recreation 784 0.29 — — — — 15 0.07 769 0.90 — — — — 

State Land Board 10,722 3.97 — — — — 990 4.78 9,732 11.43 — — — — 

State Wildlife Reserves 2,111 0.78 — — — — 2,106 10.18 5 0.01 — — — — 

Other State Land 5 0.00 — — — — — — — — 5 0.01 — — — — 

Regional Government Land 36 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — 36 0.02

City Land 286 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — 286 0.18

County Land 344 0.13 — — — — — — — — 2 0.00 342 0.22

Audubon Society — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement 5 0.00 — — — — — — — — 5 0.01 — — — — 

The Nature Conservancy 1,304 0.48 23 0.33 682 3.30 599 0.70 — — — — 

Private Conservation 

Easement/ Conservation Deed 

Restriction

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Institution Managed for 

Biodiversity 140 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — 140 0.09

Private Land Unrestricted for 

Development/ No Known 

Restriction

152,675 56.60 — — — — — — — — — — — — 152,675 97.81

Water* 975 0.36 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

TOTAL 269,738 100.00 6,838 100.00 20,692 100.00 85,145 100.00 156,089 100.00

Total Land Area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

*The complexity of ownership, water rights, managing entities, and protection level categories of water 

resources are addressed in the aquatic component of GAP. 
SWReGAP 

95 

Table 4-4. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Nevada. 

Steward Category Area (km2

) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) %

Bureau of Land Management 192,438 67.22 1,516 17.08 23,514 70.53 167,407 82.04 — — — — 

Bureau of Reclamation 1,040 0.36 — — — — 375 1.13 665 0.33 — — — — 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 9,367 3.27 5,461 61.52 3,685 11.05 222 0.11 — — — — 

U.S. Forest Service 23,600 8.24 387 4.36 4,374 13.12 18,840 9.23 — — — — 

Department of Defense &/or 

Department of Energy 13,846 4.84 — — — — — — — — 12,480 6.12 1,366 3.58

National Park Service 2,592 0.91 1,508 16.99 1,085 3.25 — — — — — — — — 

Agricultural Research Service — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Department of Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Tribal Land 4,149 1.45 — — — — — — — — 3,959 1.94 191 0.50

State Parks & Recreation 389 0.14 — — — — — — — — 389 0.19 — — — — 

State Land Board 32 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — 32 0.08

State Wildlife Reserves 303 0.11 — — — — 303 0.91 — — — — — — — — 

Other State Land 17 0.01 — — — — — — — — 11 0.01 6 0.02

Regional Government Land 10 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 10 0.03

City Land 12 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 12 0.03

County Land 91 0.03 — — — — — — — — 51 0.03 40 0.10

Audubon Society — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

The Nature Conservancy 22 0.01 5 0.05 6 0.02 11 0.01 — — — — 

Private Conservation 

Easement/ Conservation Deed 

Restriction

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Institution Managed for 

Biodiversity — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Land Unrestricted for 

Development/ No Known 

Restriction

36,476 12.74 — — — — — — — — 11 0.01 36,465 95.66

Water* 1,900 0.66 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

TOTAL 286,284 100.00 8,876 100.00 33,341 100.00 204,046 100.00 38,121 100.00

Total Land Area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

*The complexity of ownership, water rights, managing entities, and protection level categories of water 

resources are addressed in the aquatic component of GAP. 
SWReGAP 

96 

Table 4-5. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for New Mexico. 

Steward Category Area (km2

) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) %

Bureau of Land Management 54,453 17.29 206 7.70 6,596 38.29 47,650 41.54 — — — — 

Bureau of Reclamation 290 0.09 — — — — — — — — 278 0.24 11 0.01

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1,532 0.49 169 6.31 1,360 7.90 3 0.00 — — — — 

U.S. Forest Service 37,703 11.97 1,363 50.92 6,752 39.19 29,588 25.79 — — — — 

Department of Defense &/or 

Department of Energy 10,373 3.29 — — — — — — — — 10,332 9.01 41 0.02

National Park Service 1,563 0.50 896 33.46 664 3.85 3 0.00 — — — — 

Agricultural Research Service 442 0.14 — — — — — — — — 442 0.39 — — — — 

Department of Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Tribal Land 32,618 10.36 — — — — — — — — 25,195 21.97 7,423 4.13

State Parks & Recreation 336 0.11 — — — — 25 0.14 311 0.27 — — — — 

State Land Board 36,024 11.44 — — — — — — — — — — — — 36,024 20.06

State Wildlife Reserves 676 0.21 — — — — 670 3.89 6 0.01 — — — — 

Other State Land — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Regional Government Land — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

City Land 12 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 12 0.01

County Land 1 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 0.00

Audubon Society 0 0.00 — — — — 0 0.00 — — — — — — — — 

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement 1,108 0.35 — — — — 930 5.40 177 0.15 — — — — 

The Nature Conservancy 438 0.14 43 1.61 230 1.33 165 0.14 — — — — 

Private Conservation 

Easement/ Conservation Deed 

Restriction

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Institution Managed for 

Biodiversity 4,465 1.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,465 2.49

Private Land Unrestricted for 

Development/ No Known 

Restriction

132,118 41.96 — — — — — — — — 556 0.48 131,562 73.28

Water* 721 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

TOTAL 314,873 100.00 2,678 100.00 17,228 100.00 114,707 100.00 179,539 100.00

Total Land Area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

*The complexity of ownership, water rights, managing entities, and protection level categories of water 

resources are addressed in the aquatic component of GAP. 
SWReGAP 

97 

Table 4-6. Total Area by Land Steward and Protection Level Category for Utah. 

Steward Category Area (km2

) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) % Area (km2) %

Bureau of Land Management 92,081 41.89 623 14.95 19,689 73.72 71,770 58.78 — — — — 

Bureau of Reclamation — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 246 0.11 58 1.40 187 0.70 1 0.00 — — — — 

U.S. Forest Service 32,666 14.86 813 19.53 3,517 13.17 28,336 23.21 — — — — 

Department of Defense &/or 

Department of Energy 7,272 3.31 — — — — — — — — 7,091 5.81 181 0.30

National Park Service 7,904 3.60 2,659 63.85 997 3.73 4,247 3.48 — — — — 

Agricultural Research Service 225 0.10 — — — — 225 0.84 — — — — — — — — 

Department of Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Tribal Land 9,888 4.50 — — — — 42 0.16 9,649 7.90 197 0.33

State Parks & Recreation 425 0.19 — — — — 104 0.39 321 0.26 0 0.00

State Land Board 14,002 6.37 — — — — 5 0.02 — — — — 13,998 23.15

State Wildlife Reserves 1,916 0.87 2 0.05 1,902 7.12 11 0.01 0 0.00

Other State Land 507 0.23 — — — — 5 0.02 502 0.41 — — — — 

Regional Government Land 0 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0.00

City Land 8 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — 8 0.01

County Land 18 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — 18 0.03

Audubon Society — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

The Nature Conservancy 207 0.09 9 0.22 36 0.14 161 0.13 — — — — 

Private Conservation 

Easement/ Conservation Deed 

Restriction

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Institution Managed for 

Biodiversity — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Private Land Unrestricted for 

Development/ No Known 

Restriction

46,052 20.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — 46,052 76.18

Water* 6,415 2.92 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

TOTAL 219,831 100.00 4,165 100.00 26,708 100.00 122,090 100.00 60,453 100.00

Total Land Area Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4

*The complexity of ownership, water rights, managing entities, and protection level categories of water 

resources are addressed in the aquatic component of GAP. 
SWReGAP 

98 

Table 4-7. Documentation of Biodiversity Management Status 1 lands in Arizona. 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Arizona Source of Management Plan 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Desert Grasslands ACEC/RNA; San Pedro River 

ACEC/RNA; Swamp Springs-Hot Springs Watershed 

ACEC 

Final Safford District Resource 

Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

08/1991 

Bureau of Land 

Management East Cactus Plain Wilderness 

East Cactus Plain Wilderness 

Management Plan, Environmental 

Assessment, and Decision Record 

09/1994 

Bureau of Land 

Management Larry Canyon ACEC 

Draft Phoenix Resource 

Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

12/1987 

Bureau of Land 

Management Clay Hills ACEC/RNA 

Record of Decision for the 

Approval of the Kingman 

Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan 03/1995; 

Kingman Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

01/1992 

Bureau of Land 

Management Appleton-Whittell ACEC 

Approved Las Cienegas Resource 

Management Plan and Record of 

Decision 07/2003 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Bill Williams River NWR; Cibola NWR, Havasu NWR 

& Wilderness Area; Imperial NWR & Wilderness Area 

Final Lower Colorado River 

National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive Management Plan 

1994-2014 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Kofa NWR & Wilderness Area 

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & 

Wilderness and New Water 

Mountains Wilderness Interagency 

Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

10/1996 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Leslie Canyon NWR; San Bernardino NWR 

San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon 

National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive Management Plan 

1995-2015 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Cabeza Prieta Wilderness 

URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ref

uges/ arizona/cabeza.html 

U.S. Forest Service Bear Wallow Wilderness; Escudilla Mountain RNA; 

Mount Baldy Wilderness; Thomas Creek RNA 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest 

Plan 1987; Amendment No. 6. 

07/1996 
SWReGAP 

99 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Arizona Source of Management Plan 

U.S. Forest Service 

Casner Canyon RNA; Fern Mountain Botanical Area; 

Fossil Springs Botanical Area; Mogollon Rim 

Botanical Area; Rocky Gulch Proposed RNA; 

Strawberry Crater Wilderness; Verde Valley Botanical 

Area 

Coconino National Forest Plan 

08/1987; Amendment No. 17. 

12/2002 

U.S. Forest Service 

Butterfly Peak RNA; Elgin RNA; Goodding RNA; 

Goudy Canyon RNA; Pole Bridge RNA; Santa Catalina 

RNA 

Coronado National Forest Plan 

1986; Forest Plan Change Notice 

No. 3 06/1999 

U.S. Forest Service Garland Prairie RNA; Kanab Creek Wilderness 

Kaibab National Forest Land 

Management Plan 04/1988; 

Amendment No. 5. 02/2003 

U.S. Forest Service 

Apache Creek Wilderness; Castle Creek Wilderness; 

Cedar Bench Wilderness; Juniper Mesa Wilderness; 

Woodchute Wilderness 

Prescott National Forest Plan 

11/1986; Amendment No. 11. 

03/2000 

U.S. Forest Service 

Buckhorn Mountain RNA; Bush Highway RNA; Haufer 

Wash RNA; Mazatzal Wilderness; Picket Post 

Mountain RNA; Upper Forks Parker Creek RNA 

Tonto National Forest Plan 

10/1985; Amendment No. 22. 

06/1996 

National Park 

Service Chiricahua NM Wilderness Area 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement General Management 

Plan Chiricahua National 

Monument 1999 

National Park 

Service Grand Canyon NP 

General Management Plan 

Grand Canyon National Park 

08/1995 

National Park 

Service Hohokam Pima NM 

URL: 

http://www.nps.gov/pima/; c/o 

Casa Grande Ruins National 

Monument 

National Park 

Service Organ Pipe Cactus NM & Wilderness Area 

Final General Management Plan 

Development Concept Plans 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument 07/1997 

National Park 

Service Petrified Forest NP & Wilderness Area 

Final General Management Plan 

Development Concept Plans 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Petrified Forest National Park 

1992 

National Park 

Service Saguaro NP & Wilderness Area Statement for Management Saguaro National Park 12/1991 

National Park 

Service Sunset Crater Volcano NM 

General Management Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Sunset Crater Volcano National 

Monument 11/2002 
SWReGAP 

100 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Arizona Source of Management Plan 

National Park 

Service Tonto NM 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement General Management 

Plan Tonto National Monument 

12/2003 

National Park 

Service Walnut Canyon NM 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Draft General 

Management Plan Walnut Canyon 

National Monument 09/2001 

National Park 

Service Wupatki NM 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement General Management 

Plan Wupatki National Monument 

11/2002 

Audubon Society Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch 

Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch 

National Audubon Society Santa 

Cruz County Elgin, AZ 85611 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Chiricahua Cave Creek; Hassayampa River Preserve; 

Patagonia-Sonoita Creek Preserve; Ramsey Canyon 

Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewewo

rk/northamerica/states/arizona/pres

erves/ 
SWReGAP 

101 

Table 4-8. Documentation of Status 1 lands in Colorado. 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Colorado Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of Land 

Management Thompson Creek ACEC/NEA 

Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Glenwood 

Springs Resource Area (Revised 

1988) 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Fruita Paleontological Site ACEC/RNA; Pyramid Rock 

ACEC/RNA; Rabbit Valley Paleontological Site 

ACEC/RNA 

Grand Junction Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan and 

Record of Decision 01/1987 

Bureau of Land 

Management Fairview ACEC/RNA 

Gunnison Gorge NCA Approved 

Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 01/2004 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Ammonite Site ACEC/RNA; North Park Phaceila Site 

ACEC/RNA 

Kremmling Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan 

Record of Decision 01/1984 

Bureau of Land 

Management Mosquito Pass ACEC 

Royal Gorge Resource Area 

Record of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan 

05/1996 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Alamosa NWR; Monte Vista NWR 

Alamosa-Monte Vista National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan 09/2003 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Baca NWR Interviewed Refuge Manager: 

Mike Blenden - 07/26/04 

U.S. Forest Service 

Boston Peak Fen RNA; Daves Draw RNA; Indian Caves 

RNA; Keota RNA; Little Owl Creek RNA; Lone Pine 

RNA; Mount Goliath RNA; Sheep Creek RNA 

1997 Revision of the Land and 

Resource Management Plan 

Arapaho and Roosevelt National 

Forests and Pawnee National 

Grassland 

U.S. Forest Service 

Escalante Creek RNA; Gothic RNA; La Garita 

Wilderness; Powderhorn Wilderness; Unknown; West 

Elk Wilderness 

Amended Land and Resource 

Management Plan Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 

National Forests 1991 

U.S. Forest Service Campo RNA; Hurricane Canyon RNA; Saddle Mountain 

RNA 

Land and Resource Management 

Plan Pike and San Isabel National 

Forest; Comanche and Cimarron 

National Grasslands 1984; 

Amendment No. 24. 04/1992 

U.S. Forest Service 

Deadman Creek RNA; Finger Mesa RNA; Hot Creek 

RNA; Mill Creek RNA; North Zapata RNA; Sangre de 

Cristo Wilderness; South San Juan Wilderness; Spring 

Branch RNA 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan Rio Grande 

National Forest 11/1996 

U.S. Forest Service 

Kettle Lakes RNA; Mad Creek RNA; Mount Zirkel 

Wilderness; Never Summer Wilderness; Sarvis Creek 

Wilderness; Silver Creek RNA 

Revised Forest Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Routt National Forest 

2001 

U.S. Forest Service Lizard Head Wilderness; Narraguinnep RNA; Piedra 

Area; Weminuche Wilderness; Williams Creek RNA 

Amended Land and Resource 

Management Plan San Juan 

National Forest 04/1992; 

Amendment No. 20 08/1998 
SWReGAP 

102 

U.S. Forest Service 

Assignation Creek RNA; Collegiate Peaks Wilderness; 

Eagles Nest Wilderness; East Lake and West Cross 

Creeks RNA; Flat Tops Wilderness; Gift and Kline 

Creeks RNA; Holy Cross Wilderness; Hoosier Ridge 

NRA; Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness; Lower Battlement 

Mesa RNA; Main Elk Creek RNA; Maroon BellsSnowmass Wilderness; Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness; 

Raggeds Wilderness 

2002 Revision for Land and 

Resource Management Plan 

White River National Forest 

National Park 

Service Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness 

General Management Plan 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Monument and 

Curecanti National Recreation 

Area 09/1996 

National Park 

Service Colorado NM 

Draft General Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Colorado National Monument 

01/2004 

National Park 

Service Dinosaur NM 

General Management Plan 

Development Concept Plans Land 

Protection Plan Environmental 

Assessment 

Dinosaur National Monument 

07/1988; Amended 04/1991 

National Park 

Service Florissant Fossil Beds NM 

Final General Management Plan 

and Development Concept Plan 

Florissant Fossil Beds National 

Monument 09/1985 

National Park 

Service Great Sand Dunes NP & Wilderness Area 

Statement for Management 

Great Sand Dunes National 

Monument 02/1988 

National Park 

Service Hovenweep NM 

Statement for Management 

Hovenweep National Monument 

04/1992 

National Park 

Service Mesa Verde NP & Wilderness Area; Park Mesa RNA 

Statement for Management 

Mesa Verde National Park 

10/1986 

National Park 

Service 

Rocky Mountain NP; Indian Peaks Wilderness; 

Paradise Park RNA; Specimen Mountain RNA; West 

Creek RNA 

Statement for Management 

Rocky Mountain National Park 

09/1988 

National Park 

Service Yucca House NM 

Statement for Management 

Yucca House National Monument 

06/1987 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

High Creek Fen Preserve; Mexican Cut Preserve; 

Mishak Lakes Preserve; Yampa River Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewew

ork/northamerica/states/colorado/

preserves/ 
SWReGAP 

103 

Table 4-9. Documentation of Status 1 lands in Nevada. 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Nevada Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of Land 

Management Ash Meadows ACEC; Pine Creek RNA 

Record of Decision for the 

Approved Las Vegas Resource 

Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

10/1998 

Bureau of Land 

Management Black Rock Desert Wilderness 

Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Black Rock 

Desert-High Rock Canyon 

Emigrant Trails National 

Conservation Area (NCA) and 

Associated Wilderness, and Other 

Contiguous Lands in Nevada 

09/2003 

Bureau of Land 

Management Stewart Valley Fossil Site ACEC 

Carson City Field Office 

Consolidated Resource 

Management Plan 05/2001 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Anaho Island NWR; Stillwater NWR 

Stillwater National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 06/2003 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service 

Ash Meadows NWR; Desert National Wildlife Range; 

Moapa Valley NWR; Pahranagat NWR 

URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/desertcomple

x/ 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Charles Sheldon NWR 

Interviewed Deputy Project 

Leader of Hart-Sheldon Complex: 

Dave Johnson - 10/2004 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Ruby Lake NWR Interviewed Refuge Manager: Martha Collins -10/04 

U.S. Forest Service 

Fall Creek RNA; Hole-in-the-Mountain RNA; Mount 

Moriah Table RNA; North-South Schell Peaks RNA; 

Pearl Peak RNA; Seitz Canyon/Echo Lake RNA; Troy 

Peak RNA; White Pine Peak RNA 

Humboldt National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan 

1996 

U.S. Forest Service Bald Mountain Wash RNA; Jacks Spring Pinyon RNA; 

Mount Jefferson RNA 

Land and Resource Management 

Plan Toiyabe National Forest 

1987 

U.S. Forest Service 

Carpenter Canyon RNA; La Madre Mountain 

Wilderness; Mount Charleston Wilderness; Rainbow 

Mountain Wilderness 

General Management Plan for the 

Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area: An Amendment 

to the Land and Resource 

Management Plan Toiyabe 

National Forest 1996 

National Park 

Service 

Black Canyon Wilderness; Bridge Canyon Wilderness; 

Eldorado Wilderness; Ireteba Peaks Wilderness; 

Jimbilnan Wilderness; Muddy Mountains Wilderness; 

Nellis Wash Wilderness; Pinto Valley Wilderness; Spirit 

Mountain Wilderness 

Revised Draft Environmental 

Statement Preliminary Wilderness 

Proposal Lake Mead National 

Recreation Area & Interagency 

Wilderness Strategic Plan (1995) 

National Park 

Service Death Valley NP & Wilderness Area 

General Management Plan 

Death Valley National Park 

04/2002 
SWReGAP 

104 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Nevada Source of Management 

Plan 

National Park 

Service Great Basin NP 

Final General Management Plan 

Development Concept Plans 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Great Basin National Park 

09/1992 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Alamo; Anderson; Bugbee; Elbow/NLRC; Feretto; 

Henrie; Nye County; Parker; Shelton; Shirley Perkins; 

Torrance 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewew

ork/northamerica/states/nevada/pr

eserves/ 
SWReGAP 

105 

Table 4-10. Documentation of Status 1 lands in New Mexico. 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Aden Lava Flow RNA; Antelope Pass RNA; Bear 

Creek ACEC; Gila Middle Box ACEC; Lordsburg 

Playa RNA; Paleozoic Trackways RNA 

Las Cruces District OfficeMimbres Resource Area - 

Mimbres Resource 

Management Plan 12/1993 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Ah-shi-sle-pah Road ACEC; Albert Mesa ACEC; 

Andrews Ranch ACEC; Bee Burrow ACEC; Bis 

sa'ani ACEC; Casamero Community ACEC; 

Church Rock Outlier ACEC; Cottonwood Divide 

ACEC; Dogie Canyon School ACEC; East Side 

Rincon ACEC; Farmer's Arroyo ACEC; Fossil 

Forest RNA; Four Ye'i ACEC; Gonzalez CanyonSenon S. Vigil Homestead ACEC; Halfway House 

ACEC; Haynes Trading Post ACEC; Headcut 

Prehistoric Community; Holmes Group ACEC; 

Indian Creek ACEC; Jacques Chacoan 

Community ACEC; Kin Nizhoni ACEC; Margarita 

Martinez Homestead ACEC; Martin Apodaco 

Homestead ACEC; Morris 41 ACEC; Pierre's Site 

ACEC; Reese Canyon RNA; Rock House-Nestor 

Martin Homestead ACEC; Simon Ruin ACEC; 

Toh-la-kai ACEC; Twin Angels ACEC; Upper Kin 

Klizhin ACEC 

Record of Decision 

Farmington Proposed 

Resource Management Plan 

and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 09/2003 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Little McKittrick Draw Habitat Management 

RNA; South Texas Hill Canyon RNA; Yeso Hills 

RNA; Pecos River/Canyons Complex RNA 

Approved Carlsbad Resource 

Management Plan 09/1988 

Bureau of Land 

Management Mathers RNA/ISA 

Special Status Species 

Resource Management Plan 

Amendment Analysis of 

Management Situation 

01/2005 

Bureau of Land 

Management McGregor Black Grama Grassland ACEC 

Draft McGregor Range 

Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 01/2005; Resource 

Management Plan Amendment 

McGregor Range 09/1990 

Bureau of Land 

Management Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 

Record of Decision Proposed 

Roswell Resource 

Management Plan 10/1997 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Bosque del Apache Wilderness 

URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest

/refuges/newmex/bosque/ 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Salt Creek Wilderness 

Bitter Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 09/1998 
SWReGAP 

106 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Aldo Leopold Wilderness; Gila River RNA; Gila 

Wilderness 

Gila National Forest Plan 

09/1986; Amendment No. 9 

11/2002 

U.S. Forest 

Service Bernalillo RNA 

Cibola National Forest Land 

and Resource Management 

Plan 07/1985; Amendment No. 

8. 11/1996 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Canada Bonito RNA; Mesita de las Ladrones 

RNA; Monument Canyon RNA 

Santa Fe National Forest Plan 

07/1987; Amendment Change 

Notice No. 1. 09/1994 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Haynes Canyon RNA; Upper McKittrick RNA; 

William G. Telfer RNA 

Lincoln National Forest Plan 

1986; Amendment No. 9. 

06/1996 

National Park 

Service Bandelier NM & Wilderness Area 

Resources Management Plan 

Bandelier National Monument 

01/1995 

National Park 

Service Capulin Volcano NM 

Statement for Management 

Capulin Volcano National 

Monument 10/1989 

National Park 

Service Carlsbad Caverns NP & Wilderness Area 

General Management Plan 

Carlsbad Caverns National 

Park 10/1996 

National Park 

Service Gila Cliff Dwellings NM 

Interviewed Gila Cliff 

Dwellings National Monument 

Superintendent: 

Steve Riley - 06/04 

National Park 

Service White Sands NM 

Final Master Plan in 

Conjunction with the Resource 

Management Plan for White 

Sands National Monument 

01/1995 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Gila Riparian Preserve; Gila River Farm; Lama 

Canyon Preserve; Milnesand Prairie Preserve; 

Mimbres River Preserve; Rattlesnake Spring 

Preserve; Rio Nutria Preserve; Santa Fe Canyon 

Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherew

ework/northamerica/states/new

mexico/preserves/ 
SWReGAP 

107 

Table 4-11. Documentation of Status 1 lands in Utah. 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Beaver Wash Canyon ACEC; North Caineville 

Mesa ACEC; South Caineville Mesa ACEC 

Henry Mountain Parker 

Mountain and Mountain 

Valley Management 

Framework Plans Approved 

Amendments and Record of 

Decision 1982 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Big Flat Tops ACEC; Bowknot Bend ACEC; 

Pictographs ACEC; San Rafael Reef North ACEC 

San Rafael Final Resource 

Management Plan and 

Rangeland Program Summary 

05/1991 

Bureau of Land 

Management Dark Canyon ACEC; Lavender Mesa ACEC 

San Juan/San Miguel Planning 

Area Resource Management 

Plan 09/1985 

Bureau of Land 

Management Lears Canyon ACEC 

Diamond Mountain Resource 

Area Resource Management 

Plan and Record of Decision 

Fall 1994 

Bureau of Land 

Management Water Canyon/South Fork Indian Canyon ACEC Vermillion Management Framework Plan 12/1986 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Dance Hall Rock Historic Site; Devils Garden 

ISA; Escalante Canyons ONA; No Mans Mesa 

RNA; North Escalante Canyon ONA; The Gulch 

ONA; Phipps-Death Hollow ISA; Wolverine 

Petrified Wood Natural Area 

Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument 

Management Plan 02/2000 

Bureau of Land 

Management Wah Wah Mountains RNA 

Warm Springs Resource Area 

Management Plan, Record of 

Decision and Rangeland 

Program Summary 1987 

Bureau of Land 

Management Bridger Jack Mesa WSA/ACEC 

Resource Management Plan 

Record of Decision and 

Rangeland Program Summary 

for the San Juan Resource 

Area 03/1991 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service Fish Springs NWR 

Fish Springs National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

07/2004 

U.S. Forest 

Service Gunsight Peak RNA 

Caribou Revised Forest Plan 

Caribou-Targhee National 

Forest 2003 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Browse RNA; Red Canyon RNA; Table Cliff RNA; 

Timbered Cinder Cone RNA; Upper Sand Creek 

RNA 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the 

Dixie National Forest 09/1986 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Bullion Canyon RNA; Partridge Mountain RNA; 

Upper Fish Creek RNA 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan Fishlake 

National Forest 1986 
SWReGAP 

108 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Gates of Birch Creek RNA; Pollen Lake RNA; 

Sims Peak Potholes RNA; Timber-Cow Ridge 

RNA; Uinta Shale Creek RNA; Lance Canyon 

RNA; Ashley Gorge RNA 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan for Ashley 

National Forest 10/1986 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Cliff Dwellers Pasture RNA; Elk Knoll RNA; 

Great Basin Experimental Range; Hammond 

Canyon; Hideout Mesa RNA; Mill Creek Gorge 

RNA; Mount Peale RNA; Nelson Mountain RNA; 

Pinhook Battleground Historical Site; Scad Valley 

Botanical Area; The Grove of Aspen Giants Area; 

World Record Pinyon Pine 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan for MantiLa Sal National Forest; 

Amendment No. 2. 09/1990 

U.S. Forest 

Service Jumpoff RNA 

2003 Land and Resource 

Management Plan Revision 

Unita National Forest 05/2003 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Deseret Peak Wilderness; High Uintas 

Wilderness; Lone Peak Wilderness; Mollens 

Hollow RNA; Morris Creek RNA; Mount Naomi 

Wilderness; Mount Olympus Wilderness; Red 

Butte Canyon RNA; Twin Peaks Wilderness; 

Wellsville Mountain Wilderness 

Revised Forest Plan WasatchCache National Forest 02/2003 

National Park 

Service Arches NP 

General Management Plan 

Development Concept Plan 

Environmental Assessment 

Arches National Park 07/1989 

National Park 

Service Bryce Canyon NP 

Statement for Management 

Bryce Canyon National Park 

02/1993 

National Park 

Service Canyonlands NP 

Statement for Management 

Canyonlands National Park 

07/1988 

National Park 

Service Cedar Breaks NM 

Environmental Assessment, 

General Management Plan, 

and Development Concept 

Plan for Cedar Breaks 

National Monument 09/1983 

National Park 

Service Dinosaur NM 

General Management Plan 

Development Concept Plans 

Land Protection Plan 

Environmental Assessment 

Dinosaur National Monument 

07/1988; Amended 04/1991 

National Park 

Service Hovenweep NM 

Statement for Management 

Hovenweep National 

Monument 04/1992 
SWReGAP 

109 

Land Steward Name of Status 1 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

National Park 

Service Natural Bridges NM 

General Management Plan 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Development 

Concept Plan Natural Bridges 

National Monument 02/1997 

National Park 

Service 

Zion National Park; Crazy Quilt Mesa RNA; 

Goose Creek RNA; Hanging Garden RNA; 

Isolated Mesa Tops RNA; Kolob Mesas RNA; 

Parunuweap RNA; Shunes Creek RNA; Slickrock 

RNA; Southeast Pinyon Juniper RNA 

General Management Plan 

Zion National Park 08/2001 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Autumn Buttercup Preserve; Clay Phacalia 

Preserve; Dwarf Bear Claw Poppy Preserve; 

Great Salt Lake Shorelands; Mayberry Preserve; 

Red Cliffs Desert Preserve; Scott M. Matheson 

Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherew

ework/northamerica/states/uta

h/preserves/ 
SWReGAP 

110 

LIMITATIONS AND DISCUSSION 

The SWReGAP stewardship dataset reflects a compilation of datasets provided by a 

variety of data stewards that are individually responsible for the accuracy of their own 

datasets. No single source could provide a map of all managed areas within a state or for 

the region. Numerous difficulties arose when combining information from a large 

number of data sources and compiling the disparate data into a single comprehensive 

dataset. Some of these difficulties were caused by digital sources using different map 

projections, different scales, different production quality, and varying dates of 

production. In addition, some sources only had paper versions of the map and therefore, 

boundaries were on-screen digitized at the SWReGAP stewardship laboratory, 

introducing the possibility of additional errors. Due to the wide range and variety of 

source data sets, existing boundary discrepancies between two contributed datasets 

frequently occurred. In order to compile the region-wide dataset, the errors in boundaries 

were adjusted, usually to the more detailed or larger scale dataset, but on occasion 

without knowing which source of data was correct. Because of this uncertainty, 

boundaries represented in the stewardship dataset should not be considered cadastral, 

meaning they are not an official register to the division of land parcels for surveying, 

taxation or administrative purposes. Although some parcel-level data was used to 

produce the stewardship dataset, the SWReGAP geodatabase does not, and should not be 

considered to, provide legal representation of land ownership boundaries. 

The regional stewardship mapping laboratory attempted to maintain consistency when 

compiling the dataset, however, absolute mapping standards were difficult to establish 

and many decisions were made on a case by case basis. Some simple rules were 

maintained throughout the dataset during topology editing. These rules usually related to 

size of the particular parcels. For example, if an ACEC was smaller than a wilderness 

area the ACEC was usually embedded on top of the wilderness area. Many parcels have 

dual designations, which complicates the task of creating a standard parcel editing 

methodology. When this occurred, the regional stewardship coordinator attempted to 

attribute the parcel to the more legally binding land management descriptor. 

Other considerations pertain to the lack of detailed geospatial data that correspond with 

the written management plans. For example, individual parcels such as National Parks 

are usually not under one management mandate; some parks have recreation zones, 

development zones, and natural zones. Often the park management plan describes 

various management zones but no digital data representing the various zones in the park 

exist. For the most part, the available digital data only represented the proclamation 

(outer and generalized) boundary of the park. Because of this some parcels had an 

oversimplification of management levels because the entire parcel (a park in this 

example) was assigned the same biodiversity management status code. This approach 

could cause estimates of the area actually being managed in each management status 

code to be over or under estimated. This lack of internal management boundary detail 

most commonly occurred in National Park Service lands, some U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service lands and most of the Tribal Lands.
SWReGAP 

111 

The stewardship data is a dynamic GAP product. Lands are regularly changing 

ownership and new management directions are continually being applied. This creates an 

on-going need to add or revise parcel information. At this time there is no organization 

tasked with the continual upkeep and maintenance of the stewardship dataset especially at 

a regional or national scale. Tasking an organization with the maintenance and upkeep of 

this type of regionally consistent data could prove to be very beneficial in the 

development of multi-state, landscape scale perspectives of biodiversity management. 

These considerations could help identify new or additional opportunities for biodiversity 

planning across political boundaries from local visions to national efforts. Continual 

updates to these data would also provide a unique visual representation for individual 

land stewards to identify other land stewards in different geographic regions who share 

similar biodiversity management responsibilities. 

Another important aspect related to maintenance and development of this dataset is an 

expanded geodatabase system. Beardsley and Stoms (1993) suggested three 

improvements pertaining to: delineation of sections within managed areas, encoding of 

additional attributes, and multi-scale representations of parcels. An enhanced system 

should facilitate revising and tracking ownership and protection modifications to the 

dataset. For the most part, improvements and updates should include both the coding and 

spatial representation of dually designated parcels. Other modifications could allow for 

non-spatial information to be dynamically linked to the parcel such as sources of 

management plans or alternative coding systems. By establishing a more formal data 

steward and a system for maintenance and upkeep of the stewardship dataset, the 

stewardship information produced by GAP could become an even more valuable data 

resource for natural resource managers throughout the Southwest United States. 
SWReGAP 

112 

CHAPTER 5 

ANALYSIS BASED ON STEWARDSHIP 

AND MANAGEMENT STATUS 

Kenneth G. Boykin, Lisa Langs Stoner, John Lowry, Don Schrupp, David Bradford, Lee 

O’Brien, Kathryn Thomas, Charles Drost, Andrea Ernst, William Kepner, Julie PriorMagee, Doug Ramsey, Wendy Rieth, Todd Sajwaj, Keith Schulz, and Bruce C. 

Thompson. 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 

Recommended Citation: 

Boykin, K. G., L. Langs Stoner, J. Lowry, D. Schrupp, D. Bradford, L. O’Brien, K. Thomas, C. Drost, A. 

Ernst, W. Kepner, J. Prior-Magee, D. Ramsey, W. Rieth, T. Sajwaj, K. Schulz, B.C. Thompson. 

2007. Analysis based on stewardship and management status. Chapter 5 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., 

eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis 

Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding author: K.G. Boykin is to be contacted at kboykin@nmsu.edu, Tel. 575-646-6303 
SWReGAP 

113 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the methods and results of the gap analysis as conducted by the 

Gap Analysis Program. As described in the general introduction to this report, the 

primary objective of GAP is to provide information on the distribution and status of 

several elements of biological diversity. Here, we present gap analysis results for land 

cover and terrestrial vertebrate species for the southwestern region. Other components of 

biodiversity, such as aquatic organisms or selected groups of invertebrates may be 

incorporated into GAP distributional data sets, however they were not the focus of 

SWReGAP’s mapping effort. 

 

Although GAP "seeks to identify habitat types and species not adequately represented in 

the current network of biodiversity management areas" (GAP 2000), it is unrealistic to 

create a standard definition of "adequate representation" for either land cover types or 

individual species (Noss et al. 1995). A practical solution to this problem is to report both 

percentages and absolute area of each element in biodiversity management areas and 

allow the user to determine which types are adequately represented in natural areas. 

There are many other factors that should be considered in such determinations including: 

• historic loss or gain in distribution; 

• nature of the spatial distribution; 

• immediate versus long term risk; and 

• degree of local adaptation among populations of the biotic elements that are 

worthy of individual conservation consideration. 

Such analyses are beyond the scope of this project, but we encourage their application 

coupled with field confirmation of the mapped distributions. 

Where appropriate, GAP data may also be analyzed to identify the location of a set of 

areas in which most or all land cover types or animal 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 that facilitate this process (see 

Pressey et al. 1993, Williams et al. 1996, Csuti et al. 1997, for details). These areas 

become candidates for field validation and may be incorporated into a system of areas 

managed for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity. 

State wildlife agencies maintain records on vertebrate species inventories. 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 cooperatively uses these 

data to develop predicted distributions of potentially suitable habitat for these elements. 

These data may also be valuable for identifying additional research needs and preliminary 

considerations for restoration or reintroduction. Conservation of rare elements, however, 

is best accomplished through the fine-filter approach of the above organizations as 
SWReGAP 

114 

described in the general introduction. It is not the role of GAP to duplicate or disseminate 

state wildlife agency data or Natural Heritage Program or CDC Element Occurrence 

Records. Users interested in more specific information about the location, status, and 

ecology of populations of rare species are directed to their state wildlife agencies and 

state Heritage Program or CDC. 

METHODS 

We conducted the gap analysis using ESRI ® ArcGIS Desktop 9 software and the Spatial 

Analyst extension. Gap analysis is accomplished by first producing maps of land cover 

(Chapter 2), predicted animal-habitat distributions (Chapter 3), land stewardship (Chapter

4), and GAP management status (Chapter 5). To facilitate the analysis, each data set was 

converted to grid format for use within ArcGIS’ Model Builder. In Model Builder, a 

graphical model was designed to run a series of cross-tabulations employing the 

“Tabulate Area” tool. By intersecting the land stewardship and management status maps 

with the land cover and animal-habitat species distribution maps, estimates were 

produced of the total area and percent of the mapped distributions for every land cover 

class and animal species within each land stewardship and management status category. 

Calculations were generated for the entire 5-state region as well as for each state 

individually. We highlight the results of these analyses in the sections below and present 

detailed summaries in a series of appendices at the end of this chapter. Management 

implications of the results are provided in Chapter 6. 

RESULTS 

Results from the gap analysis are provided in a series of appendices, tables, and figures 

that allow users to carry out inquiries about the representation of each element in 

different land stewardship and management status categories as appropriate to their own 

management 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 biodiversity maintenance. 

Recall from Chapter 4 (Land Stewardship), that each biodiversity management category 

recognized by GAP provides increasing levels of conservation based on the management 

objectives of the land steward. Lands managed according to GAP Status 1 and 2 criteria 

are assumed to have the highest amount of protection. As a coarse indicator of the 

conservation status of the elements, we identify for every land cover type and animal 

species, the proportion of its distribution that falls within Status 1 and 2 lands according 

to five levels of representation: 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >=50%. The 

<1% level indicates elements with essentially none of their distribution in a protected 

status while levels of 10%, 20%, and 50% have been recommended in the literature as 

necessary amounts of conservation (Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Odum and Odum 1972, 

Specht et al. 1974, Ride 1975, Miller 1984). 
SWReGAP 

115 

Land Cover - Regional Analysis 

A total of 125 land cover types are mapped within the SWReGAP area; of which 109 are 

natural or semi-natural ecological systems. The five most abundant land cover types in 

the region are: Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie (S088) (comprising 8.2% of the 

region), Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland (S054) (7.8% of the region), 

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039) (7.1%), Inter-Mountain Basins 

Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S065) (5.7%), and Agriculture (N80) (5.5%). Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S040) and Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland (S036) are also quite extensive as well as several varieties of desert scrub, 

grassland, and shrub-steppe systems. 

The proportional distribution (as a percent) for each land cover type by land steward in 

the 5-state region is provided in Appendix 5-1. The distribution of each land cover type 

by GAP Management Status is presented in Appendix 5-2. For example, from these 

appendices we note that Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S065), a land 

cover type that occurs in all 5 states, is managed predominantly by the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (65.1%) (Appendix 5-1) and for the most part, falls within GAP 

Management Status 3 (Appendix 5-2). 

Figure 5-2 presents a summary of ecological systems within GAP Management Status 1 

and 2 for each of the five threshold categories of conservation. Ecological systems have 

been aggregated into National Land Cover Database (NLCD) classes to aid in presenting 

these data. For instance, from Figure 5-1 we note there are six ecological systems with 

less than 1% (0-<1% threshold category) of their distribution within Status 1 or 2 lands 

for the 5-state region. These include: one barren type, one shrub/scrub type, one 

emergent herbaceous wetland system, and three grassland/herbaceous systems. Table 5-1

presents similar, but more detailed information about the distribution of land cover types 

in Status 1 and 2 lands for the 5-state region. 

Approximately 11.5% (160,183 km2

) of the 5-state region falls within GAP Status 1 or 2 

(Appendix 5-2). In general, land cover classes at higher elevations are more likely to 

have a larger proportion of their total distribution within GAP Management Status 1 and 

2 than lower elevation land cover classes, because much of the higher elevation land is 

under government stewardship with a mandate to protect biodiversity (e.g. Wilderness 

Areas). On the other hand, examining land cover types that exhibit low proportions (e.g. 

thresholds of 0-<1%, and 1%-<10%) of their distribution in GAP Management Status 1 

and 2 is useful as it provides a measure of potentially threatened biodiversity (e.g. using a 

coarse filter approach), and may help prioritize land cover types in need of conservation 

action. 
SWReGAP 

116 

1 1 3 1

6

2 2

13 11

5

1

34

4

8

2 1 3 4 5

27

10 10 10

1 1 3

35

3 1 2 1

7

0

10

20

30

40

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

<1% 1-<10% 10-<20% 20-<50% >50%

# Ecological Systems

Figure 5-1. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) and 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 1 

and 2 lands in the SWReGAP project area. 
SWReGAP 

117 

Table 5-1. Representation of each land cover type in the SWReGAP project area within Status 1 & 2 

Lands, summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, and 20-<50%; >=50%. 

Area in 

region 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale 

Grassland <1 n/a 0.0 

S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 315 3 0.9 

S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 1,898 3 0.2 

S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 41 <1 0.5 

S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 n/a 0.0 

S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 114,340 774 0.7 

S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 32,060 1,671 5.2 

S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and 

Steppe 46,038 3,289 7.1 

S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 123 3 2.7 

S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 27,891 1,359 4.9 

S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 4,448 306 6.9 

S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 1,050 44 4.2 

S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat 

Scrub 5,891 138 2.3 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 189 13 6.8 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 2,401 158 6.6 

S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 1,387 99 7.1 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 109,699 7,553 6.9 

S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,851 45 2.4 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 23,842 1,728 7.2 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 5,615 147 2.6 

S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 4,155 271 6.5 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 79,498 4,589 5.8 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 41,190 3,831 9.3 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 33,693 1,519 4.5 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 47,668 3,453 7.2 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 46 2 4.4 

S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 995 54 5.5 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 847 79 9.3 

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 6 <1 3.1 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 18,960 1,402 7.4 

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2,872 199 6.9 

S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 134 6 4.5 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 7,021 244 3.5 

S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 11,968 179 1.5 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 15,311 1,040 6.8 

S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 3 <1 1.7 

S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 842 31 3.7 

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 5,096 121 2.4 

S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,720 140 8.1 

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 14,088 368 2.6 

S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 805 154 19.1 

S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 97,894 13,618 13.9 

S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 35,631 4,030 11.3 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 3,103 383 12.3 

S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 3,445 390 11.3 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 17,586 1,891 10.8 

S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 3,301 390 11.8 

S051 Madrean Encinal 4,406 695 15.8 

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 5,737 959 16.7 

S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 21,930 2,547 11.6 

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest 

and Woodland 236 24 10.1 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 11,518 2,153 18.7 
SWReGAP 

118 

Area in 

region 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized 

Dune 2,845 526 18.5 

S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 427 75 17.7 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 461 84 18.2 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 657 95 14.4 

S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 32 4 11.4 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 21,050 2,675 12.7 

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 898 103 11.4 

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 8,876 1,649 18.6 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 2,236 223 10.0 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 2,178 392 18.0 

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 294 51 17.5 

S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and 

Woodland 21 4 19.1 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,571 499 19.4 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 10,346 1,181 11.4 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 50,241 5,683 11.3 

S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 96 39 40.7 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 13,310 2,669 20.1 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 24,321 7,416 30.5 

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 11,536 4,179 36.2 

S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 51,234 10,351 20.2 

S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 169 57 33.7 

S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,889 759 26.3 

S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland 

and Shrubland 2,569 726 28.3 

S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 1,360 519 38.2 

S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 811 163 20.1 

S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 39 17 42.3 

S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 2 1 32.0 

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 114 24 20.6 

S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 1 45.8 

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 16,864 7,220 42.8 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 1,074 248 23.1 

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 113 53 46.7 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 3,635 1,645 45.3 

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 399 99 24.8 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 1,146 352 30.7 

S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 995 347 34.9 

S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 53 25 47.0 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,962 622 31.7 

S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 2,971 774 26.1 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 8,970 2,073 23.1 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 7,297 1,462 20.0 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 14,846 4,941 33.3 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 10,365 3,375 32.6 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 802 207 25.8 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 3,240 1,124 34.7 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 

Scrub 59,616 16,190 27.2 

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,395 1,240 23.0 

S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 40,079 8,778 21.9 
SWReGAP 

119 

Area in 

region 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 <1 25.8 

S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 54 13 23.7 

S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 670 430 64.2 

S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 23 22 92.8 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 3,863 2,392 61.9 

S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 88 80.2 

S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 761 474 62.3 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,779 1,447 52.1 

S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 89 85 95.6 

N80 Agriculture 77,813 639 0.8 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 7,600 38 0.5 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 7,463 19 0.3 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 1,240 7 0.5 

N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,437 65 4.5 

D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 93 6 6.4 

D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 52 1 1.7 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 2,649 86 3.2 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 8,347 274 3.3 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,869 49 1.7 

N11 Open Water 11,220 322 2.9 

D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 689 68 9.9 

D10 Recently Logged Areas 855 55 6.4 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,666 267 16.0 

D02 Recently Burned 2,033 305 15.0 

D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 <1 31.0 

Land cover classes with <1% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Six ecological systems in the 5-state region have between 0 and <1% of their distribution 

in Gap Management Status 1 or 2 (Table 5-1). With one exception (Western Great Plains 

Shortgrass Prairie (S088)) they are mostly rare, small patch types or peripheral types that 

occur on the edge of their range within the SWReGAP project area. More research is 

needed to focus on conservation of biodiversity in these small patch types, and because 

the peripheral types mostly occur in adjacent regions, analysis needs to be expanded by 

mapping a fuller extent of the range-wide occurrence of the ecological system (i.e. 

beyond the SWReGAP study area). 
SWReGAP 

120 

Land cover classes with 1-<10% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Thirty-four ecological systems have between 1 and <10% of their distribution within 

Status 1 or 2 (Table 5-1). Twenty-one ecological systems are relatively uncommon 

(<10,000 km2

 mapped in the region) and all but one (Inter-Mountain Basins Wash

(S014)) of the 6 rarest types (<200 km2

 mapped), are peripheral to the region. The 

widespread Inter-Mountain Basins Wash (S014) often occurs as narrow, linear bands 

below the minimum mapping unit and with only 46 km2 having been mapped. However, 

this system as well as all the other lower elevation riparian and wetland types have 

between 1 and <10% for their distributions within Status 1 or 2 lands. This is a concern 

because of the importance of riparian and wetland cover types for many upland wildlife 

species, and further supports their need to be targeted for biodiversity conservation and 

restoration. 

There are several widespread ecological systems that are characteristic of the region, and 

some endemic or near-endemic types that are largely restricted to the 5-state study area. 

Protection is likely warranted for some of these widespread land cover types to conserve 

biodiversity within the southwestern U.S., and additional research might be needed to 

assess conservation status of these cover types in Mexico and neighboring U.S. states. 

These systems are: Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe (S077), 

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert Scrub (S116), Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe (S071), Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland (S054), and InterMountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland (S090). 

Endemic or near-endemic ecological systems with between 1 and <10% of their 

distribution in Status 1 or 2 are: Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland

(S056), Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland (S136), Southern Rocky Mountain 

Juniper Woodland and Savanna (S074), Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 

(S048), Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S038), and Rocky 

Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland (S046). 

The remaining land cover types with between 1 and <10% of their distribution in Status 1 

or 2 include several peripheral types that would require information from outside the 

SWReGAP project area to evaluate their range-wide protection status. 

Land cover classes with 10-<20% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Twenty-seven ecological systems have between 10 and <20% of their distribution in 

Status 1 or 2 lands (Table 5-1). These ecological systems occur in a wide variety of 

environmental settings, from areas of high elevation with subalpine forests and wetlands 

to playas and salt desert scrub. Types of ecological systems include: 4 riparian systems, 1 

aspen and 1 aspen-mixed conifer system, 2 montane grassland systems, 2 dune systems, 

and 1 badland system. Four systems in this distribution category occur only marginally 

within the 5-state region. 
SWReGAP 

121 

Land cover classes with 20-<50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 35 ecological systems with between 20 and <50% of their distribution in Status 

1 and 2 lands (Table 5-1). Many of these ecological systems include lower- to midelevation forests and rock outcrops (e.g. barren lands). 

Land cover classes with >50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Seven ecological systems have greater than 50% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 

lands. With the exception of one somewhat rare system (Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert 

Chaparral (S114)), all occur in higher elevation (alpine and subalpine) zones. 

In addition to the data provided in Appendices 5-1 and 5-2, Appendix 5-3 presents for 

each land cover type, a cross-tabulation of land stewardship by GAP Management Status. 

This effectively allows users of this report to assess relative biodiversity protection using 

thresholds other than those used by the Gap Analysis Program (i.e. 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-

<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%). 

Land Cover - State-based Analyses 

Arizona

Seventy-seven land cover types are mapped in Arizona; 70 of these are natural or seminatural ecological systems and constitute 95.4% of all land cover in the state (Appendix 

5-4). Over half (54%) of the state consists of six ecological systems. Three of these 

ecological systems (Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub (S063), SonoraMojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub (S069), and Colorado Plateau 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039)) cover more than 10% of the state and together 

comprise 37.7% of the state. Three other ecological systems Apacherian-Chihuahuan 

Mesquite Upland Scrub (S058); Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland

(S036); and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe (S079) occur with greater 

than 5% cover (and < 10% cover) and make up an additional 16.3% of the state land 

cover. Sixteen ecological systems have greater than 1% cover (and < 5%) and make up 

36% of the total state land cover. Forty-eight ecological systems are limited in their 

distribution with less than 1% cover and form 5.3% of the state cover. 

A summary of the percent distribution of each land cover type by land steward for 

Arizona is provided in Appendix 5-4. For example, in Arizona, tribal lands are 

responsible for approximately 27% of the land stewardship within the state (Appendix 5-

4). Several ecological systems have greater than 80% of their total distribution within 

these areas, including 3 barren land types, 1 shrubland, 1 grassland, 2 woody wetlands, 

and 1 emergent herbaceous wetland. Appendix 5-5 summarizes the percent distribution 

of each land cover type represented within the four GAP Management Status categories. 

Ecological systems such as Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland (S136) where 

89% of its distribution occurs on tribal lands has nearly the same proportion of its 

distribution within Status 3 lands (Appendix 5-5). 

Approximately 13.5% (39,659 km2

) of Arizona lands are currently managed according to 

GAP Management Status 1 or 2 criteria. We summarize below the representation of 

ecological systems within these lands. Representation is categorized by the percent of the 
SWReGAP 

122 

aerial coverage of the ecological system occurring in Status 1 and 2 lands: <1%, 1 to < 

10%, 10 to < 20%, 20 to < 50% and greater than 50%. Figure 5-2 presents an overview 

of the number of ecological systems by NLCD class with representation in Status 1 and 2 

lands broken down by conservation threshold for the state of Arizona. Table 5-2 presents 

a more detailed version of this information by identifying the representation of individual 

land cover types in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Land cover classes with <1% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Seven ecological systems (Table 5-2) receive the least amount of protection, with less 

than 1% of their respective distributions within Status 1 or 2 lands. These ecological 

systems are: Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub (S068), InterMountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland (S045), Inter-Mountain Basins Playa (S015), 

North American Warm Desert Playa (S022), Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet 

Meadow (S102), Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow (S083), and Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland (S091). Each of these has limited distribution 

within Arizona (4% or less of the regional distribution) and collectively the seven 

contribute 0.2% to the state’s total land cover. 

Land cover classes with 1-<10% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Twenty-five ecological systems (Table 5-2) have between 1 and <10% of their respective 

areas within Status 1 and 2 lands in Arizona. Four of the most extensive ecological 

systems, Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland (S036), Colorado Plateau 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039), Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 

(S058) and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe (S079) are included in this 

group of 25. Collectively the 25 ecological systems contribute 46% to the state’s total 

land cover. 

Land cover classes with 10-<20% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 14 ecological systems with distributions between 10 and <20% within Status 1 

and 2 lands in Arizona (Table 5-2). These types collectively comprise 14.2% of the land 

cover in Arizona. 

Land cover classes with 20-<50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Fifteen ecological systems have 20 to <50% of their distribution in conservation lands; 

they collectively contribute 33.7% to the state’s total land cover. 

Land cover classes with >50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Five ecological systems have distributions greater than 50% within Status 1 and 2 lands 

in Arizona: Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral (S053), Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland (S040), Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland (S111), 

Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree (S002), and Rocky Mountain SubalpineMontane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland (S025). The Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland covers 1.15% of Arizona land cover, while the other four ecological systems 

.04% or less land cover. The Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree and Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland occur at the highest 

elevations in Arizona. 
SWReGAP 

123 

2 2 111

7

3 4

9

6

3

25

5 5

3 1

14

3 2 1

5

1 2 1

15

1 3 1

5

0

10

20

30

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

<1% 1-<10% 10-<20% 20-<50% >50%

# ecological systems

Figure 5-2. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 1 

and 2 lands in the state of Arizona. 
SWReGAP 

124 

Table 5-2. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >=50% in the 

state of Arizona. 

Area 

in AZ 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-

<10 

10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat 

Scrub 187 2 0.9 

S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 75 <1 0.1 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 7 n/a 0.0 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 48 <1 0.3 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow <1 n/a 0.0 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow <1 n/a 0.0 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland <1 n/a 0.0 

S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 16,539 1,369 8.3 

S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and 

Steppe 11,346 596 5.3 

S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 6,318 215 3.4 

S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,814 153 5.4 

S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 16 <1 2.7 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 109 6 5.7 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 489 5 1.1 

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 353 23 6.4 

S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 32,482 2,724 8.4 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 350 19 5.6 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 1,235 13 1.0 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 3,998 57 1.4 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 6,995 169 2.4 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 11,245 298 2.7 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 15,465 560 3.6 

S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 729 42 5.7 

S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 336 23 6.8 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 795 69 8.6 

S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 91 5 5.1 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 24 <1 2.0 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,011 31 3.1 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 6,073 188 3.1 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 563 22 3.9 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 1 <1 4.3 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 16,233 1,328 8.2 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon Tea Shrubland 4,033 583 14.4 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 5,199 568 10.9 

S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder 

Land 573 98 17.2 
SWReGAP 

125 

Area 

in AZ 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-

<10 

10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 4 1 14.9 

S051 Madrean Encinal 3,008 357 11.9 

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 4,008 796 19.9 

S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 13,161 1,842 14.0 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 9,636 1,683 17.5 

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 34 4 12.5 

S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 180 33 18.3 

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 45 5 12.1 

S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 205 32 15.5 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 439 74 16.8 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 120 23 19.2 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 6,965 1,459 20.9 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 1 <1 26.9 

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 5,416 2,179 40.2 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 24 8 31.6 

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized 

Dune 1,017 406 40.0 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 760 301 39.6 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 269 62 23.1 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 152 31 20.5 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 442 93 21.1 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 1,029 225 21.8 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 128 30 23.6 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 223 56 24.9 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 

Scrub 38,909 7,935 20.4 

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,390 1,239 23.0 

S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 39,773 8,778 22.1 

S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 3,414 2,414 70.7 

S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral <1 <1 100.0 

S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 123 96 78.3 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 5 5 95.9 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 2 2 76.2 

N80 Agriculture 5,629 21 0.4 
SWReGAP 

126 

Area 

in AZ 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-

<10 

10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 4,046 12 0.3 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,710 3 0.2 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 13 <1 0.0 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 467 <1 0.1 

N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,118 49 4.4 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 127 10 7.5 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 72 1 1.7 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 473 80 16.9 

N11 Open Water 220 54 24.7 

D02 Recently Burned 168 91 54.5 
SWReGAP 

127 

Colorado

A total of 82 land cover types are mapped in the state of Colorado, 66 of which are 

ecological systems (Appendix 5-6) and comprise 77% of the state’s total area. With the 

exception of agricultural lands (N80), Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie (S088) is 

the most abundant land cover type, making up 16.9% of the state’s area. Colorado 

Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039) (5.6%), Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland (S054) (5.0%), Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland (S023) (4.2%), 

and Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland (S036) (4.0%) are the next 

most abundant land cover types. 

A summary of the percent distribution of each land cover type by land steward for 

Colorado is provided in Appendix 5-6, and the percent distribution of each land cover 

type by GAP Management Status is reported in Appendix 5-7. For example, the U.S. 

Forest Service is responsible for managing a substantial portion of two forest types, 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S028) (88.4%) 

and Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S030) (86.4%) 

(Appendix 5-6). Due to multiple resource management objectives of the Forest Service, 

representation of these land cover types is well distributed across each GAP Management 

Status, including: ~12% in Status 1, ~22% in Status 2, ~60% in Status 3, and ~6% in 

Status 4 (Appendix 5-7). 

Figure 5-3 presents an overview of the number of ecological systems by NLCD class 

with representation in Status 1 and 2 lands broken down by conservation threshold for the 

state of Colorado. Table 5-3 presents a more detailed version of this information by 

identifying the representation of individual land cover types in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

A total area of 27,529 km2

 (10.2%) of Colorado’s land cover is managed according to 

Status 1 and 2 criteria (Table 5-3); representing 6,837 km2 Status 1 and 20,692 km2

 Status 

2 lands, respectively. Figure 5-3 provides a condensed version of the information in 

Table 5-3 by aggregating the land cover types by NLCD class and showing the total 

number of ecological systems with representation in Status 1 and 2 lands according to the 

conservation thresholds. 

Land cover classes with <1% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Colorado has 14 land cover types that occur less than 1% in GAP Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Ten of these systems (Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop (S008), North American 

Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop (S016), North American Warm Desert Active 

and Stabilized Dune (S018), North American Warm Desert Wash (S020), North 

American Warm Desert Playa (S022), Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland (S035), 

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub (S062), Chihuahuan Gypsophilous 

Grassland and Steppe (S080), Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S112), and Madrean 

Juniper Savanna (S115)) occur minimally within the state, and four of which are 

‘Chihuahuan’ and ‘Madrean’ in nature, and are unlikely to occur in Colorado. One type,

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie (S089), is not abundant, but was mapped, where 

modeled in northeastern Colorado. One type, Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper 
SWReGAP 

128 

Woodland and Savanna (S074), is mapped fairly abundantly in southeastern Colorado 

(2149 km2

), where little protected lands exist (only 6 km2 of it is attributed to Status 1 

and 2 lands in Colorado). The last three of the land cover types occurring less than 1% in 

GAP Status 1 and 2 lands (N21, N22 and N80) are not natural communities, but human 

dominated landscapes of low intensity developed areas, medium to high intensity 

developed areas, and agricultural areas. 

Land cover classes with 1-<10% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 29 land cover types that occur with 1-<10% of their distribution on GAP Status 

1 and 2 lands. Of these, 22 are considered representative of natural communities, and 7 

of ‘disturbed’ land cover classes. Of the 22 considered natural communities, 6 of those 

systems (27%) (Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon (S009), Inter-Mountain Basins 

Wash (S014), Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie (S088), Rocky Mountain Foothill 

Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland (S125), Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland

(S136), and Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland (S138)) provided 

less than 150 square kilometers of habitat base across the 5-state region. Another 12 

(55%) of these woodland, grassland and riparian communities (Southern Rocky Mountain 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S038), Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

(S045), Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland (S047), Western Great 

Plains Sandhill Shrubland (S048), Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

(S071), Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna (S075), Southern Rocky Mountain 

Montane-Subalpine Grassland (S085), Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont 

Grassland (S086), Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland (S090), Rocky 

Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S093), Western Great 

Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S095), and Western Great Plains Floodplain

(S120)), provided more than 150 square kilometers, but less than 10,000 square 

kilometers of habitat base per type, across the 5-state region. There were 4 (18%) natural 

communities with greater than 10,000 square kilometers of habitat base per type 

(Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland (S036), Rocky Mountain Gambel 

Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland (S046), Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

(S054), and Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie (S088)) with 1-<10% of their 

distribution on GAP Status 1 and 2 lands. The majority of these types are desert montane 

shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and shortgrass prairies of the eastern plains. 

These systems with greater areal extents for management consideration were ponderosa 

pine woodlands, gambel oak shrublands, big sagebrush shrublands, and shortgrass 

prairies. The 7 non-natural community cover types (Recently Mined or Quarried (D03), 

Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (D04), Invasive Perennial 

Grassland (D06), Invasive Annual Grassland (D08), Invasive Annual and Biennial 

Forbland (D09), Recently Logged Areas (D10), Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas

(D11)) present more than 4,400 square kilometers of habitats with ‘restoration potential,’ 

with almost half of this amount being ‘invasive annual grasslands. The next five most 

available (based on areal extent) for restoration possibilities, in descending order of 

square kilometers of habitat modified, were cover types currently labeled as invasive 

annual and biennial forblands, recently logged areas, invasive southwest riparian 

woodlands and shrublands, invasive annual grasslands, and recently chained pinyon-
SWReGAP 

129 

juniper areas. The logged and chained areas, may in fact represent already prescribed 

habitat manipulation treatments. 

Land cover classes with 10-<20% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 16 land cover types with distributions of between 10-<20% on GAP Status 1 

and 2 lands in Colorado; 15 of which are natural communities, and one ‘disturbed’ land 

cover class representing the ‘disturbed, oil well’ class, with less than 1 km2 of this type 

mapped in Colorado. (This class was the focus of more mapping effort in the other four 

states). Of the 15 natural land cover types, Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland

(S023) and Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039) provide the most land 

base (11,432 km2

 and 15,134 km2, respectively, with potential for increasing the extent of 

protected habitat). Seven of the 15 natural land cover types (47%) represent a per type 

habitat base of between 1,504 km2

 and 6,938 km2 to work with, from a management 

potential standpoint. The remaining 5 cover types (33%) (Inter-Mountain Basins Shale 

Badland (S011), Inter-Mountain Basins Playa (S015), Rocky Mountain SubalpineMontane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland (S025), Colorado Plateau Mixed Low 

Sagebrush Shrubland (S056), and Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland (S092)) each afforded less than 500 km2 of total base per type to work with, 

across the 5-stage region. These types represented mixed bedrock canyonlands, 

intermountain basin playas, limber/bristlecone pine woodlands, low sagebrush woodland, 

and sub-alpine/montane riparian woodlands. 

Land cover classes with 20-<50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 16 land cover types with distributions of between 20-<50% on GAP Status 1 

and 2 lands in Colorado. Two of these (12%) (Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic 

Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S028) and Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic SpruceFir Forest and Woodland (S030)) represent high elevation conifer forest types, with 

>10,000 km2 and >8,000 km2, respectively, of habitat base in our SWReGAP project 

area. Three of these 16 land cover types (Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland

(S052), Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland (S091), Rocky 

Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow (S102)) (19%) provide per class habitat bases of 

>1,700, >2,800 and >1,300 km2

 respectively, representing pinyon-juniper woodlands, 

subalpine-montane riparian shrublands, and alpine-montane wet meadows. Seven of the 

16 land cover types (44%) (Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrubland (S050), North American Arid West Emergent Marsh (S100), Wyoming Basins 

Low Sagebrush Shrubland (S128), Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie (S132), 

Barren Lands, Non-specific(N31), Disturbed, Non-specific (D01), and Recently Burned

(D02)), with distributions between 20-<50% in Status 1 and 2 lands (44%) each afford 

less than 500 km2

 of habitat base across the 5-state project area. Three of these types 

represent either barren lands, or disturbed/burned land cover types, for which their 

minimal representation might be interpreted as a good thing, Rocky Mountain Cliff, 

Canyon and Massive Bedrock (S006) and Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland (S010) represented 981 km2

 and 674 km2 of habitat base, for which 20-<50% 

was found in GAP Status 1 and 2 lands. 
SWReGAP 

130 

Land cover classes with >50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 5 land cover types with distributions of greater than 50% on GAP Status 1 and 

2 lands in Colorado. Four of these are ‘alpine’ systems (North American Alpine Ice Field

(S001), Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree (S002), Rocky Mountain Alpine FellField (S004), and Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra (S081)), and fall within the greater than 

50% GAP Status 1 and 2 lands, by virtue of the amount of these types falling within 

wilderness areas. The fifth type, Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune

(S012), falls into this category given the substantial amount of its cover that occurs 

within the Great Sand Dunes National Monument. 

4

2 1

4

1

12

2 3

7 7

3

22

2

5

1 1 222

15

2 2

4

1 1 2

12

5

1

6

0

10

20

30

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

<1% 1-<10% 10-<20% 20-<50% >50%

# ecological systems

Figure 5-3. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 1 

and 2 lands in the state of Colorado. 
SWReGAP 

131 

Table 5-3. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50% in the 

state of Colorado. 

Area in 

CO 

Area in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-

<10 

10-

<20 20-<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe <1 n/a 0.0 

S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 9 <1 0.1 

S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 1 n/a 0.0 

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland <1 n/a 0.0 

S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland <1 n/a 0.0 

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized 

Dune <1 n/a 0.0 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop <1 n/a 0.0 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa <1 n/a 0.0 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 1 <1 0.7 

S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 2,149 6 0.3 

S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 88 1 0.7 

S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 n/a 0.0 

S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 120 3 2.7 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 13,378 1,024 7.7 

S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 4 <1 8.5 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 281 7 2.3 

S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 1,019 72 7.1 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 8,498 673 7.9 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 862 69 8.0 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 20 1 3.9 

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland 6 <1 3.4 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 10,226 618 6.0 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 566 54 9.5 

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2,303 176 7.6 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 13 <1 2.3 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 7,245 687 9.5 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 4,834 386 8.0 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 10,790 829 7.7 

S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 828 31 3.8 

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont 

Grassland 4,362 102 2.3 

S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and 

Shrubland 10 <1 2.8 

S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 849 61 7.2 

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 8,679 259 3.0 

S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 45,615 634 1.4 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 66 8 11.5 

S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 15,134 3,014 19.9 

S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 1,951 224 11.5 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,276 337 14.8 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,324 269 11.6 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 44 7 16.3 
SWReGAP 

132 

Area in 

CO 

Area in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-

<10 

10-

<20 20-<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 3,350 540 16.1 

S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 258 33 12.9 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 11,432 1,337 11.7 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 3,150 425 13.5 

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 6,939 1,302 18.8 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 3,603 475 13.2 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 1,504 251 16.7 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 369 56 15.2 

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 215 24 11.4 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 97 36 37.0 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 674 253 37.6 

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 1,764 549 31.1 

S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland 1 <1 24.4 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 44 19 44.5 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,327 488 36.8 

S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 981 298 30.3 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 10,179 3,563 35.0 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 8,150 2,789 34.2 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 2,812 1,073 38.1 

S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 <1 27.7 

S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 43 11 26.4 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 129 111 85.5 

S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 2 2 78.8 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 2,878 1,734 60.3 

S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 584 354 60.7 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,446 1,328 54.3 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 2,010 3 0.1 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,068 8 0.8 

N80 Agriculture 52,820 518 1.0 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 633 20 3.2 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 372 21 5.7 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,079 25 1.2 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 486 27 5.5 

D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 231 19 8.4 

D10 Recently Logged Areas 540 52 9.6 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 87 4 4.7 

D14 Disturbed, Oil Well <1 <1 14.8 

N11 Open Water 607 82 13.5 

N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 10 2 21.5 

D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 <1 31.0 

D02 Recently Burned 313 139 44.5 

D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 2 1 50.4 
SWReGAP 

133 

New Mexico

There are 89 land cover types mapped in New Mexico, 79 of which are natural or seminatural ecological systems (Appendix 5-8). Of the 89 land cover types, there are eight 

(9%) that were mapped most abundantly. These are: Western Great Plains Shortgrass 

Prairie (S088), Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe (S077), 

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039), Southern Rocky Mountain 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland (S036), Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub (S062), 

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland (S090), Apacherian-Chihuahuan 

Mesquite Upland Scrub (S058), and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 

(S079). These eight land cover types account for 228,258 square kilometers (73%) of 

New Mexico and each represent 5% or greater of the state. An additional six land cover 

types account for 1-4% each of the state’s total area including: Southern Rocky Mountain 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S038), Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna (S074), Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S112), Chihuahuan Stabilized 

Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub (S068), Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 

(S048), Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland (S054), and Inter-Mountain 

Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S065). 

A summary of the percent distribution of each land cover type by land steward for New 

Mexico is provided in Appendix 5-8, and the percent distribution of each land cover type 

by GAP Management Status is reported in Appendix 5-9. For instance, the distribution 

of a relatively sparse but localized (<1 km2

) ecological system, Chihuahuan-Sonoran 

Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland (S109), falls almost entirely within private lands 

(98%) with the other 2% in State School Trust lands (Appendix 5-8), where 100% of its 

total distribution is managed according to Status 4 criteria (Appendix 5-9). 

Figure 5-4 presents an overview of the number of ecological systems by NLCD class 

with representation in Status 1 and 2 lands broken down by conservation threshold for the 

state of New Mexico. Table 5-4 presents a more detailed version of this information by 

identifying the representation of individual land cover types in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Approximately 6.3% (19,908 km2

) of New Mexico lands are currently managed 

according to GAP Management Status 1 or 2 criteria (Appendix 5-9). There are 36 land 

cover types (40%) that do not occur on Status 1 lands (10 of which are altered or 

disturbed). Fourteen (16%) of these land cover types do not occur on Status 2 lands 

either (four of which are altered or disturbed). 

Land cover classes with <1% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Of the 89 land cover types, eight (9%) occur with less than 1% of their distribution on 

GAP Status 1 and 2 lands. Two types (Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie (S088), 

Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland (S138)) were mapped on the 

eastern part of New Mexico, an area primarily under private ownership. Western Great 

Plains Shortgrass Prairie was the dominant mapped system within New Mexico and 

accounts for greater than 20% of the mapped land cover type within the state. The other 

type (Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland) was mapped in the 
SWReGAP 

134 

northeastern part of the state, but still largely occurring on private lands. There are four 

systems (Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree (S002), Rocky Mountain Alpine 

Fell-Field (S004), Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra (S081), Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert 

Bottomland and Swale Grassland (S109)) that occur sparsely within the state and InterMountain Basins Playa (S015) that was mapped only slightly more extensively in the 

state. One type (Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub (S069)) was 

mapped very sparsely and would not likely occur within the state as it is a type associated 

with the Sonoran and Mojave deserts. 

Land cover classes with 1-<10% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 39 land cover types that occur with 1-<10% of their distribution on GAP Status 

1 and 2 lands. The majority of these types are desert scrub, pinyon-juniper woodlands, 

and riparian types. The areas in which these land cover types occur are where the 

majority of private lands or multiple use lands (Status 3) occur. Historically, areas near 

to and surrounding riparian zones were settled first, and thus, are likely to be privately 

owned. Consequently, there are several riparian land cover types each with minimal 

protection of their distribution within Status 1 and 2 lands, including: North American 

Arid West Emergent Marsh (S100), North American Warm Desert Wash (S020), InterMountain Basins Greasewood Flat (S096), Inter-Mountain Basins Wash (S014), Rocky 

Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow (S102), Rocky Mountain Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S093), Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland (S095), and Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland (S108). 

Land cover classes with 10-<20% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 15 land cover types with distributions of between 10-<20% on GAP Status 1 

and 2 lands in New Mexico. Many of the land cover types within this category are 

riparian areas and thus subject to management discussed above. These include: North 

American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S094), 

North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S097), Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow (S083), Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane 

Riparian Shrubland (S091), and Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland (S092). Also included within this category is Southern Rocky Mountain 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland (S036) which is a dominant land cover type on forested Status 

3 lands. One grassland type, Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe (S080), 

one forest type, Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

(S042), and one shrubland type, Mogollon Chaparral (S057) are also included within this 

threshold. There are two shrublands which include: Colorado Plateau Mixed Low 

Sagebrush Shrubland (S056) and Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub (S129). Four 

barren or sparse land cover types include: Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized 

Dune (S012), Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland, (S011) North American Warm 

Desert Pavement (S021), and Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock

(S006). 

Land cover classes with 20-<50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 12 land cover types with distributions of between 20-<50% on GAP Status 1 

and 2 lands in New Mexico. Many of the land cover types within this category are high 
SWReGAP 

135 

elevation conifer and aspen forest types that occur within wildernesses in New Mexico. 

The high elevation land cover types include: Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and 

Woodland (S023), Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland (S032), Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

(S034), Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S028), 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S030), Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland (S025), and Southern 

Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland (S085). Lower elevation land cover 

types include Coahuilan Chaparral (S117), Madrean Encinal (S051), North American 

Warm Desert Playa (S022), North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque

(S098), and North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland (S019). 

Land cover classes with >50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 3 land cover types with distributions of greater than 50% on GAP Status 1 and 

2 lands in New Mexico. These include: Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and 

Cinder Land (S013), Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland (S024), and 

Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub (S063). The volcanic lands are largely 

within El Malpais National Park in central New Mexico. Rocky Mountain Bigtooth 

Maple Ravine Woodland (S024) was mapped sparsely within the southeastern part of the 

state within the Lincoln National Forest. Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub

(S063) was mapped very sparsely in southwestern New Mexico. Although it is 

considered a Sonoran Desert land cover type, where it occurs in New Mexico, the actual 

vegetation is probably more closely associated with the Chihuahuan Desert. 

3 2 3

8 5 6

12 9

4 3

39

4 1 1 3 2 4

15

2

6

1 111

12

111 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

<1% 1-<10% 10-<20% 20-<50% >50%

# ecological systems

Figure 5-4. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 1 

and 2 lands in the state of New Mexico. 
SWReGAP 

136 

Table 5-4. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50% in the 

state of New Mexico. 

Area 

in NM 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale 

Grassland <1 n/a 0.0 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 2 n/a 0.0 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 7 n/a 0.0 

S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field <1 n/a 0.0 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 19 n/a 0.0 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 

Scrub <1 n/a 0.0 

S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 1,787 3 0.2 

S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 67,399 140 0.2 

S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 15,120 302 2.0 

S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and 

Steppe 34,343 2,694 7.8 

S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 21,066 1,144 5.4 

S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,590 153 9.6 

S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 969 44 4.5 

S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat 

Scrub 5,537 136 2.5 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 78 7 8.5 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 141 5 3.8 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 2,465 225 9.1 

S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 27,849 2,351 8.4 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 3,929 118 3.0 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,264 97 4.3 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 1,297 82 6.3 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3,777 161 4.3 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 282 24 8.6 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 16,390 663 4.0 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 14,466 574 4.0 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 3 <1 1.1 

S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 657 32 4.8 

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 1,725 163 9.5 

S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 8,754 705 8.1 

S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 672 66 9.9 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 85 3 3.8 

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized 

Dune 1,695 113 6.7 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 838 61 7.3 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 197 10 5.1 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 136 11 7.8 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 1,888 147 7.8 

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 7 1 8.2 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 783 43 5.5 

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 266 4 1.7 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 79 1 1.2 
SWReGAP 

137 

Area 

in NM 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 9,803 173 1.8 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 10,465 654 6.2 

S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 221 2 1.0 

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 701 18 2.6 

S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 851 78 9.2 

S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 20 <1 1.0 

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 5,208 109 2.1 

S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 803 154 19.1 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 329 42 12.8 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 735 89 12.1 

S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 182 33 18.1 

S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 481 79 16.5 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 870 150 17.2 

S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 191 31 16.1 

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 173 32 18.2 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 122 21 16.8 

S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 417 77 18.4 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 147 27 18.3 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 103 15 14.9 

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 5 1 10.0 

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 2 <1 10.7 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 21,160 3,297 15.6 

S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 93 39 41.7 

S051 Madrean Encinal 1,350 339 25.1 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 515 171 33.2 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 3 1 20.9 

S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 700 264 37.6 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 1,483 522 35.2 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 2,864 967 33.8 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 1,610 514 31.9 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 982 359 36.6 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 640 275 43.0 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 376 129 34.4 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 1,855 430 23.2 

S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 470 414 88.1 

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland <1 <1 62.6 

S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub <1 <1 66.3 

N80 Agriculture 6,026 25 0.4 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,107 3 0.3 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 975 3 0.3 
SWReGAP 

138 

Area 

in NM 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 29 <1 0.1 

D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas <1 n/a 0.0 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 177 n/a 0.0 

N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 54 1 1.5 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 48 3 6.5 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 27 1 3.4 

N11 Open Water 438 36 8.3 

D02 Recently Burned 806 45 5.6 

D10 Recently Logged Areas 8 <1 2.6 
SWReGAP 

139 

Nevada

Seventy-four of the 125 land cover classes mapped within the 5-state region occur in 

Nevada. Of this total, nine cover classes are either altered and disturbed (e.g., invasive 

species, mineral extraction, or recently burned) or developed and agriculture, where the 

remainder are naturally occurring ecological systems (Appendix 5-10). Nearly 78% of the 

state is dominated by six land cover types: Inter-mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland (S054), Inter-mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S065), Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S040), Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland

(S055), Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub (S069), and Intermountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe (S071). 

Remarkably, 62 mapped cover types in Nevada are limited in their distribution with less 

than 1% cover each and form less than 8% of the total state cover. Invasive species, such 

as Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland (D09), Invasive Annual Grassland (D08), 

Invasive Perennial Grassland (D06), and Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland (D04) represent slightly more than 2% of the total land cover for Nevada. 

Collectively, developed and agricultural land cover types in Nevada represent 2,914 km2

or approximately only 1% of the areal extent of the state. 

 

A summary of the percent distribution of each land cover type by land steward for 

Nevada is provided in Appendix 5-10. As an example, the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management is responsible for 67% of the surface land management for the state of 

Nevada (Appendix 5-10). Consequently, it manages the majority of pinyon-juniper 

woodlands (~64%), basin big sagebrush and black sagebrush shrublands (76% and 78%, 

respectively) that occur throughout the state. Appendix 5-11 summarizes the percent 

distribution of each land cover type represented within the four levels of GAP 

Management Status, where it can be seen that these three land cover types fall mostly 

within Status 3 lands (75%, 78.1%, and 79.5%, respectively). 

Figure 5-5 presents an overview of the number of ecological systems by NLCD class 

with representation in Status 1 and 2 lands broken down by conservation threshold for the 

state of Nevada. Table 5-5 presents a more detailed version of this information by 

identifying the representation of individual land cover types in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Approximately 14.8% (42,218 km2

) of Nevada lands are currently managed according to 

GAP Management Status 1 or 2 criteria (Appendix 5-11); they represent 8,876 km2 Status 

1 and 33,342 km2

 Status 2 lands, respectively. The ecological systems receiving the least 

amount of protection in Nevada, i.e., where less than 10 % of their respective 

distributions occur within Status 1 or 2 lands, include the following: Great Basin Foothill 

and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S118), Inter-mountain Basins 

Active and Stabilized Dune (S012), Inter-mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

(S054), Inter-mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe (S078), Inter-mountain Basins 

Greasewood Flat (S096), Inter-mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S065), Intermountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland (S090), Inter-Mountain Basins Wash (S014), 

Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland (S024), Sierra Nevada Cliff and 
SWReGAP 

140 

Canyon (S007), Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland (S085), and 

Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow (S103). Some of these ecological 

types, however, present the most opportunity to provide conservation measures. Many of 

the rarest Status 1 and 2 ecological systems predominantly occur in Status 3 areas such as 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands where the land is under 

permanent federal control and where public laws apply to conservation management. 

Status 3 lands in Nevada represent 71.8% of the aerial extent of the state or 204,049 km2 

(Appendix 5-11). Forty-one of the 74 land cover types in Nevada have greater than 50% 

of their areal extents classified as within the GAP Management Status 3 category 

(Appendix 5-11). Among the 12 ecological systems identified with low protection (less 

than 10% aerial extent in Status 1 or 2), all but three have >50 % of their areal extent in 

Nevada in Status 3 (Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland -S118, Inter-mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland -S090, and Rocky 

Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland -S024), and thus represent the greatest 

opportunity for future protective actions. 

Lastly, under the Status 4 GAP management category there are no known public or 

private institutional mandates or legally recognized easements or deed restrictions to 

prevent conversion of natural habitat types to anthropogenic cover types, thus these are 

the least protected lands for biodiversity conservation in Nevada. Land cover types in this 

category are typically developed as high- or low-density urban or converted to agriculture 

and are held in private ownership. The total Status 4 lands in Nevada represent 13.4% of 

the areal extent of the state or 38,120 km2 (Appendix 5-11). Nevertheless, eight natural 

ecological systems are well represented within Status 4 category lands in that they 

represent 35 - 89% of the areal extent for the ecological system as it is represented in 

Nevada. They include 1 deciduous forest type, 2 grassland /herbaceous types, 3 woody 

wetland types, and 2 emergent herbaceous wetland types. Specifically they include: 

Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland (S024), Inter-mountain Basins Big 

Sagebrush Steppe (S078), Inter-mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland (S090), Great 

Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S118), North 

American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S094), 

North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (S097), North 

American Arid West Emergent Marsh (S100), and Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane 

Wet Meadow (S103). These may represent management opportunities such as 

conservation easements for future consideration. 

 
SWReGAP 

141 

0

3 1 2 3 2 1

12

3 1 3 2

9

5 4

1

7

1

4 3

25

6 6

1 2 2

17

0

10

20

30

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

<1% 1-<10% 10-<20% 20-<50% >50%

# ecological systems

Figure 5-5. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 1 

and 2 lands in the state of Nevada. 
SWReGAP 

142 

Table 5-5. Percent distribution of each land cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50% in the 

state of Nevada. 

Area 

in NV 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 1,059 72 6.8 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 79 3 4.1 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 65,988 4,165 6.3 

S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,274 37 2.9 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 10,550 1,011 9.6 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 50,604 3,090 6.1 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 3,101 195 6.3 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 18 1 3.4 

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 1 <1 1.0 

S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 123 6 4.9 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 2 <1 6.7 

S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 2 <1 2.4 

S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 36,374 6,489 17.8 

S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 31,792 3,724 11.7 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 17,813 2,344 13.2 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 5,973 1,030 17.2 

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest 

and Woodland 209 24 11.4 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 5 1 18.1 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 288 53 18.3 

S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 27 4 13.3 

S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and 

Woodland 20 4 19.5 

S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 162 57 34.8 

S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,486 642 25.8 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 1 <1 35.4 

S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland 

and Shrubland 1,924 626 32.5 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 6,082 1,475 24.3 

S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 2 1 32.7 

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 106 24 22.4 

S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 1 47.4 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 425 133 31.3 

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 10,521 4,952 47.1 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 311 72 23.2 

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized 

Dune 16 7 45.4 

S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 30 8 26.9 

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 168 62 36.9 
SWReGAP 

143 

Area 

in NV 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 526 180 34.3 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 25 9 37.6 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 10 5 47.9 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 1,289 364 28.3 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 108 39 35.8 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 175 71 40.7 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 14 6 43.3 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 3 1 30.2 

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 67 25 37.3 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 

Scrub 19,013 8,036 42.3 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,528 467 30.6 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 4 3 89.6 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 2 2 96.1 

S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 84 44 52.5 

S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 635 409 64.5 

S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 23 17 71.3 

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 78 48 62.1 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 1,842 1,233 67.0 

S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 78 52 65.9 

S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 42 25 59.0 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 148 97 65.8 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 20 14 70.1 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 196 140 71.7 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 216 127 58.8 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 190 97 51.0 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 24 14 59.2 

S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 86 85 98.8 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 7 7 96.9 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 724 <1 0.0 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 319 <1 0.0 

N80 Agriculture 2,222 33 1.5 

N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 186 13 7.0 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 210 5 2.5 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 1,131 27 2.4 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 4,610 118 2.6 
SWReGAP 

144 

Area 

in NV 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 187 3 1.5 

D02 Recently Burned 574 28 4.9 

N11 Open Water 129 24 18.7 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 126 37 29.6 

 
SWReGAP 

145 

Utah

Within the state of Utah a total of 80 land cover types are mapped, 65 of which are 

natural or semi-natural ecological systems (Appendix 5-12). The most abundant 

ecological systems mapped within the state of Utah are: Colorado Plateau PinyonJuniper Woodland (S039), Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland (S054), 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S065), Colorado Plateau Mixed 

Bedrock Canyon and Tableland (S010), Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe (S071), Inter-Mountain Basins Playa (S015), and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland (S040). Of these more abundant land cover types, each represents 5% or more 

of the state’s total area, and when combined represent nearly half (~49%) of the state’s 

area. There are nine ecological systems that represent between 1% and 5% of the state’s 

area: Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland (S052), Colorado Plateau 

Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland (S059), Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppe (S079), Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat (S096), Rocky Mountain Gambel 

Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland (S046), Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 

(S023), Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland (S055),Rocky Mountain 

Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S028), and Inter-Mountain 

Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland (S045). Collectively these ecological systems comprise 

another quarter of the state’s total area (~26%). There are forty-nine ecological systems 

that are only sparsely distributed throughout the state, each contributing proportions 

smaller than 1% to the state’s total area. Several ecological systems occur near the 

periphery of the state’s borders and are sparsely distributed within the state (e.g. SonoraMojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S070), Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 

(S128), North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque (S098), and SonoraMojave Semi-Desert Chaparral (S114)), or are naturally rare with very limited extents in 

Utah. Examples include: Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra (S081), Rocky Mountain Alpine 

Dwarf-Shrubland (S043), Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland (S036), 

Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna (S075), and Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert 

Grassland (S090). 

A summary of the percent distribution of each land cover type by land steward for Utah is 

provided in Appendix 5-12, and the percent distribution of each land cover type by GAP 

Management Status is reported in Appendix 5-13. As an example, the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management is responsible for 74% of the management of Inter-Mountain Basins 

Shale Badland (S011) (Appendix 5-12), and the majority of this land cover type falls 

within Status 3 lands (72.2%) (Appendix 5-13). 

Figure 5-6 presents an overview of the number of ecological systems by NLCD class 

with representation in Status 1 and 2 broken down by conservation threshold. Table 5-6 

presents a more detailed version of this information by identifying the representation of 

individual land cover types in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Land cover classes with <1% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Approximately 14.5% (30,874 km2

) of Utah lands are currently managed according to 

GAP Management Status 1 or 2 criteria (Table 5-6). Of those ecological systems 
SWReGAP 

146 

receiving the least amount of protection (0-<1% of distribution in Status 1 or 2) are the 

following: Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral (S053), Inter-Mountain Basins Wash

(S014), Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna (S075), North American Warm Desert 

Volcanic Rockland (S019), North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque

(S098), and Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral (S114). It should be noted however, 

that each of their distributions are also quite limited within the state of Utah. 

Land cover classes with 1%-<10% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Twenty-three ecological systems have between 1 and <10% of their distribution in Status 

1 or 2. This ranking comprises the most diverse set of ecological systems, including at 

the lower elevations a variety of desert scrub types, dunes, washes, playas, lower 

elevation riparian, and sagebrush-dominated systems. At higher elevations, pure aspen 

forests and woodlands, aspen-mixed coniferous forests, several shrubland types of the 

lower montane and foothill regions, and montane-subalpine grasslands are within this 

threshold category of biodiversity projection. 

Land cover classes with 10%-<20% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 14 ecological systems with between 10 and <20% of their distribution within 

Status 1 or 2. Of those ecological systems, many are evergreen forest or woodland types 

occurring within montane and subalpine zones (e.g. Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa 

Pine Woodland (S036), Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland (S030), Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland (S032), Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

(S034), and Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest (S031). In a slightly lower elevation 

range are the extensive Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S040), IMB Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland & Shrubland (S050), and IMB Semi-desert Grassland (S090). 

Additionally, there are three riparian types Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland (S091), Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

(S093), and North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland (S094), plus IMB Shale Badlands (S011) and one mixed desert scrub type 

Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (S060) within this ranking. 

Land cover classes with 20%-<50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Seventeen ecological systems have between 20 and <50% of their total distribution 

within Status 1 and 2 lands in Utah. This ranking includes systems that generally occur 

at higher elevations such as Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow (S102), Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow (S083), Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra (S081), Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland (S025), and Rocky 

Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland (S028). Several of 

these systems are characterized by having rugged terrain such as the cliff and canyon, 

massive bedrock types, making them less conducive for development or agricultural 

endeavors. Many of these systems also tend to occur within the southern part of the state 

where a greater proportion of the lands have a GAP Management Status of 2 due to their 

inclusion within National Parks and/or National Monuments (e.g. Colorado Plateau 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (S039), Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland (S052), 

Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland (S059), Sonora-Mojave 
SWReGAP 

147 

Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub (S069), North American Arid West Emergent 

Marsh (S100), Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland (S010)). 

Land cover classes with >50% of mapped distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 5 ecological systems with greater than 50% of their distribution in Status 1 and 

2, all of which occur at only the highest elevations within the state: Inter-Mountain 

Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland (S026), Rocky Mountain Alpine 

Fell-Field (S004), Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree (S002), Rocky Mountain 

Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland (S043), and North American Alpine Ice Field (S001). 

2 2 1 1

6 4

1 1

9

4 4

23

1

6

1 2 1 3

14

4 3

5

2 1 2

17

3 1 1

5

0

10

20

30

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

Barren

Evergreen

Deciduous

Mixed Forest

Shrub/Scrub

Grassland/HerbWoody Wetland

Herb Wetland

Total

<1% 1-<10% 10-<20% 20-<50% >50%

# ecological systems

Figure 5-6. Total number of ecological systems (Y-axis) aggregated into NLCD classes (X-axis) 

summarized by conservation thresholds (<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >50%) of Status 1 

and 2 lands in the state of Utah. 
SWReGAP 

148 

Table 5-6: Percent distribution of each Land Cover type represented within Status 1 & 2 Lands, 

summarized by conservation thresholds of 0-<1%, 1-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<50%, and >=50% in the 

state of Utah. 

Area 

in UT 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral <1 n/a 0.0 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 9 <1 0.9 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 1 n/a 0.0 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 3 <1 0.7 

S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 8 n/a 0.0 

S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 3 n/a 0.0 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 1,517 103 6.8 

S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 283 27 9.5 

S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 3,635 305 8.4 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 1,804 160 8.9 

S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 1,222 90 7.3 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 19,935 1,678 8.4 

S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 522 8 1.6 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 7,280 270 3.7 

S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 3,036 199 6.6 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 15,499 901 5.8 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 14,046 790 5.6 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 10,998 408 3.7 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 8,329 748 9.0 

S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder 

Land 316 7 2.1 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 6 <1 6.3 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 8 <1 5.9 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 10 1 8.1 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 6,334 359 5.7 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 6,596 568 8.6 

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 252 18 7.3 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 10 <1 2.7 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 855 55 6.4 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 593 42 7.1 

S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 10,986 1,449 13.2 

S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland 626 100 15.9 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 2,011 294 14.6 

S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 1,827 235 12.9 

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 826 88 10.6 

S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 20 4 19.3 

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 887 103 11.6 
SWReGAP 

149 

Area 

in UT 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 1,710 316 18.5 

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 1,815 346 19.1 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 837 125 14.9 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 1,427 272 19.1 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 1,273 216 17.0 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 298 35 11.7 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 2,019 221 10.9 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 9,021 2,042 22.6 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 14,164 5,476 38.7 

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 9,414 3,607 38.3 

S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 22,356 5,530 24.7 

S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 382 117 30.6 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 583 187 32.1 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 409 146 35.7 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 127 51 39.9 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 472 118 25.1 

S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 1,466 395 27.0 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 293 105 35.8 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 3,224 867 26.9 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 499 101 20.2 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 39 14 35.1 

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 4 1 28.6 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 

Scrub 808 222 27.4 

S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 4 1 34.0 

S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 32 21 65.4 

S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 21 20 94.2 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 813 556 68.4 

S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 88 80.3 

S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 177 120 67.8 

N80 Agriculture 9,183 42 0.5 

N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 42 <1 0.1 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,098 9 0.9 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,978 9 0.5 

D02 Recently Burned 172 <1 0.2 

D10 Recently Logged Areas 287 2 0.8 

D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 90 5 5.3 

D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 46 1 1.8 
SWReGAP 

150 

Area 

in UT 

Area 

in 

Status 

1&2 

<1 1-<10 10-

<20 

20-

<50 >50 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2

 km2 % % % % % 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 695 25 3.7 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 3,231 134 4.1 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 526 22 4.1 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 171 2 1.1 

D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 458 49 10.7 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 450 122 27.2 
SWReGAP 

151 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions - Regional Analysis 

A summary table is not provided due to the large number of species analyzed, but some 

generalizations and examples of species results by the various thresholds are provided 

below. The complete Predicted Animal Habitat Distribution Analyses Table, found in 

Appendix 5-14, provides the area in square kilometers (km2

) of the species' mapped 

habitat distribution by management status and land steward, and the percent of the 

species' habitat total distribution in each management category. For example, Gunnison 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) has 12,526.1 km2

 of predicted habitat within the 

region and 1,212.5 km2 (10%) of that area is within Status 1 and 2 lands. 

There are 25 species within the region with less than 1% of their habitat on Status 1 and 2 

lands. Of these 25 species, 1 is an amphibian, 18 are birds, 2 are mammals and 4 are 

reptiles. The amphibian, lowland burrowing treefrog (Pternohyla fodiens), did not have 

any predicted habitat on Status 1 or 2 lands. Only 2.1 km2

 of habitat was mapped and 1.8 

km2 was on status 3 lands. 

Of the 19 birds, the Neotropic cormorant (Phalacrocorax brasilianus) and lesser prairiechicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) had no mapped habitat on Status 1 lands and no 

mapped habitat for Neotropic cormorant on Status 2 lands. Only 7 km2 of habitat were 

mapped for the bronzed cowbird (Molothrus aeneus) within Status 1 and 2 lands and 49 

km2 for the inca dove (Columbina inca). Two species of mammals included the Plains 

pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius) and the swift fox (Vulpes velox). Only 55 km2 of 

habitat were identified on Status 1 lands for Plains pocket gopher. Of the 4 reptiles, 

smooth softshell turtle (Apalone mutica) and Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard (Uma 

notata) had no habitat mapped on status 1 and 2 lands. The Sand dune lizard (Sceloporus 

arenicolus) had less than 1 km2

 of habitat mapped on Status 1 and 2 lands. Only 1,104 

km2 of habitat for Plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix) was mapped on status 1 and 2 

lands. 

The majority of all taxonomic groups occur with less than 20% of the predicted habitat 

on Status 1 and 2 lands. There are 288 species with predicted habitat 1-<10% on Status 1 

and 2 lands and 385 species that have habitat between 10 and <20% on Status 1 and 2 

lands. For amphibians 33 of 37 species fall within this threshold. Of the four species that 

have 20-<50% of their habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands, three are endemics with little 

predicted habitat including the Green Frog (Rana clamitans), Mountain yellow-legged 

frog (Rana muscosa), and Relict leopard frog (Rana onca). For the fourth species, 

Sonoran green toad (Bufo retiformis), habitat is found throughout southern Arizona. For 

birds, 54 of the 433 species modeled occur with 20% or greater predicted habitat on 

Status 1 and 2 lands. These figures include habitats for the entire life history of the 

species and are not limited to breeding habitat. There are 144 bird species with predicted 

habitat 1-<10% on Status 1 and 2 lands and 219 birds species with 10-<20%. There are 

28 mammals that have 20% or greater of their predicted habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands. 

There are 78 mammal species with predicted habitat 1-<10% on Status 1 and 2 lands and 

107 mammals species with 10-<20%. For reptiles, there are 33 that have 20% or greater 
SWReGAP 

152 

of their predicted habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands. There are 52 reptile species with 

predicted habitat 1-<10% on Status 1 and 2 lands and 41 reptile species with 10-<20%. 

Table 5-7. Number of species by Gap Status thresholds for each taxa group within region/state as 

mapped by the Southwestern Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

State Taxon <1% 1-<10 % 10-<20 % 20-<50 % >50 % 

 

Region Amphibian 1 14 18 4 0 

Birds 18 144 219 47 7 

Mammals 2 78 107 26 2 

Reptiles 4 52 41 31 2 

Total 25 288 385 108 11 

Arizona Amphibian 2 5 14 6 0 

Birds 15 91 181 76 7 

Mammals 8 45 80 20 1 

Reptiles 1 31 48 23 2 

Total 26 172 323 125 10 

Colorado Amphibian 3 10 4 1 0 

Birds 27 167 127 23 3 

Mammals 3 60 45 23 2 

Reptiles 13 31 9 7 0 

Total 46 268 185 54 5 

Nevada Amphibian 0 4 4 7 2 

Birds 12 45 138 102 22 

Mammals 2 17 69 27 16 

Reptiles 0 5 15 25 12 

Total 14 71 226 161 52 

New Mexico Amphibian 1 15 6 4 0 

Birds 28 227 103 26 1 

Mammals 8 98 43 13 0 

Reptiles 6 67 13 13 2 

Total 43 407 165 56 3 

Utah Amphibian 0 1 10 5 0 

Birds 11 85 135 92 3 

Mammals 1 26 74 28 4 

Reptiles 1 4 19 29 3 

 Total 13 116 238 154 10 
SWReGAP 

153 

Analysis of relative percentage (Figure 5-7) reveals trends regarding both the status of 

species within each state and the region. This figure provides the relative percent of 

taxon by region and by state within the five threshold categories. Colorado and New 

Mexico have a higher percentage of species within the 1-<10% threshold than do 

Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Regionally <40% of species occur within Status 1 and 2 

lands. Few species in each state and the region occur with >50% of the habitat in Status 

1 and Status 2 lands. However, Nevada has a higher percentage within this category than 

the other four states. 

Cumulative numbers by taxon by state or region (Figure 5-8) provide between and within 

state comparisons. As expected, protection levels vary by state and taxon. Though New 

Mexico and Arizona have similar total species counts, more species are in Status 1 and 2 

lands in Arizona. New Mexico has more species within the thresholds of <1% and 1-

<10% than Arizona. Differences manifest themselves in the 1-<10% threshold in New 

Mexico (407 species) and the 10-<20% threshold in Arizona. A similar pattern is 

observed between Colorado and Nevada. Twice as many species are in 1-<10% 

threshold in Colorado and Nevada has more species in the 10-<20% threshold. These 

differences may be more pronounced because of the discrete thresholds used for analysis. 
SWReGAP 

154 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Region Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Utah 

>50 %

20-<50 %

10-<20 %

1-<10 %

<1%

Figure 5-7. Percentage of species by taxon (amphibian, bird, mammal, reptile) occurring on GAP 

Status 1 and 2 lands within the 5 threshold categories (<1, 1-<10, 10-<20, 20-<50, >50) for animals 

modeled within the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Amphibian

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Total

Region Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Utah 

>50 %

20-<50 %

10-<20 %

1-<10 %

<1%

Figure 5-8. Total number of species by taxon by state or region on GAP Status 1 and 2 lands for the 

5 threshold categories (<1, 1-<10, 10-<20, 20-<50, >50) for animal habitats modeled within the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 
SWReGAP 

155 

Table 5-8. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Management Status 

1 or 2 for Region as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

Taxon SWReGAP Common Name SWReGAP Scientific Name 

 

Amphibian LOWLAND BURROWING TREEFROG Pternohyla fodiens 

Bird UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda 

 CHIMNEY SWIFT Chaetura pelagica 

 INCA DOVE Columbina inca 

 BLUE JAY Cyanocitta cristata 

 GYRFALCON Falco rusticolus 

 WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana 

 RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER Melanerpes carolinus 

 RED-HEADED WOODPECKER Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

 BRONZED COWBIRD Molothrus aeneus 

 GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus crinitus 

 EASTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus asio 

 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 

 NEOTROPIC CORMORANT Phalacrocorax brasilianus 

 DICKCISSEL Spiza americana 

 BROWN THRASHER Toxostoma rufum 

 LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 

 SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER Tyrannus forficatus 

 TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora peregrina 

Mammal PLAINS POCKET GOPHER Geomys bursarius 

 SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox 

Reptile SMOOTH SOFTSHELL TURTLE Apalone mutica 

 SAND DUNE LIZARD Sceloporus arenicolus 

 PLAINS GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis radix 

 COLORADO DESERT FRINGE-TOED 

LIZARD 

Uma notata 

Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 25 species (3% of those modeled) that have less than 1% of their habitat on 

Status 1 and 2 lands (Table 5-8). There are 18 birds species (41%), 4 reptiles (3%), 2 

mammals (1%) and 1 amphibian (3%). Several of these species, such as the lesser 

prairie-chicken, are already the subject of conservation planning. 

Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 288 species (35% of modeled species) with predicted habitat of between 1 and 

less than 10% on status 1 and 2 lands within the entire region. This includes 14 

amphibian species (38%), 144 bird species (33%), 78 mammal species (35%), and 52 

reptile species (40%). 

Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

385 species (47% of modeled species) have 10-<20% of their predicted habitat on status 

1 and 2 lands within the entire region. This includes 18 amphibian species (49%), 219 

bird species (50%), 107 mammals (49%), and 41 reptiles (30%). 
SWReGAP 

156 

Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Within the SWReGAP region, there are 108 species (13 % of those modeled) with 

predicted habitat occurring on status 1 and 2 lands 20-<50% of the entire distribution of 

habitat. These 108 species include 4 amphibian species (11%), 47 bird species (11%), 26 

mammal species (12%), and 31 reptile species (24%). 

Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2: 

There are 11 species (1% of those modeled) with predicted habitat occurring on status 1 

and 2 lands greater than 50%. These species include 7 birds (2%), 2 mammals (1%), and 

2 reptiles (1%). Birds include Clapper rail, dunlin, black tern, sedge wren, tricolored 

blackbird, brown-capped rosy-finch, and Mexican chickadee. Mammals include 

Palmer’s chipmunk and mountain goat. Reptiles include Sonoran shovel-nosed snake 

and ridge-nosed rattlesnake. 

Comparison of protection by region compared to state, using threshold numbers to define 

the five representative groups, is another useful way to examine differences between 

species protection (Table 5-9). The thresholds were defined as: 

Threshold Description

1 Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2 

2 Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2 

3 Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2 

4 Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2 

5 Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2 

In many cases the majority of species are equally well protected on the state level 

compared to the regional. There are differences, however, best illustrated where there is 

a difference of 10 or more species between state and regional protection numbers. 

In Arizona, there are 4 differences (greater than 10 species) between regional protection 

and state protection. There are 53 species within Threshold 3 for Arizona, but within 

Threshold 2 for the region. There are also 52 species in Threshold 4 for Arizona, but 

within Threshold 3 for the region. These two groups have more predicted habitat by 

percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within Arizona than the region. There are two groups 

with more predicted habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within the entire region 

than in Arizona. This includes 36 species within Threshold 2 for Arizona, but within 

threshold 3 for the region. There are 14 species within Threshold 4 for the region, but 

within Threshold 3 for Arizona. 

In Colorado, there are 4 differences. There are 27 species in Threshold 4 within 

Colorado, but regionally within Threshold 3. This group has more predicted habitat by 

percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within Colorado than the region. There are 3 groups 

that have more predicted habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands in the region than 

in Colorado. There are 30 species in Threshold 1 in Colorado, but in Threshold 2 in the 

region; there are 89 species in Threshold 2 in Colorado but in Threshold 3in the region. 

There are 13 species in Threshold 3 within Colorado and in Threshold 4 in the region. 
SWReGAP 

157 

In New Mexico, five groups comprise the major differences. There are 2 groups with 

more predicted habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within the state than within 

the region. There are 17 species in Threshold 3 for the state and Threshold 2 for the 

region and 24 species in Threshold 4 for the state and Threshold 3 for the region. There 

are 3 groups with more predicted habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within the 

region than the state. These include 179 species within Threshold 3 in the region and 

within Threshold 2 in New Mexico. There are 18 species within Threshold 1 in New 

Mexico and in Threshold 2 within the region and 19 species within Threshold 3 in New 

Mexico and Threshold 4 in the region. There are an additional 17 species within 

Threshold 2 in New Mexico, but within the region they are in Threshold 4. 

In Nevada, there are 6 groups of species with a difference between the state and the 

region. Five of these groups have more predicted habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 

lands within the state then within the region. There are 104 species within Threshold 4 of 

Nevada, but in Threshold 3 for the region. There are 51 species in Threshold 3 in 

Nevada, but in Threshold 2 in the region. 25 species are in Threshold 5 within Nevada, 

but Threshold 3 within the region. There are 12 species within Threshold 4 within 

Nevada, but in Threshold 2 for the region. There are 19 species within Threshold 5 in 

Nevada and within Threshold 4 in the region. There is one group with more predicted 

habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within the region than the state. This group 

has 13 species in Threshold 2 in Nevada and Threshold 3 regionwide. 

In Utah there are five differences between the state and the region. There are three 

groups with more predicted habitat by percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within the state 

then within the region. There are 88 species within Threshold 4 in Utah, but in threshold 

3 for the region. There are 16 species in Threshold 4 and 36 species in Threshold 3, but 

are in Threshold 2 for the region. There are two groups with more predicted habitat by 

percentage on Status 1 and 2 lands within the region than the state. There are 21 species 

in Threshold 2 for the state, but in Threshold 3 for the region. There are 15 species that 

are in Threshold 3 for the state, but Threshold 4 for the region. 

Some of the identified differences within this comparison are likely due to using an 

absolute threshold value that may create more of a distinction in management than 

actually exists (for example, 9% vs. 12%). Each species should be reviewed individually 

where management decisions are to be made. Many species more protected in states than 

the region may be on the edges of the species range. This is particularly true for species 

in Nevada that are considered Sierra Nevada or California species or Great Plains species 

in Colorado or New Mexico. 
SWReGAP 

158 

Table 5-9. Number of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species by threshold category for each state by 

threshold category for the region. 

 Region 

State Threshold 

Categories 

1 2 3 4 5 Total Species 

 

AZ 1 6 9 8 2 25 

AZ 2 1 125 36 5 167 

AZ 3 53 255 14 322 

AZ 4 6 52 67 125 

AZ 5 3 1 1 5 10 

CO 1 12 30 3 1 46 

CO 2 6 164 89 3 262 

CO 3 9 162 13 184 

CO 4 5 27 20 52 

CO 5 2 3 5 

NM 1 17 18 4 2 1 42 

NM 2 4 201 179 17 401 

NM 3 17 127 19 1 164 

NM 4 1 24 31 56 

NM 5 1 2 3 

NV 1 2 9 2 13 

NV 2 1 53 13 3 70 

NV 3 51 164 8 223 

NV 4 12 104 44 2 162 

NV 5 5 25 19 3 52 

UT 1 2 5 5 1 13 

UT 2 2 89 21 1 113 

UT 3 36 186 15 237 

UT 4 2 16 88 47 153 

UT 5 1 2 4 3 10 

Analysis of State Endemics 

Only two endemic species were modeled for New Mexico (Jemez Mountain Salamander 

and Sacramento Mountain Salamander) and one endemic species was modeled in Utah 

(Utah Prairie dog). 
SWReGAP 

159 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions – State-based Analyses 

Arizona

We mapped 649 species within Arizona. This includes 27 amphibians (73% of 

amphibians modeled for region), 368 birds (84% of birds modeled for region), 151 

mammals (70% of mammals modeled for region), and 103 reptiles (79% of reptiles 

modeled for region). 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) identified species of conservation 

priority in the Arizona Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (AGFD 

2005a). Four categories defined in Companion Document B (AGFD 2005b) were used to 

evaluate a species’ status: Vulnerable Species, Responsibility Species, Focal Species 

and/or Economic Species. Five hundred sixty nine vertebrate species are considered to 

be “priority,” that is, classified by one or more of the four evaluation categories under the 

AGFD CWCS evaluation. Of these, 113 species (19.9%) have less than 10% habitat in 

Status 1 and 2 lands. Two hundred eighty four vertebrate species are identified as 

vulnerable and 62 species (21.8%) have less than 10% habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Twenty-six species (4% of all mapped species) have less than 1% of their habitat on 

Status 1 and 2 lands within the state of Arizona (Table 5-10). This includes 2 amphibians, 

15 birds, 8 mammals, and 1 reptile. Fifteen species have less than 100 km2

 of habitat 

mapped within Arizona and 4 other species have less than 1000 km2 within the state. 

Seven of these species were considered conservation priorities by the ADGF. Red-Eyed 

Vireo, American Pipit, and Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel were identified as Vulnerable 

and Focal. The Pine Grosbeak was identified as Vulnerable and Economic. Calliope 

Hummingbird and Bronzed Cowbird were identified as Focal and Economic. The Eastern 

Phoebe was identified as Focal. The Bronzed Cowbird is a brood parasite and is 

expanding its range; this species provides an example where low representation on Status 

1 and 2 lands is not necessarily a problem. 

Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 172 species with 1-<10% predicted habitat within status 1 and 2 lands within 

the state of Arizona (Appendix 5-15). These species include 5 amphibians, 91 birds, 45 

mammals, and 31 reptiles. Eight species have less than 100 km2

 of habitat within the state 

and 14 with between 100 to 1000 km2

 of habitat. Sixty (35%) of these species are 

identified as vulnerable in the Arizona CWCS. 

Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 323 species with 10-<20% of their predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands 

within Arizona (Appendix 5-15). This includes 14 amphibians, 181 birds, 80 mammals, 

and 48 reptiles. Seven species have less than 100 km2

 of habitat within the state and 16 

have between 100 and 1000 km2

 of habitat. 
SWReGAP 

160 

Table 5-10. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Management Status 

1 or 2 for Arizona as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

Taxon SWReGAP Common Name SWReGAP Scientific Name 

 

Amphibian BOREAL CHORUS FROG Pseudacris maculata 

 LOWLAND BURROWING TREEFROG Pternohyla fodiens 

Birds AMERICAN PIPIT Anthus rubescens 

 BOHEMIAN WAXWING Bombycilla garrulus 

 CALIFORNIA QUAIL Callipepla californica 

 GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH Catharus minimus 

 INCA DOVE Columbina inca 

 PALM WARBLER Dendroica palmarum 

 BRONZED COWBIRD Molothrus aeneus 

 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 

 RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus 

 PINE GROSBEAK Pinicola enucleator 

 BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE Poecile atricapilla 

 EASTERN PHOEBE Sayornis phoebe 

 DICKCISSEL Spiza americana 

 CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD Stellula calliope 

 RED-EYED VIREO Vireo olivaceus 

Mammals BARBARY SHEEP Ammotragus lervia 

NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL Glaucomys sabrinus 

 MEADOW VOLE Microtus pennsylvanicus 

 MINK Mustela vison 

 AMERICAN PIKA Ochotona princeps 

 HEATHER VOLE Phenacomys intermedius 

 THIRTEEN-LINED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

 WESTERN JUMPING MOUSE Zapus princeps 

Reptiles COLORADO DESERT FRINGE-TOED LIZARD Uma notata 

Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Within Arizona, there are 125 species with 20-<50% of their predicted habitat occurring 

within Status 1 and 2 lands (Appendix 5-15). This includes 6 amphibians, 76 birds, 20 

mammals, and 23 reptiles. Twenty-one species have less than 100 km2 of habitat within 

the state and 42 between 100 and 1000 km2 of habitat. 

Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2: 

There are 10 species with predicted habitat occurring within Status 1 and 2 lands greater 

than 50% (Appendix 5-15). These species include 7 birds, 1 mammal, and 2 reptiles. 

Eight species have less than 100 km2 of habitat within the state and one has between 100 

and 1000 km2

 of habitat. Only the Sonoran Shovel-nosed Snake is mapped with greater 

than 1000 km2

 of habitat in Arizona. 
SWReGAP 

161 

Colorado

We mapped 549 species within Colorado. This includes 18 amphibians (49% of 

amphibians modeled for region), 343 birds (78% of birds modeled for region), 130 

mammals (60% of mammals modeled for region), and 58 reptiles (45% of reptiles 

modeled for region). 

Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 46 species that have less than 1% of their habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands within 

the state of Colorado (Table 5-11). This includes 2 amphibians, 27 birds, 3 mammals, and 

13 reptiles. Of the 46, 9 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 

Colorado (CDOW 2005). 

Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 268 species with 1-<10% predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands within 

the state of Colorado. This includes 10 amphibians, 167 birds, 60 mammals, and 31 

reptiles. Of the 268, 63 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 

Colorado (CDOW 2005). Representative species include northern cricket frog, plains 

leopard frog, sandhill crane, scaled quail, greater sage-grouse, northern bobwhite, greater 

prairie-chicken, lesser prairie-chicken, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Plains sharptailed grouse, sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, bald 

eagle, snowy plover, mountain plover, least tern, Forster's tern, northern pintail, redheaded woodpecker, Lewis's woodpecker, fringed Myotis, black-footed ferret, whitetailed prairie dog, black-tailed prairie dog, Botta's pocket gopher, northern pocket gopher, 

triploid checkered whiptail, and Texas horned lizard 

Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 185 species with 10-<20% of their predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands 

in Colorado. This includes 4 amphibians, 127 birds, 45 mammals, and 9 reptiles. Of the 

183, 49 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Colorado 

(CDOW 2005). Representative species include northern leopard frog, wood frog, 

northern goshawk, western grebe, black-chinned hummingbird, Gunnison sage-grouse, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, band-tailed pigeon, olive-sided flycatcher, black swift, Grace's 

warbler, willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon, black rosy-finch, flammulated owl, osprey, 

purple martin, broad-tailed hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, pygmy nuthatch, rednaped sapsucker, spotted owl, Townsend's big-eared bat, Gunnison's prairie dog, spotted 

bat, Arizona Myotis, olive-backed pocket mouse, and dwarf shrew. 
SWReGAP 

162 

Table 5-11. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

Colorado as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

Taxon SWReGAP Common Name SWReGAP Scientific Name 

 

Amphibian GREEN TOAD Bufo debilis 

 COUCH'S SPADEFOOT Scaphiopus couchii 

 PLAINS SPADEFOOT Spea bombifrons 

Bird WOOD DUCK Aix sponsa 

 SPRAGUE'S PIPIT Anthus spragueii 

 UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda 

 CHIMNEY SWIFT Chaetura pelagica 

 ROSS'S GOOSE Chen rossii 

 SEDGE WREN Cistothorus platensis 

 BLUE JAY Cyanocitta cristata 

 GYRFALCON Falco rusticolus 

 WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana 

 BLUE GROSBEAK Guiraca caerulea 

 FRANKLIN'S GULL Larus pipixcan 

 THAYER'S GULL Larus thayeri 

 RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER Melanerpes carolinus 

 GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus crinitus 

 WHIMBREL Numenius phaeopus 

 EASTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus asio 

 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 

 RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus 

 GREAT-TAILED GRACKLE Quiscalus mexicanus 

 COMMON GRACKLE Quiscalus quiscula 

 EASTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia sialis 

 FIELD SPARROW Spizella pusilla 

 EASTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella magna 

 CURVE-BILLED THRASHER Toxostoma curvirostre 

 BROWN THRASHER Toxostoma rufum 

 SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER Tyrannus forficatus 

 TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora peregrina 

Mammal SOUTHERN PLAINS WOODRAT Neotoma micropus 

HISPID COTTON RAT Sigmodon hispidus 

 PREBLE'S SHREW Sorex preblei 

Reptile CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tesselatus 

 WESTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKE Crotalus atrox 

 RING-NECKED SNAKE Diadophis punctatus 

 GREAT PLAINS SKINK Eumeces obsoletus 

WESTERN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE Gyalopion canum 

YELLOW MUD TURTLE Kinosternon flavescens 

TEXAS BLIND SNAKE Leptotyphlops dulcis 

 PLAIN-BELLIED WATER SNAKE Nerodia erythrogaster 

 MASSASAUGA Sistrurus catenatus 

 GROUND SNAKE Sonora semiannulata 

CHECKERED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis marcianus 

 COMMON SLIDER Trachemys scripta 

 LINED SNAKE Tropidoclonion lineatum 
SWReGAP 

163 

Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Within Colorado, there are 52 species with 20-<50% of their predicted habitat occurring 

within Status 1 and 2 lands. This includes 1 amphibian, 21 birds, 23 mammals, and 7 

reptiles. Of the 52, 12 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 

Colorado (CDOW 2005). These include: western toad, boreal owl, white-throated swift, 

evening grosbeak, white-tailed ptarmigan, red crossbill, wolverine, river otter, lynx, kit 

fox, long-nosed leopard lizard, and Southwestern black-headed snake. 

Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2: 

There are 5 species with predicted habitat occurring within Status 1 and 2 lands greater 

than 50%. These species include 3 birds and 2 mammals. Of the 5, 2 have been 

identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Colorado (CDOW 2005). These 

are black tern and brown-capped rosy-finch. 

New Mexico

We mapped 667 species within New Mexico. We mapped 26 species of amphibians (70% 

of amphibians modeled for region), 383 birds species (88% of birds modeled for region), 

159 mammal species (74% of mammals modeled for region), and 98 species of reptiles 

(75% of reptiles modeled for region).

Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 43 species (6%) that have less than 1% of their habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands 

within the state of New Mexico (Table 5-12). Of the 43, 6 have been identified as Species 

of Greatest Conservation Need in New Mexico (NMDGF 2005). This includes 1 

amphibian (4% of mapped amphibians within the state), 28 birds (7% of mapped birds 

within the state), 8 mammals (5% of mapped mammals within the state), and 6 reptiles 

(5% of mapped reptiles within the state). Three of these species (bison, California condor, 

and whooping crane) are considered either extirpated or accidental within the state. 

Twelve of these species have a total amount of habitat mapped within the state of <100 

km2

 and an additional 10 of these species have <1000 km2 of mapped habitat within the 

state. A list of animal species whose predicted habitat distributions are <1% within Status 

1 and 2 lands in the state of New Mexico is provided below in Table 5-12. 

Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 407 species with predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands within New 

Mexico. Of the 407, 64 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 

New Mexico (NMDGF 2005). This includes 15 amphibians (58%), 227 birds (59%), 98 

mammals (60%), and 67 reptiles (66%). There was 1 species that had little habitat 

mapped within the state (<100 km2

) and 9 species with between 100-1000 km2 of 

mapped habitat. Species include barking frog, Gila monster, Preble’s shrew, ferruginous 

hawk, Gunnison’s prairie dog, and sage thrasher. 
SWReGAP 

164 

Table 5-12. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

New Mexico as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

Taxon SWReGAP Common Name SWReGAP Scientific Name 

 

Amphibian BOREAL CHORUS FROG Pseudacris maculata 

Bird CHUKAR Alectoris chukar 

 AMERICAN PIPIT Anthus rubescens 

 GREATER SCAUP Aythya marila 

 UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda 

 WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER Calidris fuscicollis 

 CALIFORNIA QUAIL Callipepla californica 

 COMMON REDPOLL Carduelis flammea 

 CHIMNEY SWIFT Chaetura pelagica 

 SEMIPALMATED PLOVER Charadrius semipalmatus 

 NORTHERN BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus 

 INCA DOVE Columbina inca 

 BOBOLINK Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

 WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana 

 CALIFORNIA CONDOR Gymnogyps californianus 

 ORCHARD ORIOLE Icterus spurious 

 BLACK RAIL Laterallus jamaicensis 

 BROWN-CAPPED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte australis 

 RED-HEADED WOODPECKER Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

 BRONZED COWBIRD Molothrus aeneus 

 GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus crinitus 

 SNOWY OWL Nyctea scandiaca 

 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 

 NEOTROPIC CORMORANT Phalacrocorax brasilianus 

 RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus 

 EASTERN PHOEBE Sayornis phoebe 

 DICKCISSEL Spiza americana 

 LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 

 SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER Tyrannus forficatus 

Mammal BISON Bos bison 

 LEAST SHREW Cryptotis parva 

 NINE-BANDED ARMADILLO Dasypus novemcinctus 

 PLAINS POCKET GOPHER Geomys bursarius 

 WYOMING GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus elegans 

 ROUND-TAILED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tereticaudus 

 COLORADO CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrivittatus 

 SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox 

Reptile SMOOTH SOFTSHELL TURTLE Apalone mutica 

 TRIPLOID CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neotesselatus 

 SIX-LINED RACERUNNER Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

 SAND DUNE LIZARD Sceloporus arenicolus 

 PLAINS GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis radix 
SWReGAP 

165 

Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 165 species (24%) with 10-<20% of their predicted habitat within Status 1 and 

2 lands within New Mexico. Of these 165, 43 have been identified as Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need in New Mexico (NMDGF 2005). This includes 6 amphibians (23%), 

103 birds (26%), 43 mammals (27%), and 13 reptiles (13%). There are 12 species that 

have little habitat mapped within the state (<100 km2

) and 24 species with between 100-

1000 km2

 of mapped habitat. Included among the species that fall within this gap status 

list are the Jemez Mountains Salamander, Sacramento Mountain salamander, elf owl, 

Baird’s sparrow, and white-nosed coati. 

Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Within New Mexico, there are 56 species (8%) with 20-<50% of their predicted habitat 

occurring within Status 1 and 2 lands. Of the 56, 26 have been identified as Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need in New Mexico (NMDGF 2005). This includes 4 

amphibians (15%), 26 birds (7%), 13 mammals (8%), and 13 reptiles (13%). There were 

4 species that had little habitat mapped within the state (<100 km2) and 8 species with 

between 100-1000 km2 of mapped habitat. Species include Chiricahua leopard frog, 

Madrean alligator lizard, marten, blue grouse, and northern goshawk. 

Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2: 

There are 3 species (<1%) with predicted habitat occurring within Status 1 and 2 lands 

greater than 50%. Of the 3, 2 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need in New Mexico (NMDGF 2005). These species include sedge wren, and 2 reptiles 

(canyon spotted whiptail, and ridge-nosed rattlesnake). All three species have little 

habitat mapped within the state (<30 km2). 

Nevada

We mapped 520 species within Nevada including 17 amphibians (46% of amphibians 

modeled for region), 317 birds (73% of birds modeled for region), 129 mammals (60% of 

mammals modeled for region), and 57 reptiles (44% of reptiles modeled for region). 

Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 14 species that have less than 1% of their habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands within 

the state of Nevada (Table 5-13). These include 12 birds and 2 mammals. Many of these 

species are on the periphery of their range in Nevada. 

Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 71 species with 1-<10% predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands within the 

state of Nevada. These include 4 amphibians, 45 birds, 17 mammals, and 5 reptiles. 

There are 20 species identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) 

including sage sparrow, ferruginous hawk, greater sage-grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed 

grouse, mountain beaver, pygmy rabbit, river otter, dark kangaroo mouse, pale kangaroo 

mouse, pygmy short-horned lizard, and greater short-horned lizard (NDOW 2005). 
SWReGAP 

166 

Table 5-13. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

Nevada as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

Taxon SWReGAP Common Name SWReGAP Scientific Name 

 

Bird BOHEMIAN WAXWING Bombycilla garrulus 

 BROAD-WINGED HAWK Buteo platypterus 

 COMMON REDPOLL Carduelis flammea 

 LAWRENCE'S GOLDFINCH Carduelis lawrencei 

 VEERY Catharus fuscescens 

 INCA DOVE Columbina inca 

 PALM WARBLER Dendroica palmarum 

 BRONZED COWBIRD Molothrus aeneus 

 BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER Pluvialis squatarola 

 EASTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus tyrannus 

 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW Zonotrichia albicollis 

 HARRIS'S SPARROW Zonotrichia querula 

Mammal UTAH PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys parvidens 

UINTA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus armatus 

Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 226 species with 10-<20% of their predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands 

within Nevada. These include 4 amphibians, 138 birds, 69 mammals, and 15 reptiles. 

There are 42 species that are identified as SGCNs including: desert horned lizard, 

American white pelican, white-faced ibis, canvasback, northern goshawk, snowy plover, 

rufous hummingbird, willow flycatcher, Virginia's warbler, Merriam's shrew, Inyo shrew, 

spotted bat, Allen's chipmunk, western jumping mouse, kit fox, Townsend's big-eared 

bat, and Columbia spotted frog (NDOW 2005).

Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Within Nevada, there are 161 species with 20-<50% of their predicted habitat occurring 

within Status 1 and 2 lands. These include 7 amphibians, 102 birds, 27 mammals, and 25 

reptiles. Of these 159, 54 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

in Nevada (NDOW 2005). These include southwestern toad, desert tortoise, desert night 

lizard, Gila monster, common loon, eared grebe, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, black tern, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, Costa's hummingbird, white-headed woodpecker, black phoebe, 

Bendire's thrasher, grace's warbler, bell's vireo, montane shrew, hoary bat, California 

leaf-nosed bat, northern flying squirrel, pocket gopher, and Mojave black-collared lizard 

(NDOW 2005).

Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2: 

There are 52 species with predicted habitat occurring within Status 1 and 2 lands greater 

than 50%. These species include 2 amphibians, 22 birds, 16 mammals, and 12 reptiles. 

Of these 52, 14 have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Nevada 

(NDOW 2005). These include: relict leopard frog, western banded gecko, western lyre 

snake, least bittern, spotted owl, tricolored blackbird, gray-crowned rosy-finch, cave 
SWReGAP 

167 

Myotis, big free-tailed bat, American pika, Palmer's chipmunk, marten, desert pocket 

mouse, and common chuckwalla (NDOW 2005).

Utah

We mapped 526 species within Utah including 16 amphibians (43% of amphibians 

modeled for region), 324 birds (74% of birds modeled for region), 130 mammals (60% of 

mammals modeled for region), and 56 reptiles (43% of reptiles modeled for region). 

Species with <1% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 13 species that have less than 1% of their habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands within 

the state of Utah (Table 5-14). These species include 11 birds (3% of the birds mapped 

within the state), 1 mammal (<1% of the mammals mapped within the state), and 1 reptile 

(2% of the reptiles mapped within the state). Of the total habitat mapped within Utah, 

seven of these species have <100 km2. Two of the species have between 100-1000 km2

of habitat mapped within the state. A list of animal species whose predicted habitat 

distributions are <1% within Status 1 and 2 lands in the state of Utah is provided below in 

Table 5-14. 

Table 5-14. Animal species with 0-<1% of predicted habitat distribution in GAP Status 1 or 2 for 

Utah as mapped by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. 

Taxon SWReGAP Common Name SWReGAP Scientific Name 

 

Bird RUDDY TURNSTONE Arenaria interpres 

 CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR Calcarius ornatus 

 LONG-TAILED DUCK Clangula hyemalis 

 PALM WARBLER Dendroica palmarum 

 WOOD THRUSH Hylocichla mustelina 

 ACORN WOODPECKER Melanerpes formicivorus 

 WHITE-WINGED SCOTER Melanitta fusca 

 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 

 RED-NECKED GREBE Podiceps grisegena 

 LEAST TERN Sterna antillarum 

 TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora peregrina 

Mammal BELDING'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beldingi 

Reptile PYGMY SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma douglasii 

Species with 1-<10% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 116 species with 1-<10% predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands within 

the state of Utah These include 1 amphibian (6% of those mapped in UT), 85 birds 

(26% of those mapped in UT), 26 mammals (19% of those mapped in UT), and 4 reptiles 

(7% of those mapped in UT). Of their total mapped distributions within Utah, three of 

these species have <100 km2. Twelve of the species have between 100-1000 km2 of 

habitat mapped within the state. 
SWReGAP 

168 

Twenty-five of these species are recognized as being Species of Greatest Conservation 

Need within the state of Utah (UDWR 2005). Included among the species within this 

GAP status threshold are the bobolink, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Gunnison sagegrouse, greater sage-grouse, relict leopard frog, olive-backed pocket mouse, pygmy 

rabbit, Utah prairie dog, white-tailed prairie dog, and the smooth green snake. 

Species with l0-<20% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

There are 238 species with 10-<20% of their predicted habitat within Status 1 and 2 lands 

within Utah. These include 10 amphibians (63% of those mapped in UT), 135 birds 

(42% of those mapped in UT), 74 mammals (56% of those mapped in UT), and 19 

reptiles (34% of those mapped in UT). Of their total mapped distributions within Utah, 

eight of these species have <100 km2

. Sixteen of the species have between 100-1000 km2 

of habitat mapped within the state. 

Fifty-five of these species are recognized as being species of greatest conservation need 

within the state of Utah (UDWR 2005). Included among the species within this GAP 

status threshold are bighorn sheep, lynx, kit fox, spotted bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

silver-haired bat, river otter, sage sparrow, willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

northern goshawk, burrowing owl, desert tortoise, northern leopard frog, and western 

toad, 

Species with 20 -<50% of predicted distribution in Status 1 or 2: 

Within Utah, there are 154 species with 20-<50% of their predicted habitat occurring 

within Status 1 and 2 lands. These include 5 amphibians (31% of those mapped in UT), 

92 birds (28% of those mapped in UT), 28 mammals (21% of those mapped in UT), and 

29 reptiles (52% of those mapped in UT). Of their total mapped distributions within 

Utah, six of these species have <100 km2. Thirty-one of the species have between 100-

1000 km2

 of habitat mapped within the state. 

Forty-one of these species are recognized as being species of greatest conservation need 

within the state of Utah (UDWR 2005). Included among the species within this GAP 

status threshold are the black-throated gray warbler, California condor, gray vireo, 

spotted owl, plateau striped whiptail, big free-tailed bat, desert shrew and silky pocket 

mouse. 

Species with at least 50% representation in GAP Status 1 and 2: 

There are 10 species with predicted habitat occurring within Status 1 and 2 lands greater 

than 50%. These species include 3 birds (<1% of those mapped in UT), 4 mammals (3% 

of those mapped in UT), and 3 reptiles (5% of those mapped in UT). Of their total 

mapped distributions within Utah, one of these species has <100 km2

. Six of the species 

have between 100-1000 km2 of habitat mapped within the state. 

Four of these species are recognized as being species of greatest conservation need within 

the state of Utah (UDWR 2005). Included among the species within this GAP status 

threshold are the Mogollon vole, Stephen’s woodrat, desert night lizard and long-tailed 

brush lizard. 
SWReGAP 

169 

DISCUSSION 

Limitations and Discussion 

When applying the results of our analyses, it is critical that the following limitations are 

considered: 1) the limitations described for each of the component parts (land cover 

mapping, animal habitat mapping, stewardship mapping) of the gap analysis, 2) the 

spatial and thematic map accuracy of each component, and 3) the suitability of the results 

for the intended application (see Appropriate and Inappropriate Use of these data in 

Chapter 7). 

Assessing the conservation status of natural land cover is limited by certain confounding 

factors. One challenge is to produce a land cover map that is ecologically and spatially 

accurate while adequately representing the habitat requirements for terrestrial animal 

species. Previous GAP efforts have found the accuracy of the mapped distributions of 

natural land cover to be substantially lower and more variable than that of predicted 

animal habitat distributions. Mapping at the ecological systems level provided an 

appropriate scale for a project of this size, which by reducing the variability in the land 

cover units, improved the accuracy of the land cover map and the delineation of wildlife 

habitat. An important assumption behind any aggregation of biotic units (e.g. above 

species) is that the aggregated unit serves as a surrogate for species or lower levels of 

biotic organization, which may under-represent actual conservation needs (Pressey and 

Logan 1995). Another challenge is that we cannot distinguish the degree of natural 

condition or value of the mapped units due to management manipulation, exotic invasion, 

or spatial configuration. 

In addition to the general limitations of accuracy given a project of this scale, there are 

several considerations that must be acknowledged in regard to the land cover data set in 

particular. For example, the encroachment of invasive plants such as cheatgrass or 

tamarisk was not captured in the land cover data set, unless it occurred as a dominant 

presence, in relatively homogenous, well established sites. “Disturbed” land cover types 

represent what was present at the time of image acquisition and ground reconnaissance. 

Several of these cover types incorporate to some degree human management of the 

vegetation. However, recently burned areas, for instance, may not be represented in the 

land cover map if the fire took place since the time the imagery was acquired land cover 

types with restricted, highly specialized niches were either under the minimum map unit 

for mappability (1 acre) or had low numbers of training sites, and were not mapped. 

Ultimately, thematic mapping involves placing a continuum of land cover into discrete

land cover classes. Distinctions between certain land cover types such as grassland, 

shrub-steppe, and shrubland, tend to be gradual and can be difficult to detect. Therefore, 

some land cover types are more similar than others. For more information on land cover 

map validation and fuzzy accuracy assessment of individual land cover types, see 

Chapter 2. 
SWReGAP 

170 

With regard to the relative distribution of land cover types in Status 1 and 2 lands, we 

found that ecological systems that occur at higher elevations such as in the alpine and 

sub-alpine zones, are typically afforded greater levels of protection. This is not 

unexpected as much of the region’s federally protected lands are at higher elevations. On 

the other hand, ecological systems occurring at lower elevations such as the valley 

bottoms and footslopes, tend to have less protection. These lower slopes and valleys tend 

to be more accessible, and are often considered “managed” landscapes, supporting 

multiple human uses. 

Similar to limitations provided for land cover there are limitations to the species habitat 

analysis. There are no established area criteria for adequate representation for each 

species. This is particularly true for conservation efforts on species because of life 

history differences. Even within genera, there can be a wide variance of needed habitat 

for species survival. We focused our attention within this chapter on species and GAP 

Management status analysis, but stewardship data are available for further analyses 

(Appendix 5-14). We also focused on total habitat for the species and not on seasonal 

aspects of species ecology (e.g. breeding), which is also available (Appendix 5-15). As 

mentioned in Chapter 3, all habitat modeled within this project does not constitute 

occupied habitat as factors such as fragmentation, condition, and microhabitat factors 

play a significant role in species occurrence. 

Representation between states and within the region varied by species. Some differences 

may be the result of species on the periphery of their range. It is important to consider 

that some species with little identified habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands may have their 

biological needs met in existing Status 3 and 4 lands. Additionally, Status 3 and 4 lands 

may provide better habitat because of microhabitat or other non-modelable reasons. 

We compared our analysis to the recent Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(CWCS) effort by each state. We found both similarity and dissimilarity between GAP 

and each state’s CWCS. Species not identified by CWCS but that are identified as a “gap 

species” should minimally be reviewed by natural resource agencies. Species like 

bronzed cowbird should be excluded from conservation efforts but other, previously 

unidentified species may warrant review and possible inclusion into Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need. Providing this information to resource agencies engaged in 

conservation planning is one objective of GAP. 

The analysis supports the need for regional projects such as SWReGAP. Species and 

land cover can be state protected (Status 1 and 2 lands >10%) and regionally unprotected 

(Status 1 and 2 lands <10%). The converse is also true. For both land cover types and 

animal-habitat conservation, the entirety of the range needs to be addressed. Regional 

efforts also allow ecoregion analyses to be completed. A separate gap analysis was 

recently completed for the Colorado Plateau ecoregion. A series of reports including 

analyses of land stewardship, land cover, and predicted animal habitat distributions are to 

be published in the upcoming Colorado Plateau III book. 

 
SWReGAP 

171 

Finally, as we stated in the introduction to this chapter, it is unrealistic to identify a 

standard measure constituting “adequate representation” of land cover or species 

distribution for biodiversity conservation. What gap analysis provides is a quantitative 

and systematic approach to assessing representation within a geographic framework. 

This framework provides data that can be used to focus attention on biota of concern 

within specific geographic regions. Determining which biota is of concern ultimately 

must be carried out by individual practitioners, agencies, and organizations with concerns 

about biodiversity in the region. The results in this chapter and the data provided by the 

SWReGAP project offer a starting point for further analysis, summary, and biological 

assessment. 

Cactus Wren (Camphlorhynchus brunneicapillus)

Photographer: John J. Mosesso, NBII Digital Image Library 
SWReGAP 

172 

CHAPTER 6 

 

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT 

IMPLICATIONS 

Lisa Langs Stoner, Kenneth G. Boykin, John Lowry, Andrea Ernst, David Bradford, 

William Kepner, Julie Prior-Magee, Keith Schulz, Don Schrupp, and Kathryn Thomas.

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 

Recommended Citation: 

Langs Stoner, L., K. G. Boykin, J. Lowry, A. Ernst, D. Bradford, W.G. Kepner, J. Prior-Magee, K. Schulz, 

D. Schrupp, K.A. Thomas. 2007. Conclusions and management implications. Chapter 6 in J.S. 

Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding author: K.G. Boykin is to be contacted at kboykin@nmsu.edu, Tel. 575-646-6303 
SWReGAP 

173 

INTRODUCTION 

The Southwest is home to a diverse assemblage of plant and animal species largely, due 

to the complex topography, geology, soils, and climate patterns that occur throughout the 

region. The unique combination of environmental factors and natural disturbance 

processes inherent to the Southwest make this area one of the most biologically rich 

regions in the U.S. (Morin 1995, Flather et al. 1997, Flather 1998, Bender et al. 2005). 

Fifteen distinct ecoregions are represented within the SWReGAP area, as defined by The 

Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) Terrestrial Global Assessment Units, Ecoregions and Major 

Habitat Types (TNC 2005) which include modifications to original work done by Bailey 

(1995). These ecologically derived landscape units are: Columbia Plateau (southern 

edge), Sierra Nevada (eastern edge), Great Basin, Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert, UtahWyoming Rocky Mountains, Wyoming Basins (southern edge), Utah High Plateau, 

Colorado Plateau, Southern Rocky Mountains, Apache Highlands, Arizona-New Mexico 

Mountains, Chihuahuan Desert, Central Shortgrass Prairie, and Southern Shortgrass 

Prairie. The natural land cover of the region is largely dominated by shrub/scrub 

ecological systems (37% of the region), followed by grassland/herbaceous systems 

(23%), evergreen forests (22%), barren lands (5%), woody wetlands (3%), deciduous 

forest (2%), mixed forest (<1%) and emergent herbaceous wetlands (<1%). Agricultural 

areas compose 5.6% of the region, altered or disturbed areas (1.5%), developed areas 

(1.1%), and open water (0.8%). 

These natural systems, however, face many threats that affect not only the biological 

resources within them, but the human populations that may directly or indirectly depend 

on their sustainability. Adverse factors include prolonged drought, invasive plant and 

animal species (e.g., cheatgrass, Russian thistle, tamarisk, European starling), overutilization by livestock, altered fire regimes, increased land development and recreational 

demands, soil erosion, stream channelization, consumptive water use, oil and gas 

exploration, habitat fragmentation and conversion, over-harvesting of certain plants and 

animals, population isolation, and disease (e.g., bark beetles, Chronic Wasting Disease, 

West Nile Virus), all of which present significant management and ecological challenges 

encompassing range-wide to local scales. Not all of the stressors necessarily occur rangewide, and some may only affect local areas or have impacts within a specific state. 

Additionally, certain ecological systems and wildlife species may be more vulnerable to 

environmental disturbances than others. The seamless 5-state data sets created by 

SWReGAP provide a unique combination of information and a framework that can be 

used to identify some of these issues and assist with the implementation of conservation 

efforts at multiple scales. 
SWReGAP 

174 

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF 

SWREGAP ANALYSIS 

The goal of GAP is to identify two elements of biodiversity - land cover types and 

terrestrial vertebrate species - that are in need of conservation, allowing for the 

appropriate conservation action to take place before they become the focus of regulatory 

authority. The analysis is a coarse filter approach that provides a tool and framework that 

may identify the need for finer scale studies. Using quantitative geographic criteria, this 

coarse filter approach provides for the delineation of species’ habitat and ecological 

systems for use in conservation planning. A primary assumption with gap analysis is that 

Status 1 and 2 lands are preferred because of the level of protection afforded these areas. 

However, the ecological condition of these protected areas may be such that the full 

range of the region’s biodiversity is not fully protected. Status 3 and 4 lands may provide 

the conditions necessary for certain species and may provide better habitat than that 

which occurs on Status 1 and 2 lands. Furthermore, individual species respond 

differently to management practices. We recognize that protection does not always 

equate to conservation success; for example recent global amphibian declines have 

occurred both within and outside protected areas (Green 2005). Gap analysis provides a 

preliminary indication of the long-term maintenance of these elements of biological 

diversity. Further analyses of area requirements, isolation, or disturbance regimes 

necessary for maintaining populations, can be used to supplement the results of gap 

analysis. 

A criticism of past gap analyses has been the lack of regional data sets and the problem of 

edge-matching existing GAP data sets. SWReGAP provides the first formal effort to 

address these concerns through a regional gap analysis. We encourage each state to 

consider not only the conservation status of ecological systems and species within their 

respective states, but also from a regional context. Likewise, it is important to consider 

what this 5-state region contributes to an ecological system’s or terrestrial vertebrate 

species’ management and conservation status relative to other neighboring states and 

Mexico, as many of the species’ ranges extend beyond the SWReGAP project area. 

Threshold values for conservation protection were used to identify ecological systems 

and animal habitat distributions with low representation in Status 1 and 2 lands. Low 

representation in conservation lands, however, includes some elements that are restricted 

to and are relatively rare within the 5-state region (or state), as well as those that are 

peripheral to the region (or state). Conservationists and managers are encouraged to 

consider both, because in some cases, the protection of elements at the edge of their range 

may capture important components of biodiversity (Channell and Lomolino 2000, Holt 

and Keitt 2005, Jaeger et al. 2005). 

Throughout the 5-state region, 11.5% of the total land base has been identified as 

providing protection for biodiversity in Status 1 and 2 lands. The majority of this (46%) 

is managed by BLM (largely associated with National Monuments), followed by U.S. 

Forest Service (25%), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (11%), and National Park Service 
SWReGAP 

175 

(11%). Forty ecological systems and 309 terrestrial vertebrate species have less than 

10% of their regional distribution within Status 1 and 2 lands (See Tables 6-1 and 6-2). 

See Chapter 5, Table 5-1 for the list of ecological systems and Appendix 5-15 for the list 

of terrestrial vertebrate species. An additional 36 ecological systems and 107 terrestrial 

vertebrate species have greater than 10% of their distribution, but less than 500 km2 total 

area within Status 1 and 2 lands (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). See Table 5-1 and Appendix 5-15 

in Chapter 5 for ecological system and terrestrial vertebrate species lists. Ecological 

systems and terrestrial vertebrate species that have less than 10% of their distribution or 

less than 500 km2

 absolute areal coverage in Status 1 and 2 lands may be underrepresented and point to “gaps” in their conservation (Schrupp et al. 2000). Although 

other major land stewards in the region (e.g. private (comprising 30% of the 5-state area), 

tribal (9%), and state land board (7%)) may not always achieve the legal mandate for 

conservation management, their lands may in fact provide protection for certain species 

and land cover types. It is important to consider the potential that each land steward may 

provide as a partner in conservation, particularly at local and ecoregional scales. 

Cooperation and collaboration among local, state, federal, and tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and private individuals is encouraged to 

effectively sustain the species and ecological systems of this region. 

As a separate effort, but in parallel with SWReGAP, each of the five states recently 

completed their State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) (AGFD 2005, CDOW 2005, 

NMDGF 2005, NDOW 2005, UDWR 2005). These strategies identify species of greatest 

conservation need (SGCN) and key habitats specific to each state. Also included in these 

reports is detailed information about the threats facing the different habitat types. The 

CWCS is a useful companion to SWReGAP for prioritizing ecological systems and 

species that require focused conservation efforts both within and between the Southwest 

states. The development of crosswalks between each state’s key habitats and 

SWReGAP’s land cover legend would be one way to maximize these two resources for 

future projects. It should be noted, however, that further review of the SGCNs is needed 

as each state identified their species using different methods. 

We identified three categories of management concern to prioritize ecological systems 

and terrestrial vertebrate species that may require additional attention. The criteria used 

for these categories are the following: first priorities are ecological systems and predicted 

animal habitats with distributions of <1% within Status 1 and 2 lands; second priorities 

are those with between 1 and 10% in Status 1 or 2 lands; and third priorities are those 

with >10% but <500 km2 in Status 1 or 2 lands. We applied these criteria to each state to 

enumerate their respective priority conservation concerns (Tables 6-1 and 6-2). 
SWReGAP 

176 

Table 6-1. Number of Ecological Systems of priority conservation concern identified within the 

SWReGAP project area and by state. (See Chapter 5, Table 5-1 for the list of relevant ecological 

systems.) 

Priority Criteria Region AZ CO NV NM UT 

 

Ecological System Distribution in Status 

1 & 2 Lands 

 

First <1% 6 7 12 0 8 6 

Second Between 1-10% 34 25 22 12 39 23 

Third >10% and < 500 km2 36 23 22 41 26 29 

Table 6-2. Number of modeled terrestrial vertebrate species in Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project and Species of Greatest Conservation Need identified by each state in 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies by priority of concern. (See Chapter 5, Appendix 

5-15 for the list of relevant animal species.) 

Priority Criteria Region AZ CO NV NM UT 

Animal Species 

Habitat in Status 1 

& 2 Lands 

SWReGAP SGCN SWReGAP SGCN SWReGAP SGCN SWReGAP SGCN SWReGAP SGCN SWReGAP SGCN 

First <1% 25 11 25 9 50 9 13 0 44 6 13 0 

Second Between 1-10% 284 190 168 11

6 260 62 72 20 400 63 115 25 

Third >10% and < 500 

km2 107 84 133 10

9 63 13 141 41 96 34 123 28 

Priority Conservation Concerns By State 

Arizona

For Arizona, 13.4% of the state’s total land base is categorized as Status 1 and 2 lands. 

The majority of this (38%) is managed by BLM, followed by U.S. Forest Service (19%), 

National Park Service (19%), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (17%), and Department of 

Defense and/or Department of Energy (3%). All other stewards manage approximately 

1% or less of Arizona’s Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Arizona has 7 ecological systems with <1% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands 

(Table 6-1). Twenty-five ecological systems have between 1 and <10% of their 

distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands. An additional 23 ecological systems have >10% but 

<500 km2

 (<50,000 ha) of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands, 19 of these have <100 

km2 (<10,000ha). 

For Arizona, there are 25 species with less than 1% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 

and 2 lands (Table 6-2). Of these 25 species, 9 species were identified as SGCN. There 

are 168 species with less than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands, 116 

of which are SGCN species. There are 133 species (109 SGCN) with more than 10% of 
SWReGAP 

177 

their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands and <500 km2 (<50,000 ha), 87 of these 

have <100 km2

 (<10,000ha). 

The primary habitats identified in Arizona’s CWCS are: Lower Colorado Sonoran Desert 

Scrub, Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub, Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, Mohave Desert Scrub, 

Semi-desert Grassland, Plains & Great Basin Grassland, Subalpine Grassland, Chaparral, 

Madrean Evergreen Forest, Great Basin Conifer Forest, Montane Conifer Forest, 

Subalpine Conifer Forest, Alpine Tundra, Wetlands/Springs, Streams/Rivers, 

Lakes/Reservoirs, and Human-dominated landscapes (AGFD 2005). 

Colorado

For Colorado, 10.2% of the state’s total land base is categorized as Status 1 and 2 lands. 

The majority of this is managed by U.S. Forest Service (53%), followed by BLM (21%), 

National Park Service (9%), State Wildlife Areas (8%), State Land Board (4%), The 

Nature Conservancy (3%), and Native American Land (2%). All other stewards manage 

approximately 1% or less of Colorado’s Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Colorado has 12 ecological systems with less than 1% of their distribution in Status 1 and 

2 lands (Table 6-1), 8 of these have no representation at all in these areas. The three 

ecological systems of highest priority within the state are: Western Great Plains Cliff and 

Outcrop (S008), Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna (S074), and

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie (S089). Twenty-two ecological systems have 

between 1 and <10% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands. An additional 22 

ecological systems have more than 10% but <500 km2

 (<50,000 ha) of their distribution 

in Status 1 and 2 lands, 11 of these have <100 km2 (<10,000ha). 

For Colorado, there are 50 species with less than 1% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 

and 2 lands, 9 being identified as SGCN (Table 6-2). There are 260 species (62 SGCN) 

with less than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands. There are 63 species 

(13 SGCN) with more than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands and 

<500 km2

 (<50,000 ha), 32 of these have <100 km2 (<10,000ha). 

Fourteen key habitats were identified in the Colorado Division of Wildlife’s CWCS, 

which are the following: Aspen, Eastern Plains Rivers, Exposed Rock, 

Foothills/Mountain Grasslands, Grass-forb Dominated Wetlands, Midgrass Prairie, Open 

Water, Playas, Pinyon-Juniper, Ponderosa Pine, Sagebrush, Shortgrass Prairie, Shrub 

Dominated Wetlands, and Western Rivers (CDOW 2005). 

New Mexico

For New Mexico, 6.3% of the state’s total land base is categorized as Status 1 and 2 

lands. The majority of this (41%) is managed by U.S. Forest Service, followed by BLM 

(34%), National Park Service (8%), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (8%), Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement (5%), and State Wildlife Reserves (3%). All other stewards manage 

approximately 1% or less of New Mexico’s Status 1 and 2 lands. 
SWReGAP 

178 

New Mexico has 8 ecological systems with <1% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 

lands (Table 6-1). New Mexico has 39 ecological systems with between 1 and 10% of 

their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands. An additional 26 ecological systems have 

>10% but <500 km2

 (<50,000 ha) of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands, 16 of these 

have <100 km2

 (<10,000ha). 

For New Mexico, there are 44 species with less than 1% of their predicted habitat in 

Status 1 and 2 lands, 6 being identified as SGCN (Table 6-2). There are 400 species (63 

SGCN) with less than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands. There are 

96 species (34 SGCN) with more than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 

lands and <500 km2 (<50,000 ha), 54 of these have <100 km2 (<10,000ha). 

Nineteen key habitats were identified in New Mexico’s CWCS effort with 9 terrestrial 

types identified (NMDFG 2005). New Mexico’s CWCS relied on the SWReGAP land 

cover map for terrestrial habitat types and created its own aquatic habitat classification. 

NMDGF grouped several SWReGAP land cover types because of ecological similarity 

and ease of use. Key habitats identified within the CWCS are Chihuahuan Semi-Desert 

Grassland, Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland, Madrean Encinal, Madrean 

Pine-Oak/Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland, Riparian, Western Great Plains Sand 

Sagebrush Shrubland, Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie, Rocky Mountain AlpineMontane Wet Meadow, and Rocky Mountain Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland. 

Nevada

For Nevada, 14.7% of the state’s total land base is categorized as Status 1 and 2 lands. 

The majority of this is managed by BLM (59%), followed by U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service (22%), U.S. Forest Service (11%), and National Park Service (6%). All other 

stewards manage approximately 1% or less of Nevada’s Status 1 and 2 lands. 

There are no ecological systems with <1% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands in 

Nevada (Table 6-1). Nevada has 12 ecological systems with between 1 and <10% of 

their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands. Nevada has 41 ecological systems with >10% 

but <500 km2

 (<50,000 ha) of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands, 34 of these have 

<100 km2

 (<10,000ha). 

For Nevada, there are 13 species with less than 1% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 

and 2 lands, none were identified as SGCN (Table 6-2). There are 72 species (20 SGCN) 

with less than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands. There are 141 

species (41 SGCN) with more than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands 

and <500 km2 (<50,000 ha), 32 of these have <100 km2 (<10,000ha). 

Nevada’s Department of Wildlife identified 27 key habitats in their SWAP: 

Intermountain Cold Desert Scrub, Mojave/Sonoran Warm Desert Scrub, Mojave/MidElevation Mixed Desert Scrub, Sagebrush, Lower Montane Woodlands, Lower Montane 

Chaparral, Intermountain Conifer Forests and Woodlands, Sierra Conifer Forests and 
SWReGAP 

179 

Woodlands, Grasslands and Meadows, Aspen Woodland, Alpine and Tundra, 

Intermountain Rivers and Streams, Sierra Rivers and Streams, Mojave Rivers and 

Streams, Wet Meadows, Springs and Springbrooks, Mesquite Bosques and Desert 

Washes, Marshes, Lakes and Reservoirs, Desert Playas and Ephemeral Pools, Sand 

Dunes and Badlands, Cliffs and Canyons, Caves and Mines (Subterranean Landscapes), 

Exotic Grasslands and Forblands, Developed Landscapes, Agricultural Lands, and Barren 

Landscapes (NDOW 2005). 

Utah

For Utah, 14% of the state’s total land base is categorized as Status 1 and 2 lands. The 

majority of this is managed by BLM (66%), followed by U.S. Forest Service (14%), 

National Park Service (12%), and State Wildlife Reserves (6%). All other stewards 

manage approximately 1% or less of Utah’s Status 1 and 2 lands. 

Six ecological systems have less than 1% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands 

(Table 6-1), four of these have no representation at all within these areas. Twenty-three 

ecological systems have between 1 and <10% of their distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands. 

An additional 29 ecological systems have >10% but <500 km2

 (<50,000 ha) of their 

distribution in Status 1 and 2 lands, 10 of which have <100 km2 (<10,000ha). 

For Utah, there are 13 species with less than 1% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 

2 lands, none being identified as SGCN (Table 6-2). There are 115 species (25 SGCN) 

with less than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands. There are 123 

species (28 SGCN) with more than 10% of their predicted habitat in Status 1 and 2 lands 

and <500 km2 (<50,000 ha), 35 of these have <100 km2 (<10,000ha). 

Ten key habitats were identified in Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources CWCS: Aspen, 

Grassland, Lowland Riparian, Mountain Riparian, Mountain Shrub, Shrub-steppe, 

Water–Lentic (standing), Water–Lotic (flowing), Wet meadow, and Wetland (UDWR 

2005). 
SWReGAP 

180 

ADDITIONAL DATA NEEDS AND 

ANALYSES 

Land Cover 

The SWReGAP land cover data set provides a seamless representation of land cover for 

the 5-state region based on satellite imagery from the time period of 1999-2001. The 

data set has many uses beyond the gap analysis conducted for SWReGAP. As noted in 

Chapter 2, no land cover map is perfect, and when possible land cover maps can and 

should be updated and improved. With this in mind, we suggest the following for future 

work related to the SWReGAP land cover data set: 

• Refined mapping of targeted land cover classes and/or regions. 

The SWReGAP land cover data set was created based on the premise that there is 

value in landscape data covering large geographic regions. Some ecoregions and 

land cover classes within the 5-state region may have greater importance for 

conservation of biodiversity than others. We suggest that the SWReGAP land 

cover data set be refined by focusing additional attention on these select 

ecoregions and/or land cover classes. In other words, the SWReGAP land cover 

data set may be used as a stratifier for finer scale mapping of specific land cover 

classes (e.g. riparian classes), or updated to reflect additional information 

regarding the spatial distribution of land cover in the region. Furthermore, at finer 

scales it may be possible to include information pertaining to relative ‘condition 

classes’ within land cover types, which would greatly improve the overall utility 

of the land cover data set for species habitat modeling. 

• Map accuracy assessment. 

Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of the map validation procedure used to 

assess the quality of the land cover data set. While we used an approach that 

provides a quantitative measure of map quality using withheld samples, and fuzzy 

set analysis, this is not an assessment of map accuracy. Assessing map accuracy 

is an expensive and time-consuming exercise and one of great importance. Map 

users will have greater confidence in the map product if a more robust assessment 

of map accuracy is performed. Such an assessment should be based on a design 

using sufficient and unbiased samples (Stehman and Czaplewski 1998, Congalton 

and Green 1999). The completion of a formal map accuracy assessment could be 

conducted as a separate and independent exercise if additional data and financial 

resources were made available. 

• Extend and edge-match land cover data to neighboring states. 

While SWReGAP encompasses a large geographic area covering several 

ecoregions, it is nevertheless bounded by neighboring states - some of which have 

been recently mapped and edge-matched to the SWReGAP land cover data set 

with good success (see SHRUBMAP Project, available from: 

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/). We believe that the degree to which the SWReGAP 
SWReGAP 

181 

land cover data set can be edge-matched to adjoining states and Mexico depends 

on using standardized mapping legends and mapping methods. We recommend 

further research in improving and standardizing the mapping legend (i.e. 

ecological systems) and mapping methodologies (i.e. decision trees) used by 

SWReGAP. 

• Assessment of land cover change over time. 

The SWReGAP land cover data set represents the status of land cover in the 5-

state region at one period in time. This provides a great deal of information about 

biodiversity in the region (see Chapter 5) and its implications for land 

management. An important methodological objective in SWReGAP was to make 

the procedures as transparent and readily interpretable as possible. We suggest 

further research in assessing and monitoring land cover change over time. This 

may involve additional research into “backcasting” land cover in time to assess 

changes that have occurred to date, and anticipating future mapping efforts that 

utilize SWReGAP data to monitor land cover into the future. 

Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions 

The SWReGAP data set provides data and habitat models for the entire 5-state region. 

From a regional standpoint, the habitat modeling data sets provide the opportunity for a 

wide variety of stakeholders to look at species habitat conservation over wide expanses 

and entire ecoregions. Further work with this data set is suggested and includes: 

• Habitat model refinement is needed to provide end-users information beyond the 

standard presence/absence level provided. 

Habitat model refinement is needed as new information becomes available and as 

experts provide new information to the process. These refinements should also 

include the use of species occurrence points and an inductive modeling approach. 

Refinements in the modeling process could also lead to the extension of the 

current presence/absence models to include preferred habitat or to provide 

probabilities of occupancy for the suitable habitat. Additionally, models could be 

refined to address spatially explicit considerations related to contiguity and 

adjacency of habitat elements. 

• Accuracy assessment of the habitat models and end user validation. 

Habitat models should be the subject of accuracy assessment and validation. A 

statistically driven accuracy assessment is warranted for this data set and would 

provide end-users information regarding the accuracy of the models and the 

potential errors within each model. Model validation will occur if and when these 

models are incorporated into the conservation planning and other natural resource 

planning efforts. Further, testing the habitat models will provide additional 

insight into the accuracy and usefulness of the models. Various data sets are 

available within and between states and we encourage the use of these data to 

provide an indication of the accuracy of the SWReGAP habitat models. 

• Analysis of animal guilds determined necessary for conservation. 
SWReGAP 

182 

Guilds, focal species, and functional groups of species may provide a better 

surrogate to conservation in some parts of the region. USFWS Region 2 for 

example, has identified specific conservation targets that may serve as the 

functional groups. The Species of Greatest Conservation Need lists, already 

derived by state wildlife agencies, may also provide a starting point for this 

process. This concept needs to be further pursued and tested for application. 

• Incorporation into the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy format. 

State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies provide a blueprint for 

state conservation. Gap data is well suited to assist state agencies in current and 

future planning. There is a need for further outreach to the agencies and to work 

collaboratively with them to incorporate GAP data within the agencies and to 

modify GAP data based on agency input. 

• Further collaboration between GAP personnel and agencies charged with 

conservation of our natural resources. 

There is a need for collaboration between land management agencies and natural 

resources agencies (state and federal) to better incorporate gap analysis data sets 

into the planning efforts of these agencies. This would also help facilitate the 

understanding of GAP personnel on specific needs and uses of spatial data sets by 

these land managers. Collaboration could include the identification of guilds or 

suites of species that better identify conservation opportunities or risks within a 

smaller landscape. 

• Demonstrate successful use of the data sets in conservation applications and 

identify associated limitations or inaccuracies. 

Gap analysis data sets provide a useful tool for obtaining information in the larger 

ecological context particularly for large land stewards and agencies responsible 

for the management of natural resources or developing multiple-species habitat 

conservation plans. 

Land Stewardship 

The SWReGAP land stewardship data set provides stewardship and management status 

data for the entire 5-state region. This layer provides the context for conducting the final 

gap analysis. From a regional standpoint, the land stewardship data set provides the 

opportunity for stakeholders to look at stewardship and management status over large 

landscapes including entire ecoregions. Suggestions for further work related to this data 

set include the following: 

• Incorporate changing stewardship and management goals within the region. 

Stewardship and management status are evolving constantly throughout the 

region. Management plans, such as the Region 3 forest management plan 

updates, change periodically, thus affecting that status of the stewardship data set 

and subsequent gap analyses. Changes such as these should be incorporated 

iteratively into the land stewardship data set to reflect the most current conditions. 
SWReGAP 

183 

• Work with land stewards to incorporate actual land management beyond the 

intent identified within the GAP process. 

Documentation and intent are not always the driving factor in actual parcel 

management. Additionally, there are efforts in place that may not meet GAP 

standards for long term maintenance but certainly affect the conservation 

landscape. Condition of the managed land has a significant effect on the 

conservation potential of that landscape. 

• Institutionalize the stewardship data set with state or federal agencies for future 

modification. 

The land stewardship data set evolves continuously as parcels change ownership 

and protection management mandates are updated. These changes may be most 

readily incorporated if the data set is institutionalized and becomes a standard for 

use by agencies at the regional or state level. 

• Conduct outreach to provide context of the data set and potential uses and 

misuses.

Outreach is needed to work with agencies and organizations to use gap analysis 

data to identify conservation opportunities and pursue conservation objectives 

with all potential partners. For example, public outreach may help to identify 

opportunities for potential land swapping and boundary adjustments to maximize 

economic benefit while maintaining areas important for conservation. 

• Provide a more detailed assessment of conservation status. 

The definitions supporting the four biodiversity management status categories 

may benefit from re-evaluation. Because of the regional focus of this project we 

were not able to achieve this aspect though the need is stronger now than before. 

Individual species and land cover types behave differently and may need more 

focused individual attention. Additionally, there is a perception in some agencies 

that Status 3 lands are inferred to be in ‘poor’ condition, which is not necessarily 

true. Likewise, Status 1 and 2 lands may not be in ‘good’ condition. 

Gap Analyses 

The gap analyses should be responsive to changes in the input data sets. When the land 

cover, habitat models, or land stewardship are modified substantially there should be a 

concerted effort to revise the input data sets and reanalyze for gaps in biodiversity 

conservation. A streamlined system to document, archive, and run the analyses would 

need to be maintained and developed to facilitate such updates. 

It is important to recognize that many land cover types and terrestrial vertebrate species 

are relatively common throughout the region and are associated with many diverse land 

stewards. Having minimal representation in Status 1 and 2 lands does not necessarily 

mean there is currently a “gap” in protection, but that the long-term trends and conditions 
SWReGAP 

184 

of these land cover types and species should probably be monitored now and in the 

future. 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR GAP 

Regional analyses are important for range-wide conservation of species. As more 

regional data sets become available through the Northwest GAP and Southeast GAP 

efforts, conservation partners will be provided a more complete picture on species 

conservation. Analysis will be possible within entire ecoregions, and such analyses will 

inform individual state efforts. Further utility in these data sets will be enhanced if topics 

such as ecosystem services, ecological economics, and adaptive management are 

included. 

One objective of SWReGAP is to provide end users with data sets that can be used and 

modified to fit within user needs. Part of that objective is met by providing the majority 

of the source data used for these analyses on-line (http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/

and http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/index.html). Many of the tools created for this project 

are similarly available. The USGS GAP Portal will also provide internet access to 

SWReGAP data sets for viewing or downloading (http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov). All of 

these provide unique opportunities for both informative and research use of SWReGAP 

data. 

Application of SWReGAP data into the conservation planning effort has already occurred 

at varying levels within state and federal agencies. An outreach effort has been initiated 

to provide agencies with help in understanding and implementing SWReGAP data in 

their conservation activities. The outreach provides background on the gap analysis 

project, assistance in implementing the data in other analyses, and cooperative 

identification of new projects in which SWReGAP data can be utilized. Current and 

future efforts that use or plan to use SWReGAP data include the development of multispecies habitat conservation plans at the county level (Clark County, Nevada and Pima 

County, Arizona), the Forest Stewardship Program’s Spatial Analysis Project (Utah 

Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands), and the development of the Region 2 

Conservation Targets Database (USFWS). These efforts further enhance the SWReGAP 

data set, providing an even greater foundation for future work by other agencies. For 

example, state wildlife agency use of SWReGAP animal habitat models should extend 

beyond the comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies to planning efforts of state 

land offices, parks, and other state agencies. SWReGAP data is well suited to provide the 

foundation of meaningful conservation at many levels. 

SWReGAP collaborators are pursuing further analyses and conservation applications 

using SWReGAP data for fire modeling, alternative future analyses, and historic habitat 

change analyses. Ecoregional gap analyses such as those completed for the Colorado 

Plateau Ecoregion (Boykin et al. 2008, Ernst and Prior-Magee 2008, Langs et al. 2008) 

and Sonoran Desert Ecoregion (Thomas et al. In Review) provide context for 
SWReGAP 

185 

conservation at the ecoregional level. Maintaining updates to the current land cover data 

set over time may, with the cooperation of land management agencies, be managed by the 

Intermountain Region Digital Image Archive Center (IRDIAC). 

SWReGAP data provides another tool for land managers to use in conservation planning 

and application in concert with current and future data sets (e.g., TNC Ecoregion 

Analysis, State Wildlife Action Plans). These and other tools when combined with 

human intellect have the capacity to provide for long term conservation in the Southwest. 
SWReGAP 

186 

CHAPTER 7 

 

PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILITY 

Julie Prior-Magee 

Photo from SWReGAP Training Site Image Library 

Recommended Citation 

Prior-Magee, J.S. 2007. Product use and availability. Chapter 7 in J.S. Prior-Magee, et al., eds. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 

Corresponding author: J. Prior-Magee is to be contacted at jpmagee@nmsu.edu Tel. 575- 646-1084 
SWReGAP 

187 

HOW TO OBTAIN THE PRODUCTS 

It is the goal of the Gap Analysis Program and the USGS Biological Resources Discipline 

(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 home page (URL below). While a 

DVD or CD-ROM of the data will be the most convenient way to obtain the data, it may 

also be downloaded via the Internet from the national GAP web site at: 

http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov 

The web site will also provide, over the long term, information on the status of our 

regional project, future updates, data availability, and contacts. Following this project's 

completion, DVD/CD-ROMs of the final report and data should be available at a nominal 

cost--the above home page will provide ordering information. To find information on this 

GAP project's status and data, follow the links to "Projects" and then to the particular 

region of interest.

The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) data will also be available 

from the following sites: the SWReGAP website http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/ 

and the Utah State University Remote Sensing/GIS Lab website 

http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap. 

Minimum GIS Required for Data Use: The regional data are provided as Arc/Info grids 

or Erdas Imagine (img) files for land cover, Erdas Imagine (img) for habitat models, and 

personal geodatabase or shapefile for land stewardship. This requires users to have 

access either to Spatial Analyst within ESRI’s family of products, Erdas Imagine, or the 

ability to convert and view the data in another raster format. The complete datasets and 

the final report will require several terabytes of disk space (approximately 2.5 terabytes) 

for complete uncompressed datasets. This is comprised mostly of habitat models at 30-m 

resolution and 8-bit. These models can be converted to 4-bit to take up less space. 

Habitat models at 240-m resolution are smaller and will use approximately 37 gigabytes. 

Currently most computers can easily manage the functions necessary for display and 

navigating through the individual layers. Additional analysis may require tiling of the 

data or the use of more efficient algorithms. 

Disclaimer 

Following is the official Biological Resources Discipline (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. 
SWReGAP 

188 

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 Discipline 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 

animals 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 Discipline 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. 

Metadata 

Proper documentation of information sources and processes used to assemble GAP data 

layers is central to the successful application of GAP data. Metadata is a description of 

the content, quality, lineage, contact, condition, and other characteristics of data. It is a 

valuable tool that preserves the usefulness of data over time by detailing methods for data 

collection and data set creation. It greatly minimizes duplication of effort in the collection 

of expensive digital data and fosters sharing of digital data resources. Metadata supports 

local data asset management such as local inventory and data catalogs, and external user 

communities such as Clearinghouses and websites. It provides adequate guidance for 

end-use application of data such as detailed lineage and context. Metadata makes it 

possible for data users to search, retrieve, and evaluate data set information by providing 

standardized descriptions of geospatial and biological data. 

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) approved the Content Standard for 

Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998) in June 1998 and the National 

Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) <http://www.nbii.gov> approved the 

Biological Data Profile (BDP) in 1999. The BDP adds fields for biological information 

such as taxonomy, analytical tools, and methodology to the FGDC standard core set of 

elements. Visit <http://www.nbii.gov> – Metadata – FGDC Metadata – Standards for 

more information. Executive Order 12906 requires that any spatial data sets generated 

with federal dollars will have FGDC-compliant metadata. 

Each spatial data layer submitted must be accompanied by its metadata (*.html file) in 

the same directory. The data producer must also submit an additional directory (called 

“meta_master”) which will include each metadata file in four forms (*.txt, *.html, *.xml, 

and *.sgml). There are many tools available for metadata creation. For some examples, 
SWReGAP 

189 

see <http://www.nbii.gov> – Metadata – FGDC Metadata – Tools. Please note that some 

tools are free, and some are not. The redundancy in output format is to provide one file 

for error checking (*.txt), one for presentation on the Internet (*.html), and two for 

indexing elements for the spatial data clearinghouse (*xml, *.sgml). Remember, metadata 

describes the development of the spatial data set being documented. If there are 

companion files to the GIS data, use metadata to reference (reports, spreadsheet, another 

GIS layer). 

USGS (NBII and FGDC) personnel conduct metadata training to meet FGDC standards 

and to include biological data. Metadata workshops provide an introduction to the 

metadata standard with hands-on practice producing documentation for a sample data set 

using appropriate software: Intergraph’s “Spatial Metadata Management System” 

(SMMS) and USDA Forest Service North Central Research Station’s “Metavist” are 

commonly used. The workshops provide an understanding of the FGDC metadata 

standard and also cover topics such as the metadata clearinghouse, metadata development 

tools, and strategies for metadata production. See <http://www.nbii.gov> – Metadata – 

FGDC Metadata – Training for more information and access to the training calendar. 

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 (see A Handbook for Gap 

Analysis, Scott et al. 1993) to meet program objectives. 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). For complete project standards, refer to the Gap Analysis Handbook 

available from the “Conducting a Gap Analysis” section of the National GAP web site 

http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov. 

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 tool to answer that question. 

Scale: First we must address the issue of appropriate scale to which these data may be 

applied. The data were produced with an intended application at the ecoregion level, that 

is, geographic areas from several hundred thousand to millions of hectares in size. The 

data provide a coarse-filter approach to analysis, meaning that not every occurrence of 

every plant community or animal species habitat is mapped, only larger, more 

generalized distributions. The data are also based on the USGS 1:100,000 scale of 
SWReGAP 

190 

mapping in both detail and precision. When determining whether to apply GAP data to a 

particular use, there are two primary questions: do you want to use the data as a map for 

the particular geographic area, or do you wish to use the data to provide context for a 

particular area? The distinction can be made with the following example: You could use 

GAP land cover to determine the approximate amount of oak woodland occurring in a 

county, or you could map oak woodland with aerial photography to determine the exact 

amount. You then could use GAP data to determine the approximate percentage of all 

oak woodland in the region or state that occurs in the county, and thus gain a sense of 

how important the county's distribution is to maintaining that plant community. 

Appropriate Uses: The above example illustrates two appropriate uses of the data: as a 

coarse map for a large area such as a county, and to provide context for finer-level maps. 

Specific case-study examples are provided in Appendix 7-1, 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. 

• 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: 

• Using 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. 
SWReGAP 

191 

• 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. 
SWReGAP 

192 

LITERATURE CITED

Alcorn, J.R. 1988. Birds of Nevada. Fairview West Publishers, Fallon, Nevada. 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th edition. American 

Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2005a. Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 

2005-2015. Available on-line at: http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/cwcs.shtml. Last accessed: April 

2006. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2005b. Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 

State of the State (Companion Document B). Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

Austin, M.P. 1991. Vegetation: Data collection and analysis. Pages 37-41 in C.R. Margules and M.P. 

Austin, editors, Nature conservation: Cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. Australia 

CSIRO, East Melbourne. 

Bailey, R.G., P.E. Avers, T. King and W.H. McNab, 1994. Ecoregions and subregions of the United States 

(1:7,500,000 map). With supplementary table of map unit descriptions, compiled and edited by 

W.H. McNab and R.G. Bailey. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service Miscellaneous 

Publication # 1391 (Revised), with Separate Map at a Scale of 1:7,500,000. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

Bauer, M.E., T.E. Burk, A.R. Ek, P.R. Coppin,, S.D. Lime, T.A. Walsh, D.K. Walters, W. Befort, and D.F. 

Heizen, 1994. Satellite inventory of Minnesota forest resources. Photogrammetric Engineering 

and Remote Sensing 60(3): 287-298. 

Beardsley, K., and D. Stroms. 1993. Compiling a digital map of areas managed for biodiversity in 

California. Natural Areas Journal 13(3): 177-190. 

Bender, D.J., C.H. Flather, K.R. Wilson, and C. Gordon. 2005. Regional data to support biodiversity 

assessments: terrestrial vertebrate and butterfly data from the Southwest. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-152. Fort Collins, CO, US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 42 pp. 

Bolger, D.T., T.A. Scott, J.T. Rotenberry 1997. Breeding Bird Abundance in an Urbanizing Landscape in 

Coastal Southern California. Conservation Biology 11: 406–421. 

Bonham-Carter, G. F. 1994. Geographic information systems for geoscientists: modeling with GIS. 

Pergamon, Elsevier Science Inc., Tarrytown, NY, USA, pp.285-302. 

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, 

editors, Ecosystem management: Principles and applications, Volume II. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-318. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 376 pp. 

Boykin, K.G., C. Drost, and J.J. Wynne. 2007. A Gap Analysis of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species of the 

Colorado Plateau: Assessment from the Southwest Gap Analysis Project. In C. van Riper III and 

M. Sogge (eds). The Colorado Plateau III: Socioeconomic, Biological, and Cultural Research. 

The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Breiman. L., J.H. Friedman, R.A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, 1984. Classification and regression trees. 

Wadsworth, Inc. Belmont, CA. 

Brown de Colstoun, E.C., M.H. Story, C. Thompson, K. Commisso, T.G. Smith, and J.R. Irons, 2003. 

National Park vegetation mapping using multi-temporal Landsat & data and a decision tree 

classifier. Remote Sensing of Environment 85, 316-327. 

Brugnach, M. J. Bolte, and G.A. Bradshaw. 2000. Determining the significance of threshold values 

uncertainty in rule-based classification models. Ecological Modelling 160:63-76. 

Burrough, P.A., and R.A. McDonnell. 1998. Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY, USA, pp.265 - 291. 

Channell, R. and M.V. Lomolino. 2000. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. 

Nature 403: 84-86. 
SWReGAP 

193 

Chavez, P.S. Jr. 1996. Image-based atmospheric corrections—Revisited and improved. Photogrammetric 

Engineering and Remote Sensing 62(9): 1025-1036. 

Clark, L.A. and D. Pregibon, Tree-based Models. In J.M. Chambers & T.J. Hastie (Eds.). Statistical Models 

in S. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth and Brooks; 1992; pp. 377-420. 

Cockrum, E.L. 1960. The Recent Mammals of Arizona - Their Taxonomy and Distribution. The University 

of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 276 pp. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2005. Colorado’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Denver Colorado. Available on-line at: 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/ComprehensiveWildlifeConservationStrategy/. Last 

accessed: April 2006. 

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, S. Pyne, M. Reid, 

K. Schulz, K. Snowand, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological systems of the United States: A 

working classification of U.S. terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

http://www.natureserve.org/library/usEcologicalsystems.pdf

Congalton, R.G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. 

Remote Sensing of Environment 37: 35-46. 

Congalton, R.G. and K. Green. 1999. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and 

practices. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. 

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. 

Crist, P., B. Thompson, and J. Prior-Magee. 1996. Land management status categorization for Gap 

Analysis: A potential enhancement. Gap Analysis Bulletin #5, U.S. Geological Survey, Moscow, 

ID. 

Crist, P., and R. Deitner, 2000. Assessing land cover map accuracy. Version 2.0.0. (16 February 2000). A 

handbook for conducting Gap Analysis. 

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, editors. 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. 

DeFries, R.S., M. Hansen, J.R.G. Townshend and R. Sohlberg, 1998. Global land cover classifications at 8 

km spatial resolution: the use of training data derived from Landsat imagery in decision tree 

classifiers. International Journal of Remote Sensing 19: 3141-3168. 

Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. The amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Deitner, R.A., B.C. Thompson, and J.S. Prior-Magee. 1999. Assessing Inter-project compatibility and 

information distribution for conservation planning using New Mexico Gap Analysis Data. 

Research Completion Report. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 25 pp. 

DesertUSA(a). Chihuahuan Desert. Available on-line: http://www.desertusa.com/du_chihua.html

[January 2006]. 

DesertUSA(b). Great Basin Desert. Available on-line: http://www.desertusa.com/du_basin.html [January 

2006]. 

DesertUSA(c). Mojave Desert. Available on-line: http://www.desertusa.com/du_mojave.html [January 

2006]. 

DesertUSA(d) Sonoran Desert. Available on-line: http://www.desertusa.com/du_sonoran.html [January 

2006]. 

Diamond, J. 1986. The design of a nature reserve system for Indonesian New Guinea. Pages 485-503 in 

M.E. Soulé, editor. Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer 

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Di Greogrio, A. and L.J.M. Jansen, 2000. Land cover classification system (LCCS): Classification 

concepts and user manual. Environment and Natural Resources Service, GCP/RAF/287/ITA 
SWReGAP 

194 

Africover – East Africa Project and Soil Resources, Management and Conservation Service. FAO, 

Rome. 

Drake, J., and D. Faber-Langendoen. 1997. An alliance-level classification of the vegetation of the 

Midwestern United States. A report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Midwest Conservation 

Science Department for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 

 The Nature Conservancy Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 

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, Colorado. 

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, DC. 

Durrant, S.D. 1952. Mammals of Utah – taxonomy and distribution. University of Kansas Publications, 

Museum of Natural History 6:1-549. 

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. 

Ernst, A., and J. Prior-Magee. 2007. Conservation Assessment of the Colorado Plateau using Southwest 

Regional Gap Analysis Stewardship Data. In C. van Ripper III and M. Sogge (eds). The Colorado 

Plateau III: Socioeconomic, Biological, and Cultural Research. The University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson, AZ. 

Falzarano, S. R. and K. A. Thomas. 2004. Fuzzy set and spatial analysis techniques for evaluating thematic 

accuracy of a land-cover map. In Remote Sensing and GIS Accuracy Assessment R. S. Lunetta 

and J. G. Lyon, editors. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1994. Content standards for digital geospatial metadata. 8 

June 1994. Federal Geographic Data Committee, Washington, DC. 

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1995. Content standards for digital geospatial metadata workbook, 

FGDC, Washington, DC. 

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee. 1997. FGDC Vegetation Classification 

and Information Standards--June 3, 1996 Draft. FGDC Secretariat, Reston, Virginia. 35 pp. 

Feldhamer, G.A., B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (Editors). 2003. Wild Mammals of North America – 

Biology, Management, and Conservation. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 

Maryland. 1216 pp. 

Findley, J.S., A.H. Harris, D.E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Findley, James S. 1987. The Natural History of New Mexican Mammals. University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 164 pp. 

Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of 

Natural History, Denver and University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado. 

Flather, C.H., Knowles, M.S., Kendall, I.A. 1998. Threatened and endangered species geography: 

characteristics of hot spots in the conterminous United States. BioScience 48(5): 365-376. 

Flather, C.H., K.R. Wilson, D.J. Dean, and W.C. McComb. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation 

networks: Of indicators and uncertainty in Geographic-based Analysis. Ecological Applications 

7:531-542. 

Foody, G., 2002. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment 

80: 185-201. 

Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications

3(2):202-205. 

Friedl, M.A., and C.E. Brodley, 1997. Decision tree classification of land cover from remotely sensed data. 

Remote Sensing of Environment 61:399-409. 

Friedl, M.A., C.E. Brodley, and A.H. Strahler, 1999. Maximizing land cover classification accuracies 

produced by decision trees at continental to global scales. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and 

Remote Sensing 37(2): 969-977. 

Friedl, M. A., D.K. McIver, J.C.F. Hodges, X.Y. Zhang, D. Muchoney, A.H. Strahler, C.E. Woodcock, S. 

Gopal, A. Schneider, A. Cooper, A. Baccini, F. Gao, and C. Schaaf, 2002. Global land cover 
SWReGAP 

195 

mapping from MODIS: algorithms and early results. Remote Sensing of Environment 83:287-

302. 

Gap Analysis Program. 2000. A handbook for conducting Gap Analysis. USGS Gap Analysis Program, 

Moscow, Idaho. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/handbook. 

Garrard, C.M., 2003. Kappa tool user’s guide. Unpublished document. RSGIS Laboratories, Utah State 

University. http://bioweb.usu.edu/chrisg/download/ . 

Gonzalez-Rebeles, C., B.C. Thompson, and F.C. Bryant. 2002. Influence of selected environmental 

Variables on GIS-habitat models used for gap analysis. Pages 639-651 in J.M. Scott, P.J. Heglund, 

M.L. Morrison et al., editors. Predicting species occurrences: Issues of accuracy and scale. Island 

Press, Washington, D.C. 868 pp. 

Gopal, S. and C. Woodcock., 1994. Theory and methods for accuracy assessment of thematic maps using 

fuzzy sets. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing Vol. 60, No. 2: 181-188. 

Goutte, C., 1997. Note on free lunches and cross-validation, Neural Computation, 9, 1211-1215. 

Green, D.M. 2005. Biology of amphibian declines. In: Lannoo, M. (ed). Amphibian Declines: The 

conservation status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Pages 

28-33. 

Grossman, D., K.L. Goodin, X. Li, C. Wisnewski, D. Faber-Langendoen, M. Anderson, L. Sneddon, D. 

Allard, M. Gallyoun, and A. Weakley. 1994. Standardized national vegetation classification 

system. Report by The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Systems Research Institute for the 

NBS/NPS Vegetation Mapping Program. National Biological Service, Denver, Colorado. 

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 of the United States. 

Volume 1. The National Vegetation Classification System: development, status, and applications. 

The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 

Hall, E.R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Las Vegas, Nevada. 710 pp. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America, 2nd ed. Wiley Interscience, New York, N.Y. 

Halvorson, W.L., K. Thomas, L. Graham, M.R. Kunzmann, P.S. Bennett, C. Van Riper, and C. Drost. 2002. 

The Arizona GAP analysis project final report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Division, Western Ecological Research Center, University of Arizona. Tucson, AZ. 166p. 

Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles of Colorado. 2nd edition. University Press of Colorado, 

Niwot and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 

Hansen, M., R. Dubayah, and R. DeFries, 1996. Classification trees: An alternative to traditional land 

cover classifiers. International Journal of Remote Sensing 17(5): 1075-1081. 

Hansen, M.C., R.S. DeFries, J.R.G. Townsend, and R. Sohlberg, 2000. Global land cover classification at 1 

km spatial resolution using a classification tree approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing

21(6,7): 1331-1364. 

Hayward, C.L., C. Cottam, A.M. Woodbury, and H.H. Frost. 1976. Birds of Utah. Brigham Young 

University Press, Provo, Utah. 

Hill, K.E. and M.W. Binford. 2002. The role of category definition in habitat models: practical and logical 

limitations of using Boolean, indexed, probabilistic, and fuzzy categories. In: Scott, J.M, P.J. 

Heglund, M.L. Morrison, J.B. Haufler, M.G. Raphael, W.A. Wall, and F.B. Samson. Predicting 

Species Occurrence: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Island Press, Washington. 868 pp. 

Hoffmeister, D.R. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Hollings, C.S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological 

Monographs 62:447-502. 

Holt, R.D. and T.H. Keitt. 2005. Species’ borders: A unifying theme in ecology. Oikos 108: 3-6. 

Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 national land cover 

database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70(7):829-840. 

Homer, C.G., R.D. Ramsey, T.C. Edwards, Jr., and A. Falconer, 1997. Landscape cover-type modeling 

using a multi-scene Thematic Mapper mosaic. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote 

Sensing 63(1): 59-67. 

Homer, Collin and Thomas Edwards. 1996. Nevada GAP vegetation data layer. Utah Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan Utah. 
SWReGAP 

196 

Huang, C., B. Wylie, C. Homer, L. Yang, and G. Zylstra, 2002. Derivation of a Tasseled cap 

transformation based on Landsat 7 at-satellite reflectance. International Journal of Remote 

Sensing 23(8): 1741-1748. 

Hutchingson, C. 1982. Techniques for combining Landsat and ancillary data for digital classification 

improvement. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 48:123-130. 

Jaeger, J.R., B.R. Riddle, and D.F. Bradford. 2005. Cryptic Neogene vicariance and Quaternary dispersal 

of the red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus): insights on the evolution of North American warm desert 

biotas. Molecular Ecology 14(10): 3033-3048. 

Jenkins, R.E. 1985. Information methods: Why the Heritage Programs work. The Nature Conservancy 

News 35(6):21-23. 

Jenness Enterprises. 2005. Random Point Generator, v 1.3. ArcView Script. Internet WWW URL at 

http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/random_points.htm. 

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. 

Jensen, J.R. 2005. Introductory Digital Image Processing.: A Remote Sensing Perspective. Third Edition. 

Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. 

Johnson, D. 2001. Validating and Evaluating Models. In: Shenk, T.M. and A.B. Franklin Modeling in 

Natural Resource Management: Development, Interpretation and Application. Island Press. 

Kingery, H.E. editor. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Denver. 

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. 

Küchler, A.W., and I.S. Zonneveld, editors. 1988. Vegetation mapping. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 635 pp. 

Laba, M., S.K. Gregory, J. Braden, D. Ogurcak, E. Hill, E. Fegraus, J. Fiore, and S.D. DeGloria. 2002. 

Conventional and fuzzy accuracy assessment of the New York Gap Analysis Project land cover 

map. Remote Sensing of Environment. 81:443-455. 

Langs, L.A., K.A. Thomas, J.H. Lowry, and K.A. Schulz. 2007. A Gap analysis of land cover for the 

Colorado Plateau: Implications from the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project. In C. van 

Ripper III and M. Sogge (eds). The Colorado Plateau III: Socioeconomic, Biological, and Cultural 

Research. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 

Lannoo, M.J., ed. 2005. Amphibian Declines: Status and Conservation of United States Species. University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Lawrence, R.L. and A. Wright. 2001. A. Rule-based classification systems using classification and 

regression trees (CART) analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing

67(10):1137-1142. 

Lawrence, R., A. Bunn, S. Powell, S., and M. Zambon, M. 2004. Classification of remotely sensed imagery 

using stochastic gradient boosting as a refinement of classification tree analysis. Remote Sensing 

of Environment 90:331-336. 

Levin, S.A. 1981. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1942-1968. 

Ligon, J.S. 1961. New Mexico Birds and Where to Find Them. The University of New Mexico Press, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 360 pp. 

Lillesand, T.M. 1996. A protocol for satellite-based land cover classification in the Upper Midwest. Pages 

103-118 in J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear, and F.W. Davis, editors. Gap Analysis: A Landscape Approach 

to Biodiversity Planning. ASPRS, 320 pp. 

Lillesand, T.M. and R.W. Kiefer. 2000. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. Fourth Edition. John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 

Lins, K.S., and R.L. Kleckner. 1996. Land cover mapping: An overview and history of the concepts. Pages 

57-65 in J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear, and F. Davis, editors, Gap Analysis: A landscape approach to 

biodiversity planning. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

Lowe, C.H. 1964. The vertebrates of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Lowe, C.H., C.R. Schwalbe, and T.B. Johnson. 1986. The venomous reptiles of Arizona. Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix. 
SWReGAP 

197 

Ma, Z., M.M. Hart, and R.L. Redmond. 2001. Mapping vegetation across large geographic areas: 

Integration of remote sensing and GIS to classify multisource data. Photogrammetric Engineering 

and Remote Sensing Vol. 67, No. 3, 295-307. 

Manis, G., C. Homer, R.D. Ramsey, J. Lowry, T. Sajwaj, and S. Graves. 2000. The development of 

mapping zones to assist in land cover mapping over large geographic areas: A case study of the 

Southwest ReGAP project. GAP Analysis Bulletin No. 9. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Bulletins/9/bulletin9/default.html 

Manis, G., J. Lowry, J. and R.D. Ramsey, 2001. Pre-classification: An ecologically predictive landform 

model. GAP Analysis Bulletin No. 10. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. 

http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Bulletins/10/preclassification.htm

Margules, C.R., A.O. Nicholls, and R.L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize 

biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63-76. 

McIver, D.K. and M.A. Friedl. 2002. Using prior probabilities in decision tree classification of remotely 

sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment 81: 253-261. 

Miller, K.R., 1984. The Bali Action plan: A framework for the future of protected areas. In National 

Parks, conservation, and development, edited by J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller, 756-764. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 

Miller, K.R. 1994. In J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller, editors. National parks conservation and development. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

Monson, G., and A.R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. 2nd edition, University 

of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Morin, N. 1995. Vascular plants of the United States. In Our living resources: a report to the nation on the 

distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems, edited by E.T. 

LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M. J. Mac, 200-205. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. 

Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley & 

Sons, New York. 547 pp. 

Nevada Department of Wildlife. 2005. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of Wildlife. 

Reno, Nevada. Available on-line at: http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/cwcs/. Last 

accessed: April 2006. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New 

Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, New Mexico. 526 pp + 

appendices. Available on-line at: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/cwcs/. Last accessed: April 2006. 

Nicholls, A.O., and Margules. 1993. An upgraded reserve selection algorithm. Biological Conservation

64:165-169. 

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, DC. 

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature's legacy. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

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, DC. 

O’Brien, L.E. 2005. A method to quantify and depict uncertainty in wildlife habitat suitability models using 

Bayesian inference and expert opinion. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

The Official Website of the State of Utah. Utah History to Go: The Land. Available online:http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/the_land/index.html [September 2005]. 

Odum, E.D., and H.T. Odum. 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment. 

Proceeding of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 39:178-189. 

Odum, E.D., and H.T. Odum. 1972. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 39:178. 

Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of 

the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125. 

Pal, M. and P.M. Mather. 2003. An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover 

classification. Remote Sensing of Environment 86, 554-565. 
SWReGAP 

198 

Pearce, J. and S. Ferrier. 2000. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using 

logistic regression. Ecological Modeling. 133:225-245. 

Penhollow, M.E., and D.F.Stauffer. 2000. Large-scale habitat relationships of neotropical migratory birds 

in Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 362-373. 

Peterson, A.T. 2005. Kansas Gap Analysis: the importance of validating distributional models before using 

them. Southwestern Naturalist 50:230-236. 

Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1983. The birds of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Phillips, S.J., R.P. Anderson, and R.E. Shapire. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic 

distribution. Ecological Modeling 190:231-259. 

Poole, A.F., P. Stettenheim, and F.B. Gill (Editors). 1992. The Birds of North America. The American 

Ornithologists’ Union and the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. 

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. 

Pressey, R.L., and V.S. Logan. 1995. Reserve coverage and requirements in relation to partitioning and 

generalization of land classes: analyses for Western New South Wales. Conservation Biology

9(6):1506-1517. 

Quinlan, J.R. 1993. C4.5: programs for machine learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. 

Reese, H.M., T.M. Lillesand, D.E. Nagel, J.S. Stewart, R.A. Goldmann, T.E. Simmons, J.W. Chipman, and 

P.A. Tessar, 2002. Statewide land cover derived from multiseasonal Landsat TM data: A 

retrospective of the WISCLAND project. Remote Sensing of Environment 82: 224-237. 

Reid, M.S., K.A. Schulz, P.J. Comer, M.H. Schindel, D.R. Culver, D.A. Sarr, and M.C. Damm. 1999. 

Descriptions of vegetation alliances of the coterminous United States. The Nature Conservancy, 

Boulder, Colorado, USA. 

Reiners, W.A., K.L. Driese, & D. Schrupp. 2000. Statistical evaluation of Wyoming and Colorado 

landcover map thematic accuracy using aerial videography techniques. Final Report. Department 

of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. WWW page at URL: 

 http://ndis1.nrel.colostate.edu/cogap/report/colandcov_acc.pdf

Ricchetti, E. 2000. Multispectral satellite image and ancillary data integration for geological classification.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 66(4):429-435. 

Ride, W.L.D. 1975. In F. Fenner, editor. A national system of ecological reserves in Australia. 64 pp. 

Schrupp, D.L., W.A. Reiners, T.G. Thompson, L.E. O’Brien, J.A. Kindler, M.B. Wunder, J.F. Lowsky, J.C. 

Buoy, L. Satcowitz, A.L. Cade, J.D. Stark, K.L. Driese, T.W. Owens, S.J. Russo, and F. D’Erchia. 

2000. Colorado Gap Analysis Program: A Geographic Approach to Planning for Biological 

Diversity - Final Report, USGS Biological Resources Division, Gap Analysis Program and 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 

Schwin, M.A., and L. Minden. 1979. Utah reptile and amphibian latilong distribution. Utah Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publication No. 80-1. 

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. 

Shtatland, E. S., K. Klienman and E.M. Cain. 2004. A new strategy of model building in PROC 

LOGISTIC with automatic variable selection, validation, shrinkage and model averaging. SUGI 

29 Proceedings, paper 191-29. Montreal, Canada. WWW URL: 

http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/191-29.pdf 

Smits, P. C., S.G. Dellepiane and R.A. Schowengerdt. 1999. Quality assessment of image classification 

algorithms for land-cover mapping a review and a proposal for a cost-based approach. 

International Journal of Remote Sensing 20 1461-1486. 

Sneddon, L., M. Anderson, and K. Metzler. 1994. A classification and description of terrestrial community 

alliances in The Nature Conservancy's Eastern Region: First approximation. Unpublished report to 
SWReGAP 

199 

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service, Gap Analysis Program. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Heritage 

Task Force, Boston, MA. 116 pp. 

Specht, R.L. 1975. The report and its recommendations. Pages 11-16 in: F. Fenner, editor, 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. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 2nd edition, Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

Stehman, S.V. and R.L. Czaplewski. 1998. Design and analysis for thematic map accuracy assessment: 

Fundamental principles. Remote Sensing of Environment 64:331-344. 

Stoms, D.M., F.W. Davis, C.B. Cogan. 1992. Sensitivity of wildlife habitat models to uncertainties in GIS 

data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58:843-850. 

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, editors. A handbook for Gap 

Analysis. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow. 

Strong, T.R. and C.E. Bock. 1990. Bird Species Distribution Patterns in Riparian Habitats in Southeastern 

Arizona. The Condor 92:866-885. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. TNC Terrestrial Global Assessment Units, Ecoregions and Major Habitat 

Types - July 2005. Available on-line at: 

https://transfer.natureserve.org/download/longterm/Ecology/GIS_BASE_DATA. or at:

http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/ecoregional.shapefile/. Last accessed: January 2006. 

Thomas, K.A., K.A. Schulz, and K.G. Boykin. (In Review). A Gap perspective of the Sonoran Desert 

Ecoregion. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Research and Resource Management in the 

Southwestern Deserts: Borders, Boundaries, and Time Scales. 

Thompson, B.C., P.J. Crist, J.S. Prior-Magee, R.A. Deitner, D.L. Garber, and M.A. Hughes. 1996. Gap 

analysis of biological diversity conservation in New Mexico using geographic information 

systems. Research completion report, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

Las Cruces. 

Treitz, P. and P. Howarth. 2000. Integrating spectral, spatial, and terrain variables for forest ecosystem 

classification. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 66(3):305-317. 

UNESCO. 1973. International classification and mapping of vegetation. Paris. 

United States Geological Survey –National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Program. 1994. Field 

Methods for Vegetation Mapping. The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Systems Research 

Institute. December, 1994. 

United States Geological Survey(a). Geologic Provinces of the United States: Colorado Plateau. 

Available on-line: http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/province/coloplat.html [January 2006]. 

United States Geological Survey(b). Geologic Provinces of the United States: Interior Plain Province. 

Available on-line: http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/province/intplain.html [January 2006]. 

United States Geological Survey(c). Geologic Provinces of the United States: Rocky Mountains. Available 

on-line: http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/usgsnps/province/rockymtn.html [January 2006]. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS): 

2005-2015. Publication Number 05-19. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. Available on-line at: http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/cwcs/. Last accessed: April 2006. 

Van Horne, B. and J.A. Wiens. 1991. Forest Bird Habitat Suitability Models and the Development of 

General Habitat Models. Fish and Wildlife Research. Washington DC no. 8, 31 pp 

Verbyla, D.L. 1987. Classification trees: A new discrimination tool. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

17:1150-1152. 

Walters, R.E., and E. Sorenson, editors. 1983. Utah bird distribution: latilong study. Utah Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Publication 83-10. 

Wassink, Jan L. 1993. Mammals of the Central Rockies. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, 

Montana. 161 pp. 

Weakley, A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. Landaal, M. Gallyoun, and others, compilers. 1996. International 

classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of the Southeastern United States. 
SWReGAP 

200 

Working draft of April 1996. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern 

Conservation Science Department, Community Ecology Group. Chapel Hill, NC. 

West, N.E. and J.A. Young, 2000. Intermountain Valleys and Lower Mountain Slopes (Chapter 7). in

M.G. Barbour and W.D.Billings (eds.) North American Terrestrial Vegetation, 2nd ed. Cambridge 

Univ. Press, NY 

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. 

Wilcox, G., D.M. Theobald, J. Whisman, and N. Peterson. 2006. COMaP: Mapping the status and trends of 

Colorado’s protected areas. COMaP v.5 Technical Report. Natural Resource Ecology Lab, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

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. 

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, editors. 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic 

reference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Woodcock, C. and S. Gopal. 1992. Accuracy assessment of the Stanislaus Forest vegetation map using 

fuzzy sets. Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Remote Sensing Applications Conference, Orlando FL. 
SWReGAP 

201 

GLOSSARY 

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 Anderson 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 

at-sensor reflectance – Reflectance is the ratio of exiting solar radiation from the target 

divided by total incoming solar radiation. At-sensor reflectance, or apparent reflectance, 

is the combined reflectance from the earth’s surface and atmosphere. 

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 - generally, the variety of life and its interrelated processes 

biogeographic - relating to the geographical distribution of plants and animals 

biological diversity - see biodiversity 

cartographic - pertaining to the art or technique of making maps or charts 
SWReGAP 

202 

classify - 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) 

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 

deductive modeling – modeling approach using general information over the range of the 

species often obtained from literature to model species habitat. 

delineate - identifying the boundaries between more or less homogenous 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 Geographic Information System 

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 
SWReGAP 

203 

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. 

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 - 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 

hex/hexagon - typically refers to the EPA EMAP hexagonal grid of 635 square kilometer 

units 
SWReGAP 

204 

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 

inductive modeling – modeling approach using site specific information to model species 

habitat over the entire range. Data sources are often known point locations of species. 

lentic – still, e.g., water in a lake or pond 

lotic - flowing, e.g., water in a stream or river 

measure of agreement – analysis using two or more different datasets to measure the 

similarity or “agreement” between datasets. 

metadata - information about data, e.g., their source, lineage, content, structure, and 

availability 

minimum mapping unit - the smallest area that is depicted on a map 

neotropics - the zoo-geographic 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 

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 

polygon - an area enclosed by lines in a vector-based Geographic Information System 

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 

pro-active - acting in anticipation of an event as opposed to reacting after the fact 

range - the geographic limit of the species 
SWReGAP 

205 

range unit - a spatial, geographic unit to record and display species geographic range. 

raster format - a data structure that uses grid cells as fundamental units for analysis and 

manipulation in a Geographic Information System 

reach - a stream or river segment between inflowing tributaries 

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. These include 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 

supervised classification - the 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 

synoptic - constituting a brief statement or outline of a subject; presenting a summary 

tessellation - the division of a map into areas of equal and uniform shape such as the 

EPA- EMAP hexagon 
SWReGAP 

206 

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 - 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 definition, identification, 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 Geographic Information System 

virtual reality - a computer-generated simulation of reality with which users can interact 

using specialized peripherals such as data gloves and head-mounted computer graphic 

displays 

visual sensitivity analysis – sensitivity analysis using geographic information systems and 

concepts of sensitivity analysis (see sensitivity analysis) to provide insight into datasets 

used in modeling habitat. 

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. 
SWReGAP 

207 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

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) 

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 

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 

DLG-E Digital line graph - enhanced 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EDC EROS Data Center 

ECOMAP The National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units mapping project of 

the USDA Forest Service 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program 

EMAP-LC EMAP-Landscape Characterization (USEPA) 

EMSL Environmental Monitoring & Systems Laboratory (USEPA) 

EMTC Environmental Management Technical Center (NBS) 

EOS Earth Observing System 

EOSAT Earth Observation Satellite Company (the commercial operator of the Landsat 

satellite system) 

EOSDIS EOS Data & Information System 

ERL Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis (USEPA) 

EROS Earth Resources Observation Systems (USGS) 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute 

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 
SWReGAP 

208 

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 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IALE International Association of Landscape Ecology 

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 

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 

MSS Multi-Spectral Scanner 

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 

NERC National Ecology Research Center (Ft. Collins, CO) 

NMD National Mapping Division 

NPS National Park Service 

NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure 

NSTC National Science and Technology Council 

NVC National Vegetation Classification 

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 

RNA Research Natural Area 

SAB Science Advisory Board (USEPA) 

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 (used for 

U.S. census) 
SWReGAP 

209 

TM 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 

USFWS US Fish & Wildlife Service 

US-NVC US National Vegetation Classification 

US-NVCS US National Vegetation Classification System 

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator 

UVM University of Vermont 

WHRM Wildlife/habitat relationship model 

WISCLAND Wisconsin Initiative for Statewide Cooperation on Landscape Analysis and 

Data 
SWReGAP 

210 

APPENDICES 
SWReGAP 

211 

Appendix 1-1. List of Personnel 

State Last Name First 

Name 

Affiliation 

land cover habitat modeling Steward-ship Analysis Outreach Misc 

 

AZ Drost Charles USGS, Southwest Biological Science Center X X X 

AZ Dvorak Jennifer Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Falzarano Sarah USGS, Southwest Biological Science Center X X 

AZ Hill Mar-Elise Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Hunt Rob Northern Arizona University X X 

AZ Kline Chris Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Lubell Eric Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Persons Trevor Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Pohs Keith Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Robinson Don Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Thomas Kathryn USGS, Southwest Biological Science Center X X X X X 

AZ Thompson Kerry Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Turner Matt Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Tweiten Michael Northern Arizona University X 

AZ Wallace Cynthia USGS, Southwest Geographic Science Team X 

AZ Wynne J. Judson USGS, Southwest Biological Science Center X X 

CO Barringer Debra CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Berggren Scott CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Buechling Arne CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Cooley Casey Bureau of Land Management X 

CO Erickson Ami CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Fugate Steve CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Goralski Elizabeth CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Hamer Tammy CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X X 

CO Katers Laura CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO McGaugh Suzanne CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Mettenbrink Chris CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X X 

CO Musser Amanda CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Nicholas Paula Colorado Division of Wildlife X 

CO Oakes KatyJo CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X X 

CO O'Brien Lee CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X X X X X 

CO Osborne Dianne Bureau of Land Management X X 

CO Peterson Nate CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Rondeau Renee CSU, Colorado Natural Heritage Program X 

CO Schrupp Don Colorado Division of Wildlife X X X X X 

CO Siechrist Jack CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Sinley Jim Colorado Division of Wildlife X 

CO Theobald Dave CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Velasquez Cristian CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Waller Eric CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X X 

CO Ward Jesse CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Ward Sarah CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 
SWReGAP 

212 

State Last Name First 

Name 

Affiliation 

land cover habitat modeling Steward-ship Analysis Outreach Misc 

 

CO Welch Phillip CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

CO Wolk Brett CSU, Natural Resources Ecology Laboratory X 

NM Balanchandron Nikhil NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Boykin Kenneth NMSU/NMCFWRU X X X X X 

NM Casados Tommy NMSU/NMCFWRU X X 

NM Chavez Rachael NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Coble Dave NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Deitner Bob NMSU/NMCFWRU X X 

NM DeLorenzo Andrea NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Eckert Nick NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Ernst Andrea NMSU/NMCFWRU X X X X 

NM Fort Whitney NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Fort Lindsey NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Fox Jodi NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Godlewski Chris NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Kamienski Tomas NMSU/NMCFWRU X X 

NM King Cynthia NMSU/NMCFWRU X X 

NM La Sorte Frank NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Lanser Julie NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Lopez Veronica NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM McNown Brad NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Moore Amy NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Prasad Maritha NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Propeck-Gray Suzanne NMSU/NMCFWRU X X X 

NM Puttere Jennifer NMSU/NMCFWRU X X 

NM Rimbert Celine NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Schwenke Zach NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Shrader Scott NMSU/NMCFWRU X X X X 

NM Sizemore Erin NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Thompson Bruce NMDGF X X X X X 

NM Torrez Steve NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Weber Ed NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Wu Rob NMSU/NMCFWRU X 

NM Young Kendal NMSU/NMCFWRU X X 

NM Greenlee Janet NMSU/PSL X 

NV Blair Hank Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Bradford Dave EPA-Las Vegas X X X 

NV Brost Brian Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Cross Chad EPA-Las Vegas X 

NV Darby Melanie Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Dolans Peter Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Ellis Derrek Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Estep Brittany Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Frakes Neil Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Hahn Lisa Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 
SWReGAP 

213 

State Last Name First 

Name 

Affiliation 

land cover habitat modeling Steward-ship Analysis Outreach Misc 

 

NV Herndon Kristine UNLV X X 

NV Jantz Patrick Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Jones Bruce EPA-Las Vegas X 

NV Kepner Bill EPA-Las Vegas X X X X X 

NV Kreider Christoph

er 

Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Luna Melanie UNLV X X 

NV Sajwaj Todd Army Corps/ Lockheed/National Gap X X 

NV Schrenk Anna Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Semmands Joey Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Sindihar Sudamini Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

NV Weiner William Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition X 

Regio

n 

Prior-Magee Julie USGS/National Gap X X X X X X 

UT Adair Bill USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Barfuss Brad USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Chowdary Vinod USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Cox Steven USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Ducharme Marie USU, RSGIS Lab X 

UT Edgar Jonathan USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Garrard Chris USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Gilbert Jarom USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Graves Scott USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Hurd Wendy USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Johnson Rob USU, RSGIS Lab X 

UT Kirby Jessica USU, RSGIS Lab X X X 

UT Langs Lisa USU, RSGIS Lab X X X X 

UT Lowry John USU, RSGIS Lab X X X X X 

UT Luce Alan USU, RSGIS Lab X 

UT Manis Gerald USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT McGinty Chris USU, RSGIS Lab X 

UT Plourde Line USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Ramsey Doug USU, RSGIS Lab X X X X X 

UT Rieth Wendy USU, RSGIS Lab X X X 

UT Sajwaj Todd USU, RSGIS Lab X X 

UT Sant Eric USU, RSGIS Lab X 

UT Terletzky Pat USU, RSGIS Lab X 

UT Wolbrink Mark USU, RSGIS Lab X X 
SWReGAP 

214 

Appendix 2-1. Distribution of all samples used for mapping in the 

SWReGAP region. 

Samples collected via air photo interpretation (3 % of total) were collected exclusively by the Utah team. 

Samples collected via DOQ/Terra Server interpretation were collected by the Arizona and Utah teams 

(4%). Samples collected via image (Landsat) interpretation (12%) were collected exclusively by the 

Colorado team, often with interpretive cues from Terraserver. Samples obtained from existing databases 

(32%) and collected through SWReGAP fieldwork (49%) represent the collective efforts of the five 

mapping teams. 

Source 

 

Air Photo 

Interpretation 

Image (Landsat) 

Interpretation 

DOQ/Terra Server 

Interpretation 

Cooperator 

Databases 

SWReGAP 

Fieldwork 

Total Samples by Land 

Cover Class 

 

SPARSELY VEGETATED/BARREN CLASSES 

 Barren Lands, Non-specific 45 55 222 322 

 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 82 54 332 64 393 925 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 1 38 27 161 227 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 12 3 67 17 309 408 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 3 43 59 306 411 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 13 86 53 117 269 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 38 7 42 140 53 280 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 66 32 56 154 

 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 5 5 

 North American Alpine Ice Field 4 25 2 31 

 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 137 30 167 

 North American Warm Desert Badland 12 12 

 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 2 9 204 215 

 North American Warm Desert Pavement 3 15 33 51 

 North American Warm Desert Playa 44 131 175 

 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 13 11 24 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 117 6 27 236 83 469 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 41 97 25 163 

 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 180 34 94 244 108 660 

 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 22 22 

 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 22 14 9 45 

 Subtotal 475 208 804 1,258 2,290 5,035 

DECIDUOUS FOREST CLASSES 

 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 358 59 328 1,040 893 2,678 

 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 30 87 16 46 179 

 Subtotal 388 59 415 1,056 939 2,857 

EVERGREEN FOREST CLASSES 

 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 66 92 128 1,648 2,320 4,254 

 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 36 424 1,753 2,213 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 121 121 

 Madrean Encinal 116 74 190 

 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 40 398 438 

 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 469 617 1,086 

 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 2 28 30 

 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 7 7 

 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and Woodland 46 46 
SWReGAP 

215 

Source 

 

Air Photo 

Interpretation 

Image (Landsat) 

Interpretation 

DOQ/Terra Server 

Interpretation 

Cooperator 

Databases 

SWReGAP 

Fieldwork 

Total Samples by Land 

Cover Class 

 

 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 33 33 

 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 26 26 

 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 44 51 4 895 752 1,746 

 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 12 12 

 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 136 23 7 590 218 974 

 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 92 37 76 243 448 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 92 19 75 1,187 480 1,853 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 158 12 108 203 481 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 21 1 90 45 157 

 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland 17 17 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 39 136 449 227 851 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 128 162 39 1,209 2,255 3,793 

 Subtotal 776 495 339 7,303 9,863 18,776 

MIXED FOREST CLASS 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 98 27 59 312 267 763 

 Subtotal 98 27 59 312 267 763 

SCRUB/SHRUB CLASSES 

 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 228 816 1,044 

 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 601 475 1,076 

 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 104 104 208 

 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 216 78 294 

 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 15 15 30 

 Coahuilan Chaparral 43 6 49 

 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 2 6 36 450 494 

 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 11 4 39 46 162 262 

 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 105 56 168 155 311 795 

 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 11 13 115 139 

 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 82 1,821 1,903 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 28 107 156 1,622 4,524 6,437 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 18 16 141 151 326 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 60 36 613 3,313 4,022 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 32 8 30 62 284 416 

 Mogollon Chaparral 2 303 480 785 

 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 429 548 977 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 26 3 1 12 42 

 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 188 437 105 1,039 763 2,532 

 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 124 221 26 371 

 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 74 821 736 1,631 

 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2 67 147 216 

 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 65 65 

 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 15 133 148 

 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 106 520 687 1,313 

 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 44 34 316 394 

 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 0 

 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 554 145 153 852 

 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 3 21 1 25 

 Subtotal 390 1,384 787 7,593 16,692 26,846 

GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS CLASSES 

 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 1,187 501 1,688 
SWReGAP 

216 

Source 

 

Air Photo 

Interpretation 

Image (Landsat) 

Interpretation 

DOQ/Terra Server 

Interpretation 

Cooperator 

Databases 

SWReGAP 

Fieldwork 

Total Samples by Land 

Cover Class 

 

 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 35 3 3 41 

 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 119 3 122 

 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 77 57 134 

 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 6 276 233 515 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 3 1 7 448 459 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 13 96 286 395 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 228 118 260 1,405 1,869 3,880 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 24 18 389 1,505 1,936 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 4 27 845 2,649 3,525 

 Madrean Juniper Savanna 30 100 130 

 North Pacific Montane Grassland 19 19 

 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 66 1 219 68 354 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 67 37 27 242 188 561 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 89 71 135 295 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 31 29 45 791 497 1,393 

 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 436 360 44 840 

 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 4 2 6 

 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 1,180 1,125 889 3,194 

 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 0 

 Subtotal 395 1,976 378 7,244 9,494 19,487 

WOODY WETLAND CLASSES 

 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 83 4 381 468 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 45 22 294 1,601 1,962 

 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Rip. Woodland & Shrubland 101 118 219 

 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 33 22 33 88 

 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 4 113 42 159 

 North American Warm Desert Wash 6 58 160 224 

 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 73 37 155 383 207 855 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 47 9 35 453 141 685 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 2 164 59 225 

 Western Great Plains Floodplain 398 2 400 

 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 723 84 31 838 

 Subtotal 122 1,212 338 1,676 2,775 6,123 

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND CLASSES 

 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 4 4 

 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 42 104 194 340 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 93 6 110 352 141 702 

 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 9 9 

 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 7 7 

 Subtotal 93 6 152 456 355 1,062 

ALTERED OR DISTURBED CLASSES 

 Disturbed, Non-specific 1 1 10 12 

 Disturbed, Oil well 0 

 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 50 209 483 742 

 Invasive Annual Grassland 6 57 4 275 528 870 

 Invasive Perennial Forbland 21 16 37 

 Invasive Perennial Grassland 1 194 33 330 217 775 

 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 31 226 11 114 179 561 

 Recently Burned 21 27 1 15 35 99 
SWReGAP 

217 

Source 

 

Air Photo 

Interpretation 

Image (Landsat) 

Interpretation 

DOQ/Terra Server 

Interpretation 

Cooperator 

Databases 

SWReGAP 

Fieldwork 

Total Samples by Land 

Cover Class 

 

 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 37 28 42 91 4 202 

 Recently Logged Areas 73 16 6 113 46 254 

 Recently Mined or Quarried 52 54 32 138 

 Subtotal 169 651 97 1,223 1,550 3,690 

OTHER CLASSES 

 Agriculture 10 4,625 1,290 977 6,902 

 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 104 77 6 187 

 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 189 51 7 247 

 Barren Lands, Non-specific 45 55 222 322 

 Open Water 18 756 182 216 1,172 

 Subtotal 28 5,674 45 1,655 1,428 8,830 

 Grand Total by Source 2,934 11,692 3,414 29,776 45,653 93,469 
SWReGAP 

218 

Appendix 2-2. Total land cover mapped in square kilometers 

summarized by land cover class and state political boundaries. 

Land Cover in Square Kilometers 

 

Arizona 

Colorado 

Nevada 

New Mexico 

Utah 

Region Wide 

 

SPARSLEY VEGETATED/BARREN CLASSES 

 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,119 11 195 54 42 1,421 

 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 6,974 675 2 2,466 14,196 24,313 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 352 130 79 735 1,807 3,103 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 4 2,487 382 2,873 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 14 46 6,234 2 11,284 17,581 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 730 258 482 1,828 3,297 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 573 470 317 1,360 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 4 20 18 3 1 46 

 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 23 23 

 North American Alpine Ice Field 2 21 23 

 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 1,016 16 1,695 2,728 

 North American Warm Desert Badland 34 78 112 

 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 761 1,842 838 127 3,568 

 North American Warm Desert Pavement 45 168 180 393 

 North American Warm Desert Playa 48 527 535 6 1,115 

 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 205 78 700 8 992 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 5 2,888 148 7 815 3,863 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 584 177 761 

 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 92 989 417 1,467 2,965 

 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 123 123 

 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 88 221 309 

 Subtotal 11,972 5,695 12,018 8,805 32,478 70,969 

DECIDUOUS FOREST CLASSES 

 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 443 11,436 1,289 1,483 6,335 20,986 

 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 1 887 888 

 Subtotal 443 11,436 1,290 1,483 7,222 21,874 

EVERGREEN FOREST CLASSES 

 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 32,495 15,136 27,864 22,360 97,855 

 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 3,414 36,376 10,986 50,776 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 635 32 666 

 Madrean Encinal 3,008 1,350 4,358 

 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 4,008 1,725 5,733 

 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 13,163 8,754 21,917 

 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 123 672 795 

 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 2 2 

 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and Woodland 209 209 

 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 106 106 

 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 42 42 

 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 1,030 3,152 196 2,865 1,710 8,953 

 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 6 6 

 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 6,940 7 1,817 8,764 

 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 439 3,603 216 1,610 1,427 7,295 
SWReGAP 

219 

Land Cover in Square Kilometers 

 

Arizona 

Colorado 

Nevada 

New Mexico 

Utah 

Region Wide 

 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 223 10,189 190 982 3,230 14,814 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 120 8,151 175 640 1,273 10,359 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 2 369 14 376 39 801 

 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland 20 21 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 1 4,835 10,468 15,305 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 16,240 10,792 7 21,163 2,019 50,221 

 Subtotal 74,266 63,173 38,188 78,476 44,893 298,998 

MIXED FOREST CLASS 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 1,951 84 182 1,222 3,439 

 Subtotal 1,951 84 182 1,222 3,439 

SHRUB/SCRUB CLASSES 

 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 16,546 15,137 31,683 

 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 6,319 9 21,079 27,407 

 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,816 1,597 4,413 

 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 187 5,538 5,725 

 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 109 78 187 

 Coahuilan Chaparral 93 94 

 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon Ttea Shrubland 4,037 97 4 141 9,031 13,310 

 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 489 66 329 1,517 2,401 

 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 354 1,765 9,417 11,535 

 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 162 163 

 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 31,799 3,635 35,434 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 5,200 13,384 66,020 3,934 19,941 108,480 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 75 1,019 3,037 4,130 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 7,005 2,324 50,646 3,791 15,527 79,294 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 1 1,924 626 2,550 

 Mogollon Chaparral 9,637 425 870 583 11,515 

 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 5,416 10,520 826 16,762 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 110 

 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 128 10,229 108 1,888 6,597 18,950 

 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2,305 266 252 2,823 

 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 38,922 19,030 808 58,760 

 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,011 1,528 10 2,549 

 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 86 3 89 

 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,391 2 5,393 

 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 39,790 39,791 

 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 6,074 13 79 855 7,021 

 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 10 1,787 1,797 

 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 8,682 5,212 13,894 

 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 43 4 47 

 Subtotal 149,506 39,947 182,252 61,821 72,778 506,307 

GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS CLASSES 

 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 11,353 34,358 45,711 

 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 120 120 

 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 804 804 

 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 16 970 986 

 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,275 523 1,798 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 4,002 281 1 1,298 9 5,590 
SWReGAP 

220 

Land Cover in Square Kilometers 

 

Arizona 

Colorado 

Nevada 

New Mexico 

Utah 

Region Wide 

 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 1 8,504 17,817 283 14,049 40,654 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 11,250 863 3,114 16,400 2,014 33,640 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 15,474 3,354 5,974 14,486 8,330 47,618 

 Madrean Juniper Savanna 336 1 657 994 

 North Pacific Montane Grassland 27 27 

 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,447 20 19 293 2,779 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 1,507 24 147 499 2,177 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 2,149 9,808 11,956 

 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 587 7,252 2 1,859 594 10,294 

 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 4,365 701 5,066 

 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 18 

 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 45,651 67,511 113,162 

 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 1 

 Subtotal 43,019 76,513 28,254 149,301 26,311 323,395 

WOODY WETLAND CLASSES 

 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,068 293 1,360 

 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 1,237 2,281 10,673 2,269 7,310 23,770 

 

North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 180 32 194 20 426 

 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 801 25 3 3 832 

 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 283 5 125 10 422 

 North American Warm Desert Wash 153 1 288 199 10 652 

 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 24 569 787 847 2,226 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 2,820 3 103 298 3,224 

 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 215 68 5 4 292 

 Western Great Plains Floodplain 836 836 

 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 859 855 1,714 

 Subtotal 2,678 7,581 12,162 4,540 8,795 35,754 

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND CLASSES 

 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 2 

 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 32 45 409 86 482 1,053 

 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,331 10 136 479 1,956 

 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 2 2 

 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 41 41 

 Subtotal 32 1,376 423 263 961 3,054 

ALTERED OR DISTURBED CLASSES 

 Disturbed, Non-specific 2 90 93 

 Disturbed, Oil Well 46 46 

 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 127 634 1,134 48 695 2,638 

 Invasive Annual Grassland 72 372 4,611 3,237 8,291 

 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 1 

 Invasive Perennial Grassland 13 2,083 187 30 526 2,839 

 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 484 493 149 27 456 1,609 

 Recently Burned 168 313 574 806 172 2,033 

 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 231 458 689 

 Recently Logged Areas 541 8 287 836 

 Recently Mined or Quarried 470 89 322 182 177 1,240 

 Subtotal 1,334 4,759 6,977 1,101 6,144 20,315 

OTHER CLASSES 

 Agriculture 5,635 52,901 2,223 6,025 9,197 75,981 
SWReGAP 

221 

Land Cover in Square Kilometers 

 

Arizona 

Colorado 

Nevada 

New Mexico 

Utah 

Region Wide 

 

 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 4,048 1,074 210 1,108 1,099 7,539 

 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,711 2,013 726 977 1,997 7,425 

 Open Water 702 1,316 1,481 792 6,733 11,023 

 Subtotal 12,096 57,304 4,640 8,902 19,026 101,968 

 

 Total by State Political Boundary 295,346 269,735 286,288 314,874 219,830 1,386,073 
SWReGAP 

 222 

Appendix 2-3. Ecological similarity codes, types, and descriptions for four 

major types of ecological similarity recognized within the region. 

 

Ecological 

Similarity 

Code 

Ecological 

Similarity 

Type 

 Ecological Similarity Description 

 

Where reference and mapped classes share the same NLCD Class, such as: 

N30 Barren (Includes all Barren Lands) 

N40 Forest (Includes all Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest and Mixed Forest types) 

N50 Shrubland (Includes all Shrub, Dwarf Shrub and Shrub/Scrub types) 

N70 Herbaceous (Includes all Grassland, Herbaceous, Savanna and Shrub-Steppe types) 

A 

Physiognomic 

Structure 

(Map and 

reference have 

same NLCD 

class) 

N90 

Wetlands (Includes all Wetland, Riparian, Emergent Wetlands, Wet Meadows and Greasewood 

Flats) 

 

B 

Dominant 

Species 

Composition 

Where reference and mapped classes share dominant/diagnostic species as specified in concept of Ecological 

Systems. For example, if systems share dominant or codominant species, then species composition is similar. 

If systems share species that are only present, then species composition is not similar. Would also apply if the 

confusion occurs between systems where the dominant/codominant species is common, but has been identified 

to a different subspecies (i.e. Artemisia tridentata spp.). 

 

C Juxtaposition 

Where reference and mapped classes commonly form a mosaic, such as where patch or linear systems occur 

within matrix systems, or where broad ecotonal boundaries between the classes occur with regularity. This 

often relates to minimum mapping unit (scale) issues with mosaics of similar landcover types. Refrain from 

using this code when the possibility of juxtaposition is only a rare occurrence. 

 

Where reference and mapped classes share substrates with special properties that ecologically define each 

Ecological System. Apply with the following substrates only: 

 - Eolian (sandsheets and dunes) 

 - Bedrock (exposed weathering parent material); sparse vegetation (Barren) classes only 

 - High Salinity (exposed marine shales, saline overflow /playas) 

D Special 

Substrates 

 
223

Appendix 2-4. Example of an original error matrix for mapping zone UT-5. This matrix was produced using 20% withheld data. This table and similar tables for other mapping zones can be found at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html

R E F E R E N C E 

LAND COVER CLASS NAME class code 

S009 

S023 

S028 

S040 

S050 

S054 

S055 

S065 

S071 

S078 

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon S009 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland S023 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland S028 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland S040 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrubland S050 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland S054 0 0 0 1 0 54 12 2 2 6 

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland S055 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 1 2 1 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub S065 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe S071 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 18 2 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe S078 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland S090 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat S096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

M A P P E D 

Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland S118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 6 6 5 18 2 59 25 6 22 9 ACCURACY 83% 67% 100% 94% 50% 92% 32% 33% 82% 0% 3

 Kappa: 0.603367 

Standard error of kappa: 0.0304283 

 Z-Score for kappa: 19.8291 
224

Appendix 2-5. Example for UT-5 of ecological type similarity matrix showing the applicatisimilarity codes (Appendix 2-3) to off-diagonal (misclassification) cells from the original err

(Appendix 2-4). 

This table and similar tables for other mapping zones can be found at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html

R E F E R E N C E 

CLASS S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S118 S009 ABCD 0 S023 ABCD S028 ABCD S040 ABCD C S050 ABCD S054 C ABCD ABC AC BC BC C C S055 ABC ABCD AC C BC S065 AC ABCD S071 C C AC BC C ABCD ABC 0 0 S078 BC ABCD C S090 C ABCD S096 BCD ABCD 

M A P P E D 

S118 ABCD 
SWReGAP 

225 

Appendix 2-6. Relative similarity scoring system based on four major 

ecological similarity types (Appendix 2-3). 

Ecological 

Similarity 

Code 

Relative 

Similarity 

Category 

Example Explanation 

Relative 

Similarity 

Score 

No Similarity 

(0) INCORRECT 

Intermountain Basins Mixed 

Salt Desert Scrub versus 

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest 

& Woodland 

No Major Types of 

Ecological Similarity are 

shared between these two 

Ecological Systems. 

Relationship is Incorrect. 

1 

A 

C 

D 

SOMEWHAT 

SIMILAR 

Rocky Mountain Gambel-Oak 

Mixed Montane Shrubland

versus Inter-Mountain Basins 

Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 

These two Ecological 

Systems are nested within the 

same NLCD Class for 

shrub/scrub and therefore 

share A- Physiognomy. No 

other Major Type of 

Ecological Similarity is 

shared. Relationship is 

Somewhat Similar. 

2 

B 

AB 

AC 

AD 

BC 

BD 

CD 

MODERATELY 

SIMILAR 

Inter-Mountain Basins 

Greasewood Flat versus 

Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 

These two Ecological 

Systems are similar in terms 

of C- Juxtaposition and DSpecial Substrates. 

Relationship is Moderately 

Similar. 

3 

ABC 

ABD 

ACD 

BCD 

ABCD 

VERY 

SIMILAR 

Inter-Mountain West Aspen - 

Mixed Conifer Forest & 

Woodland versus Rocky 

Mountain Aspen Forest & 

Woodland 

These two Ecological 

Systems are similar relative to 

A- Physiognomic Structure, 

B- Dominant Species 

Composition and CJuxtaposition. 

Relationship is Very Similar. 

4 

Diagonal 

Cell 

(blank) 

CORRECT Mogollon Chaparral versus 

Mogollon Chaparral 

The reference and mapped 

classes are identical. 

Relationship is Correct. 

5 
226

Appendix 2-7. Example for UT-5 relative similarity scoring matrix showing the application similarity scores to off-diagonal (misclassification) cells of the ecological similarity matrix (This table and similar tables for other mapping zones can be found at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html

R E F E R E N C E 

CLASS S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S118 S009 5 1 S023 5 S028 5 S040 5 2 S050 5 S054 2 5 4 2 3 3 2 2 S055 4 5 2 2 3 S065 2 5 S071 2 2 2 3 2 5 4 1 1 S078 3 5 2 S090 2 5 S096 4 5 

M A P P E D 

S118 5 
227

Appendix 2-8. Revised error matrix: Correct and very similar are considered “correct” (i.to diagonal). This table and similar tables for other mapping zones can be found at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html

R E F E R E N C E 

CLASS S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S009 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 S023 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S028 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S040 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 S050 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S054 0 0 0 1 0 56 0 2 2 6 3 1 S055 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 2 1 0 0 S065 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 S071 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 18 0 1 1 S078 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 S090 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 S096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

M A P P E D 

S118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 6 6 5 18 2 59 25 6 22 9 8 4 ACCURACY 83% 67% 100% 94% 50% 95% 80% 50% 82% 22% 38% 25% 
228

Appendix 2-9. Revised error matrix: Correct, very similar, and moderately similar are con

(i.e. scores 4 and 3 moved to diagonal). 

This table and similar tables for other mapping zones can be found at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html

R E F E R E N C E 

CLASS S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S009 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 S023 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S028 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S040 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 S050 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S054 0 0 0 1 0 58 0 0 0 0 3 1 S055 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 S065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 S071 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 1 S078 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 S090 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 S096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

M A P P E D 

S118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 6 6 5 18 2 59 25 6 22 9 8 4 ACCURACY 83% 67% 100% 94% 50% 98% 96% 100% 100% 100% 38% 25% 
229

Appendix 2-10. Revised error matrix: Correct, very similar, moderately similar, and someconsidered “correct” (i.e. scores 4, 3 and 2 moved to diagonal). This table and similar tables for other mapping zones can be found at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/mapquality.html

R E F E R E N C E 

CLASS S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S009 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 S023 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S028 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S040 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S050 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S054 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 S055 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 S065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 S071 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 1 S078 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 S090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 S096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 

M A P P E D 

S118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 6 6 5 18 2 59 25 6 22 9 8 4 ACCURACY 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100% 88% 75% 
230

Appendix 2-11. Example for UT-5. Summary of user’s accuracy for all levels of fuzzy asseoriginal error matrix. This table and graph summarize map quality given different levels of multiple class membership (expressed by recognized ecological sFor example, recognizing the possibility of multiple class membership between cover class S055 (Great Basin Xeric Sagebrush Shrublaclasses at the ‘very similar’ level, “user accuracy” for S055 increases from 57% to 83%. 

Land Cover Class 

USER'S ACCURACY 

S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S118 

Vry.-Somewhat Similar 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% Vry.-Mod. Similar 83% 100% 100% 94% 50% 92% 100% 100% 82% 90% 75% 100% 100% Vry. Similar 83% 100% 100% 94% 100% 79% 83% 75% 60% 50% 75% 50% 100% 20% Validation 83% 100% 100% 94% 100% 67% 57% 67% 60% 0% 75% 50% 100% No. Samples 6 4 5 18 1 81 14 3 30 2 4 2 6 

User's Accuracy: Fuzzy Assessment, UT-5

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S118 TOT

Vry.-Somewhat SimilarVry.-Mod. SimilarVry. Similar20% Validation
231

Appendix 2-12. Example for UT-5. Summary of producer’s accuracy for all levels of fuzzy the original error matrix. This table and graph summarize map quality given different levels of multiple class membership (expressed by recognized ecological sFor example, recognizing the possibility of multiple class membership between cover class S055 (Great Basin Xeric Sagebrush Shrublaclasses at the ‘very similar’ level, “producers accuracy” for S055 increases from 32% to 80%.

Land Cover Class 

PRODUCERS'S ACCURACY 

S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S118 

Vry.-Somewhat Similar 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100% 88% 75% 100% Vry.-Mod. Similar 83% 67% 100% 94% 50% 98% 96% 100% 100% 100% 38% 25% 100% Vry. Similar 83% 67% 100% 94% 50% 95% 80% 50% 82% 22% 38% 25% 100% 20% Validation 83% 67% 100% 94% 50% 92% 32% 33% 82% 0% 38% 25% 100% No. Samples 6 6 5 18 2 59 25 6 22 9 8 4 6 

Producer's Accuracy: Fuzzy Assessment, UT-5

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

S009 S023 S028 S040 S050 S054 S055 S065 S071 S078 S090 S096 S118 TOT

Vry.-Somewhat SimilarVry.-Mod. SimilarVry. Similar20% Validation
232

Appendix 2-13. Regional summary of land cover area and validation results sorted into 5 vand organized by NLCD land cover classes. The first validation group contains classes that were not assessed (na) regionally because of limited validation plots (n < 20) or were nothe primary focus of the mapping effort. 

Land Area 

MAPPED LAND COVER CLASSES (SWReGAP) Area Sq. Km Percent Total Area Numb

Referen

Sampl

GRP 1: VALIDATION NOT ASSESSED FOR 5-STATE REGION 

Sparsely Vegetated/Barren Classes Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 1,360 0.10% Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 46 0.00% Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 23 0.00% North American Alpine Ice Field 23 0.00% North American Warm Desert Badland 112 0.01% North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 992 0.07% Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 123 0.01% Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 309 0.02% Evergreen Forest Classes Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 795 0.06% Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 2 0.00% Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and Woodland 209 0.02% Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 106 0.01% Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 42 0.00% Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 6 0.00% Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 7,295 0.53% Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 10,359 0.75% Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland 21 0.00% Shrub/Scrub Classes Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 187 0.01% Coahuilan Chaparral 94 0.01% Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 110 0.01% Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 89 0.01% Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 1,797 0.13% Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 47 0.00% Grassland/Herbaceous Classes Central Mixedgrass Prairie 120 0.01% North Pacific Montane Grassland 27 0.00% Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 0.00% Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 0.00% 
233

Land Area 

MAPPED LAND COVER CLASSES (SWReGAP) Area Sq. Km Percent Total Area Numb

Referen

Sampl

Woody Wetland Classes North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 832 0.06% Emergent Wetland Classes Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 0.00% Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 2 0.00% Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 41 0.00% Altered or Disturbed Classes Disturbed, Non-specific 93 0.01% Disturbed, Oil Well 46 0.00% Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 0.00% Recently Burned 2,033 0.15% Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 689 0.05% Other Classes Agriculture 75,981 5.48% Developed, Medium - High Intensity 7,539 0.54% Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 7,425 0.54% Open Water 11,023 0.80% 

TOTAL AREA NOT ASSESSED 130,020 9.39% GRP 2: VALIDATION RESULTS WITH < 30% AGREEMENT (USER'S PERSPECT.) 

Grassland/Herbaceous Classes Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 986 0.07% Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,798 0.13% Madrean Juniper Savanna 994 0.07% 

TOTAL AREA < 30% AGREEMENT 3,778 0.27% GRP 3: VALIDATION WITH 30 - 49% AGREEMENT (USER'S PERSPECTIVE) 

Sparsely Vegetated/Barren Classes North American Warm Desert Pavement 393 0.03% Evergreen Forest Classes Madrean Encinal 4,358 0.31% Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 5,733 0.41% Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 801 0.06% Mixed Forest Class Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 3,439 0.25% Shrub/Scrub Classes Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 31,683 2.29% Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 27,407 1.98% Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 4,413 0.32% Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 5,725 0.41% 
234

Land Area 

MAPPED LAND COVER CLASSES (SWReGAP) Area Sq. Km Percent Total Area Numb

Referen

Sampl

Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,549 0.18% Grassland/Herbaceous Classes Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 0 0.00% Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 33,640 2.43% Woody Wetland Classes North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrub 426 0.03% North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 422 0.03% North American Warm Desert Wash 652 0.05% Emergent Wetland Classes Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,956 0.14% Altered or Disturbed Classes Invasive Annual Grassland 8,291 0.60% 

TOTAL AREA 30 - 49% AGREEMENT 131,888 9.52% GRP 4: VALIDATION WITH 50 - 70% AGREEMENT (USER'S PERSPECTIVE) 

Sparsely Vegetated/Barren Classes Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,421 0.10% Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,873 0.21% Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 3,297 0.24% North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 2,728 0.20% North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 3,568 0.26% North American Warm Desert Playa 1,115 0.08% Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 761 0.05% Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 2,965 0.21% Evergreen Forest Classes Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 97,855 7.06% Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 50,776 3.66% Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 666 0.05% Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 21,917 1.58% Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 8,953 0.65% Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 8,764 0.63% Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 14,814 1.07% Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 15,305 1.10% Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 50,221 3.62% Shrub/Scrub Classes Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 13,310 0.96% Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 2,401 0.17% Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 11,535 0.83% Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 163 0.01% Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 35,434 2.56% Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 108,480 7.83% 1
235

Land Area 

MAPPED LAND COVER CLASSES (SWReGAP) Area Sq. Km Percent Total Area Numb

Referen

Sampl

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 4,130 0.30% Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 79,294 5.72% Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 2,550 0.18% Mogollon Chaparral 11,515 0.83% Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2,823 0.20% Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,393 0.39% Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 7,021 0.51% Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 45,711 3.30% Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 804 0.06% Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 5,590 0.40% Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 40,654 2.93% Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 47,618 3.44% Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 2,177 0.16% Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 11,956 0.86% Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 10,294 0.74% Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 5,066 0.37% Woody Wetland Classes Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrub 1,360 0.10% Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 23,770 1.71% Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 2,226 0.16% Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 3,224 0.23% Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 292 0.02% Western Great Plains Floodplain 836 0.06% Emergent Wetland Classes North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 1,053 0.08% Altered or Disturbed Classes Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 2,638 0.19% Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,839 0.20% Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,609 0.12% Recently Mined or Quarried 1,240 0.09% 

TOTAL AREA 50 - 70% AGREEMENT 783,005 56.48% GRP 5: VALIDATION WITH > 70% AGREEMENT (USER'S PERSPECTIVE) 

Sparsely Vegetated/Barren Classes Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 24,313 1.75% Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 3,103 0.22% Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 17,581 1.27% Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 3,863 0.28% Deciduous Forest Classes Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 20,986 1.51% Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 888 0.06% 
236

Land Area 

MAPPED LAND COVER CLASSES (SWReGAP) Area Sq. Km Percent Total Area Numb

Referen

Sampl

Shrub/Scrub Classes Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 16,762 1.21% Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 18,950 1.37% Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 58,760 4.24% Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 39,791 2.87% Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 13,894 1.00% Grassland/Herbaceous Classes Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,779 0.20% Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 113,162 8.16% Woody Wetland Classes Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,714 0.12% Altered or Disturbed Classes Recently Logged Areas 836 0.06% 

TOTAL AREA > 70% AGREEMENT 337,382 24.32% TOTALS FOR 5-STATE REGION 1,386,073 100.00% 17
SWReGAP 

 

237 

Appendix 3-1. List of species reviewed and modeled in Southwest Regional 

Gap Analysis Project (* Indicates species not modeled in effort). 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

A 173429 CO COUCH'S SPADEFOOT Scaphiopus couchii 

A 173438 UT GREEN FROG Rana clamitans 

A 173440 CO WOOD FROG Rana sylvatica 

A 173441 NM BULLFROG Rana catesbeiana 

A 173443 CO NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG Rana pipiens 

A 173446 NV RED-LEGGED FROG Rana aurora 

A 173447 NM RIO GRANDE LEOPARD FROG Rana berlandieri 

A 173448 CO PLAINS LEOPARD FROG Rana blairi 

A 173451 NM CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG Rana chiricahuensis 

A 173454 NV MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG Rana muscosa 

A 173457 NV RELICT LEOPARD FROG Rana onca 

A 173458 UT SPOTTED FROG* Rana pretiosa 

A 173461 AZ TARAHUMARA FROG* Rana tarahumarae 

A 173462 AZ YAVAPAI LEOPARD FROG Rana yavapaiensis 

A 173468 CO GREAT PLAINS NARROWMOUTH TOAD Gastrophryne olivacea 

A 173476 NM WOODHOUSE'S TOAD Bufo woodhousii 

A 173481 AZ COLORADO RIVER TOAD Bufo alvarius 

A 173482 CO WESTERN TOAD Bufo boreas 

A 173484 NM GREAT PLAINS TOAD Bufo cognatus 

A 173485 NM GREEN TOAD Bufo debilis 

A 173490 AZ SOUTHWESTERN TOAD Bufo microscaphus 

A 173491 NM RED-SPOTTED TOAD Bufo punctatus 

A 173492 AZ SONORAN GREEN TOAD Bufo retiformis 

A 173493 NM TEXAS TOAD Bufo speciosus 

A 173510 AZ CANYON TREEFROG Hyla arenicolor 

A 173513 AZ MOUNTAIN TREEFROG Hyla eximia 

A 173520 CO NORTHERN CRICKET FROG Acris crepitans 

A 173525 AZ WESTERN CHORUS FROG* Pseudacris triseriata 

A 173534 AZ LOWLAND BURROWING TREEFROG Pternohyla fodiens 

A 173549 AZ AFRICAN CLAWED FROG* Xenopus laevis 

A 173592 AZ TIGER SALAMANDER Ambystoma tigrinum 

A 173663 NM JEMEZ MOUNTAINS SALAMANDER Plethodon neomexicanus 

A 173702 NM SACRAMENTO MOUNTAIN 

SALAMANDER 

Aneides hardii 

A 206989 NM PLAINS SPADEFOOT Spea bombifrons 

A 206991 CO GREAT BASIN SPADEFOOT Spea intermontana 

A 206993 AZ NEW MEXICO SPADEFOOT Spea multiplicata 

A 207312 UT BOREAL CHORUS FROG Pseudacris maculata 

A 207313 NV PACIFIC CHORUS FROG Pseudacris regilla 

A 207724 NM BARKING FROG Eleutherodactylus augusti 

A 550236 NV AMARGOSA TOAD Bufo nelsoni 

A 550241 AZ RAMSEY CANYON LEOPARD FROG* Rana subaquavocalis 

A 550546 UT COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG Rana luteiventris 

B 174469 NM COMMON LOON Gavia immer 

B 174470 CO YELLOW-BILLED LOON Gavia adamsii 
SWReGAP 

 

238 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 174474 CO RED-THROATED LOON Gavia stellata 

B 174475 CO PACIFIC LOON Gavia pacifica 

B 174479 CO RED-NECKED GREBE Podiceps grisegena 

B 174482 UT HORNED GREBE Podiceps auritus 

B 174485 NM EARED GREBE Podiceps nigricollis 

B 174503 NM WESTERN GREBE Aechmophorus occidentalis 

B 174505 NM PIED-BILLED GREBE Podilymbus podiceps 

B 174684 CO AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 

B 174717 UT DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT Phalacrocorax auritus 

B 174773 NM GREAT BLUE HERON Ardea herodias 

B 174793 NM GREEN HERON Butorides virescens 

B 174803 NM CATTLE EGRET Bubulcus ibis 

B 174813 NM SNOWY EGRET Egretta thula 

B 174827 NM LITTLE BLUE HERON Egretta caerulea 

B 174832 NM BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nycticorax nycticorax 

B 174842 CO YELLOW-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nyctanassa violacea 

B 174846 NM LEAST BITTERN Ixobrychus exilis 

B 174856 NM AMERICAN BITTERN Botaurus lentiginosus 

B 174926 NM WHITE-FACED IBIS Plegadis chihi 

B 174987 NV TUNDRA SWAN Cygnus columbianus 

B 174992 CO TRUMPETER SWAN Cygnus buccinator 

B 174999 NM CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis 

B 175011 CO BRANT* Branta bernicla 

B 175020 NM GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser albifrons 

B 175038 NM SNOW GOOSE Chen caerulescens 

B 175041 NM ROSS'S GOOSE Chen rossii 

B 175044 AZ BLACK-BELLIED WHISTLING-DUCK Dendrocygna autumnalis 

B 175063 NM MALLARD Anas platyrhynchos 

B 175068 CO AMERICAN BLACK DUCK Anas rubripes 

B 175073 NM GADWALL Anas strepera 

B 175074 NM NORTHERN PINTAIL Anas acuta 

B 175081 NM GREEN-WINGED TEAL Anas crecca 

B 175086 NM BLUE-WINGED TEAL Anas discors 

B 175089 NM CINNAMON TEAL Anas cyanoptera 

B 175092 NV EURASIAN WIGEON* Anas penelope 

B 175094 NM AMERICAN WIGEON Anas americana 

B 175096 NM NORTHERN SHOVELER Anas clypeata 

B 175122 NM WOOD DUCK Aix sponsa 

B 175125 NM REDHEAD Aythya americana 

B 175128 NM RING-NECKED DUCK Aythya collaris 

B 175129 NV CANVASBACK Aythya valisineria 

B 175130 UT GREATER SCAUP Aythya marila 

B 175134 NV LESSER SCAUP Aythya affinis 

B 175141 NM COMMON GOLDENEYE Bucephala clangula 

B 175144 CO BARROW'S GOLDENEYE Bucephala islandica 

B 175145 NM BUFFLEHEAD Bucephala albeola 

B 175147 CO LONG-TAILED DUCK Clangula hyemalis 

B 175149 CO HARLEQUIN DUCK* Histrionicus histrionicus 
SWReGAP 

 

239 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 175163 CO WHITE-WINGED SCOTER Melanitta fusca 

B 175170 CO SURF SCOTER Melanitta perspicillata 

B 175175 NM RUDDY DUCK Oxyura jamaicensis 

B 175183 NM HOODED MERGANSER Lophodytes cucullatus 

B 175185 NM COMMON MERGANSER Mergus merganser 

B 175187 NM RED-BREASTED MERGANSER Mergus serrator 

B 175265 NM TURKEY VULTURE Cathartes aura 

B 175272 AZ BLACK VULTURE* Coragyps atratus 

B 175274 UT CALIFORNIA CONDOR Gymnogyps californianus 

B 175282 AZ WHITE-TAILED KITE Elanus leucurus 

B 175300 NM NORTHERN GOSHAWK Accipiter gentilis 

B 175304 NM SHARP-SHINNED HAWK Accipiter striatus 

B 175309 NM COOPER'S HAWK Accipiter cooperii 

B 175350 NM RED-TAILED HAWK Buteo jamaicensis 

B 175365 CO BROAD-WINGED HAWK Buteo platypterus 

B 175367 NM SWAINSON'S HAWK Buteo swainsoni 

B 175368 AZ ZONE-TAILED HAWK Buteo albonotatus 

B 175373 NM ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK Buteo lagopus 

B 175377 CO FERRUGINOUS HAWK Buteo regalis 

B 175397 AZ HARRIS'S HAWK Parabuteo unicinctus 

B 175402 AZ COMMON BLACK-HAWK Buteogallus anthracinus 

B 175407 NM GOLDEN EAGLE Aquila chrysaetos 

B 175420 CO BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

B 175430 NM NORTHERN HARRIER Circus cyaneus 

B 175590 NM OSPREY Pandion haliaetus 

B 175599 CO GYRFALCON Falco rusticolus 

B 175603 NM PRAIRIE FALCON Falco mexicanus 

B 175604 CO PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus 

B 175610 NM APLOMADO FALCON Falco femoralis 

B 175613 NM MERLIN Falco columbarius 

B 175622 NM AMERICAN KESTREL Falco sparverius 

B 175790 UT RUFFED GROUSE Bonasa umbellus 

B -2 CO GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE Centrocercus minimus 

B 175827 CO WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN Lagopus leucurus 

B 175834 CO GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus cupido 

B 175838 CO LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 

B 175841 CO SHARP-TAILED GROUSE* Tympanuchus phasianellus 

B 175848 CO SHARP-TAILED GROUSE-COLUMBIAN T. phasianellus columbianus 

B 175852 CO SHARP-TAILED GROUSE-PLAINS T. phasianellus jamesi 

B 175855 CO GREATER SAGE-GROUSE Centrocercus urophasianus 

B 175860 NM BLUE GROUSE Dendragapus obscurus 

B 175863 NM NORTHERN BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus 

B 175872 NM SCALED QUAIL Callipepla squamata 

B 175876 NV CALIFORNIA QUAIL Callipepla californica 

B 175877 NM GAMBEL'S QUAIL Callipepla gambelii 

B 175893 NV MOUNTAIN QUAIL Oreortyx pictus 

B 175900 AZ MONTEZUMA QUAIL Cyrtonyx montezumae 

B 175905 UT RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus 
SWReGAP 

 

240 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 175908 NV CHUKAR Alectoris chukar 

B 175915 UT GRAY PARTRIDGE Perdix perdix 

B 176136 NM WILD TURKEY Meleagris gallopavo 

B 176176 CO WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana 

B 176177 CO SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis 

B 176177 CO SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis 

B 176209 AZ CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris 

B 176221 NM VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicola 

B 176221 NM VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicola 

B 176242 NM SORA Porzana carolina 

B 176263 CO BLACK RAIL Laterallus jamaicensis 

B 176284 NM COMMON MOORHEN Gallinula chloropus 

B 176292 NM AMERICAN COOT Fulica americana 

B 176506 NM SEMIPALMATED PLOVER Charadrius semipalmatus 

B 176507 CO PIPING PLOVER Charadrius melodus 

B 176510 CO SNOWY PLOVER Charadrius alexandrinus 

B 176520 NM KILLDEER Charadrius vociferus 

B 176522 CO MOUNTAIN PLOVER Charadrius montanus 

B 176564 UT AMERICAN GOLDEN-PLOVER Pluvialis dominica 

B 176567 NM BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER Pluvialis squatarola 

B 176571 CO RUDDY TURNSTONE Arenaria interpres 

B 176580 CO AMERICAN WOODCOCK* Scolopax minor 

B 176593 CO LONG-BILLED CURLEW Numenius americanus 

B 176599 CO WHIMBREL Numenius phaeopus 

B 176610 CO UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda 

B 176612 NM SPOTTED SANDPIPER Actitis macularia 

B 176615 NM SOLITARY SANDPIPER Tringa solitaria 

B 176619 NM GREATER YELLOWLEGS Tringa melanoleuca 

B 176620 NM LESSER YELLOWLEGS Tringa flavipes 

B 176638 NV WILLET Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 

B 176642 CO RED KNOT Calidris canutus 

B 176653 CO PECTORAL SANDPIPER Calidris melanotos 

B 176654 CO WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER Calidris fuscicollis 

B 176655 CO BAIRD'S SANDPIPER Calidris bairdii 

B 176656 NM LEAST SANDPIPER Calidris minutilla 

B 176661 NV DUNLIN Calidris alpina 

B 176667 CO SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER Calidris pusilla 

B 176668 NM WESTERN SANDPIPER Calidris mauri 

B 176669 CO SANDERLING Calidris alba 

B 176675 CO SHORT-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus griseus 

B 176679 NM LONG-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus scolopaceus 

B 176684 CO BUFF-BREASTED SANDPIPER Tryngites subruficollis 

B 176686 CO MARBLED GODWIT Limosa fedoa 

B 176700 NM COMMON SNIPE Gallinago gallinago 

B 176721 NM AMERICAN AVOCET Recurvirostra americana 

B 176726 NM BLACK-NECKED STILT Himantopus mexicanus 

B 176735 NV RED-NECKED PHALAROPE Phalaropus lobatus 

B 176736 NM WILSON'S PHALAROPE Phalaropus tricolor 
SWReGAP 

 

241 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 176808 UT GLAUCOUS GULL Larus hyperboreus 

B 176824 CO HERRING GULL Larus argentatus 

B 176828 UT THAYER'S GULL Larus thayeri 

B 176829 UT CALIFORNIA GULL Larus californicus 

B 176830 NM RING-BILLED GULL Larus delawarensis 

B 176838 UT FRANKLIN'S GULL Larus pipixcan 

B 176839 NM BONAPARTE'S GULL Larus philadelphia 

B 176866 CO SABINE'S GULL Xema sabini 

B 176887 CO FORSTER'S TERN Sterna forsteri 

B 176888 UT COMMON TERN Sterna hirundo 

B 176923 CO LEAST TERN Sterna antillarum 

B 176924 NV CASPIAN TERN Sterna caspia 

B 176959 NV BLACK TERN Chlidonias niger 

B 177065 NM BAND-TAILED PIGEON Columba fasciata 

B 177071 NM ROCK DOVE Columba livia 

B 177121 NM WHITE-WINGED DOVE Zenaida asiatica 

B 177125 NM MOURNING DOVE Zenaida macroura 

B 177134 UT SPOTTED DOVE* Streptopelia chinensis 

B 177152 AZ COMMON GROUND-DOVE Columbina passerina 

B 177162 AZ INCA DOVE Columbina inca 

B 177831 AZ YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus americanus 

B 177834 CO BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus erythropthalmus 

B 177836 NM GREATER ROADRUNNER Geococcyx californianus 

B 177851 NM COMMON BARN-OWL Tyto alba 

B 177856 CO EASTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus asio 

B 177875 AZ WHISKERED SCREECH-OWL Otus trichopsis 

B 177878 AZ FLAMMULATED OWL Otus flammeolus 

B 177884 NM GREAT HORNED OWL Bubo virginianus 

B 177896 CO SNOWY OWL Nyctea scandiaca 

B 177902 AZ NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium gnoma 

B 177908 AZ FERRUGINOUS PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium brasilianum 

B 177912 AZ ELF OWL Micrathene whitneyi 

B 177925 CO SPOTTED OWL Strix occidentalis 

B 177932 NM LONG-EARED OWL Asio otus 

B 177935 UT SHORT-EARED OWL Asio flammeus 

B 177938 CO BOREAL OWL Aegolius funereus 

B 177942 NM NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL Aegolius acadicus 

B 177946 CO BURROWING OWL Athene cunicularia 

B 177961 AZ WHIP-POOR-WILL Caprimulgus vociferus 

B 177966 AZ BUFF-COLLARED NIGHTJAR Caprimulgus ridgwayi 

B 177979 NM COMMON NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles minor 

B 177988 NM LESSER NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles acutipennis 

B 177997 NM BLACK SWIFT Cypseloides niger 

B 178001 CO CHIMNEY SWIFT Chaetura pelagica 

B 178002 NV VAUX'S SWIFT* Chaetura vauxi 

B 178014 NM WHITE-THROATED SWIFT Aeronautes saxatalis 

B 178030 AZ LUCIFER HUMMINGBIRD Calothorax lucifer 

B 178033 AZ BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus alexandri 
SWReGAP 

 

242 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 178035 AZ COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte costae 

B 178036 AZ ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte anna 

B 178038 AZ BROAD-TAILED HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus platycercus 

B 178040 AZ RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus rufus 

B 178041 NV ALLEN'S HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus sasin 

B 178048 NV CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD Stellula calliope 

B 178050 AZ MAGNIFICENT HUMMINGBIRD Eugenes fulgens 

B 178054 AZ BLUE-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD Lampornis clemenciae 

B 178065 AZ BERYLLINE HUMMINGBIRD* Amazilia beryllina 

B 178066 AZ VIOLET-CROWNED HUMMINGBIRD Amazilia violiceps 

B 178069 AZ WHITE-EARED HUMMINGBIRD* Hylocharis leucotis 

B 178073 AZ BROAD-BILLED HUMMINGBIRD Cynanthus latirostris 

B 178096 AZ ELEGANT TROGON Trogon elegans 

B 178101 AZ EARED TROGON* Euptilotis neoxenus 

B 178112 AZ GREEN KINGFISHER* Chloroceryle americana 

B 178119 NM BELTED KINGFISHER Ceryle alcyon 

B 178154 NM NORTHERN FLICKER Colaptes auratus 

B 178164 AZ GILDED FLICKER Colaptes chrysoides 

B 178186 CO RED-HEADED WOODPECKER Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

B 178189 AZ ACORN WOODPECKER Melanerpes formicivorus 

B 178195 CO RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER Melanerpes carolinus 

B 178196 NM LEWIS'S WOODPECKER Melanerpes lewis 

B 178198 AZ GILA WOODPECKER Melanerpes uropygialis 

B 178208 NM WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus thyroideus 

B 178211 NM RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

B 178212 NV RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus ruber 

B 178251 NM THREE-TOED WOODPECKER Picoides tridactylus 

B 178256 NV WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER Picoides albolarvatus 

B 178259 NM DOWNY WOODPECKER Picoides pubescens 

B 178260 NM LADDER-BACKED WOODPECKER Picoides scalaris 

B 178261 AZ STRICKLAND'S WOODPECKER Picoides stricklandi 

B 178262 NM HAIRY WOODPECKER Picoides villosus 

B 178279 CO EASTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus tyrannus 

B 178282 AZ TROPICAL KINGBIRD Tyrannus melancholicus 

B 178287 NM WESTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus verticalis 

B 178288 NM CASSIN'S KINGBIRD Tyrannus vociferans 

B 178292 AZ THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD Tyrannus crassirostris 

B 178293 NM SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER Tyrannus forficatus 

B 178305 AZ SULPHUR-BELLIED FLYCATCHER Myiodynastes luteiventris 

B 178309 CO GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus crinitus 

B 178312 AZ BROWN-CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus tyrannulus 

B 178316 NM ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus cinerascens 

B 178319 AZ DUSKY-CAPPED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus tuberculifer 

B 178329 CO EASTERN PHOEBE Sayornis phoebe 

B 178330 NM BLACK PHOEBE Sayornis nigricans 

B 178333 NM SAY'S PHOEBE Sayornis saya 

B 178340 CO ALDER FLYCATCHER Empidonax alnorum 

B 178341 CO WILLOW FLYCATCHER Empidonax traillii 
SWReGAP 

 

243 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 178346 NM DUSKY FLYCATCHER Empidonax oberholseri 

B 178347 NM GRAY FLYCATCHER Empidonax wrightii 

B 178348 AZ PACIFIC-SLOPE FLYCATCHER* Empidonax difficilis 

B 178352 AZ BUFF-BREASTED FLYCATCHER Empidonax fulvifrons 

B 178356 AZ GREATER PEWEE Contopus pertinax 

B 178360 NM WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE Contopus sordidulus 

B 178371 NM VERMILION FLYCATCHER Pyrocephalus rubinus 

B 178376 AZ NORTHERN BEARDLESS-TYRANNULET Camptostoma imberbe 

B 178384 AZ ROSE-THROATED BECARD* Pachyramphus aglaiae 

B 178427 NM VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW Tachycineta thalassina 

B 178431 NM TREE SWALLOW Tachycineta bicolor 

B 178436 NM BANK SWALLOW Riparia riparia 

B 178443 NM NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

B 178448 NM BARN SWALLOW Hirundo rustica 

B 178455 NM CLIFF SWALLOW Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 

B 178460 NM CAVE SWALLOW Petrochelidon fulva 

B 178464 NM PURPLE MARTIN Progne subis 

B 178499 CO SPRAGUE'S PIPIT Anthus spragueii 

B 178511 NM NORTHERN SHRIKE Lanius excubitor 

B 178515 NM LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Lanius ludovicianus 

B 178529 CO BOHEMIAN WAXWING Bombycilla garrulus 

B 178532 CO CEDAR WAXWING Bombycilla cedrorum 

B 178536 NM AMERICAN DIPPER Cinclus mexicanus 

B 178541 NM HOUSE WREN Troglodytes aedon 

B 178547 NV WINTER WREN Troglodytes troglodytes 

B 178562 NM BEWICK'S WREN Thryomanes bewickii 

B 178581 CO CAROLINA WREN Thryothorus ludovicianus 

B 178587 AZ CACTUS WREN Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus 

B 178605 CO SEDGE WREN Cistothorus platensis 

B 178608 NM MARSH WREN Cistothorus palustris 

B 178610 NM CANYON WREN Catherpes mexicanus 

B 178614 NM ROCK WREN Salpinctes obsoletus 

B 178620 NM NORTHERN MOCKINGBIRD Mimus polyglottos 

B 178625 NM GRAY CATBIRD Dumetella carolinensis 

B 178627 CO BROWN THRASHER Toxostoma rufum 

B 178636 NM BENDIRE'S THRASHER Toxostoma bendirei 

B 178637 NM CURVE-BILLED THRASHER Toxostoma curvirostre 

B 178645 AZ LE CONTE'S THRASHER Toxostoma lecontei 

B 178652 AZ CRISSAL THRASHER Toxostoma crissale 

B 178654 NM SAGE THRASHER Oreoscoptes montanus 

B 178759 AZ VERDIN Auriparus flaviceps 

B 178764 NM BUSHTIT Psaltriparus minimus 

B 178775 NM WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta carolinensis 

B 178784 NM RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta canadensis 

B 178788 NM PYGMY NUTHATCH Sitta pygmaea 

B 178803 NM BROWN CREEPER Certhia americana 

B 178841 AZ RUFOUS-CAPPED WARBLER* Basileuterus rufifrons 

B 178844 CO BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER Mniotilta varia 
SWReGAP 

 

244 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 178855 CO TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora peregrina 

B 178856 NM ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER Vermivora celata 

B 178861 NV NASHVILLE WARBLER Vermivora ruficapilla 

B 178864 NM VIRGINIA'S WARBLER Vermivora virginiae 

B 178866 AZ LUCY'S WARBLER Vermivora luciae 

B 178874 AZ OLIVE WARBLER Peucedramus taeniatus 

B 178878 NM YELLOW WARBLER Dendroica petechia 

B 178891 NM YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER Dendroica coronata 

B 178896 NM BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER Dendroica nigrescens 

B 178897 NM TOWNSEND'S WARBLER Dendroica townsendi 

B 178902 NV HERMIT WARBLER Dendroica occidentalis 

B 178909 NM GRACE'S WARBLER Dendroica graciae 

B 178913 CO BLACKPOLL WARBLER Dendroica striata 

B 178918 CO PRAIRIE WARBLER Dendroica discolor 

B 178921 CO PALM WARBLER Dendroica palmarum 

B 178927 CO OVENBIRD Seiurus aurocapillus 

B 178931 NM NORTHERN WATERTHRUSH Seiurus noveboracensis 

B 178940 NM MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER Oporornis tolmiei 

B 178944 NM COMMON YELLOWTHROAT Geothlypis trichas 

B 178964 NM YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT Icteria virens 

B 178970 AZ RED-FACED WARBLER Cardellina rubrifrons 

B 178973 NM WILSON'S WARBLER Wilsonia pusilla 

B 178979 CO AMERICAN REDSTART Setophaga ruticilla 

B 178986 AZ PAINTED REDSTART Myioborus pictus 

B 178997 AZ HUTTON'S VIREO Vireo huttoni 

B 179003 AZ BELL'S VIREO Vireo bellii 

B 179008 NM GRAY VIREO Vireo vicinior 

B 179021 CO RED-EYED VIREO Vireo olivaceus 

B 179023 NM WARBLING VIREO Vireo gilvus 

B 179032 CO BOBOLINK Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

B 179034 NM EASTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella magna 

B 179039 NM WESTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella neglecta 

B 179043 NM YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 

B 179045 NM RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD Agelaius phoeniceus 

B 179060 NV TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD Agelaius tricolor 

B 179064 CO ORCHARD ORIOLE Icterus spurius 

B 179070 AZ HOODED ORIOLE Icterus cucullatus 

B 179079 AZ STREAK-BACKED ORIOLE Icterus pustulatus 

B 179082 NM SCOTT'S ORIOLE Icterus parisorum 

B 179083 CO BALTIMORE ORIOLE Icterus galbula 

B 179094 NM BREWER'S BLACKBIRD Euphagus cyanocephalus 

B 179104 CO COMMON GRACKLE Quiscalus quiscula 

B 179109 NM GREAT-TAILED GRACKLE Quiscalus mexicanus 

B 179112 NM BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD Molothrus ater 

B 179116 AZ BRONZED COWBIRD Molothrus aeneus 

B 179124 AZ NORTHERN CARDINAL Cardinalis cardinalis 

B 179132 AZ PYRRHULOXIA Cardinalis sinuatus 

B 179139 NM ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK Pheucticus ludovicianus 
SWReGAP 

 

245 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 179140 NM BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK Pheucticus melanocephalus 

B 179145 NM BLUE GROSBEAK Guiraca caerulea 

B 179150 NM INDIGO BUNTING Passerina cyanea 

B 179151 NM LAZULI BUNTING Passerina amoena 

B 179152 AZ VARIED BUNTING Passerina versicolor 

B 179156 NM PAINTED BUNTING Passerina ciris 

B 179165 CO DICKCISSEL Spiza americana 

B 179173 NM EVENING GROSBEAK Coccothraustes vespertinus 

B 179186 NV PURPLE FINCH Carpodacus purpureus 

B 179190 NM CASSIN'S FINCH Carpodacus cassinii 

B 179191 NM HOUSE FINCH Carpodacus mexicanus 

B 179205 NM PINE GROSBEAK Pinicola enucleator 

B 179215 NV GRAY-CROWNED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte tephrocotis 

B 179222 UT BLACK ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte atrata 

B 179223 CO BROWN-CAPPED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte australis 

B 179230 CO COMMON REDPOLL Carduelis flammea 

B 179232 AZ LAWRENCE'S GOLDFINCH Carduelis lawrencei 

B 179233 NM PINE SISKIN Carduelis pinus 

B 179234 NM LESSER GOLDFINCH Carduelis psaltria 

B 179236 NM AMERICAN GOLDFINCH Carduelis tristis 

B 179259 NM RED CROSSBILL Loxia curvirostra 

B 179268 UT WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL Loxia leucoptera 

B 179293 NM CANYON TOWHEE Pipilo fuscus 

B 179307 AZ ABERT'S TOWHEE Pipilo aberti 

B 179310 NM GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE Pipilo chlorurus 

B 179312 CO LARK BUNTING Calamospiza melanocorys 

B 179314 NM SAVANNAH SPARROW Passerculus sandwichensis 

B 179333 NM GRASSHOPPER SPARROW Ammodramus savannarum 

B 179339 NM BAIRD'S SPARROW Ammodramus bairdii 

B 179345 CO LE CONTE'S SPARROW Ammodramus leconteii 

B 179366 NM VESPER SPARROW Pooecetes gramineus 

B 179371 NM LARK SPARROW Chondestes grammacus 

B 179375 AZ RUFOUS-WINGED SPARROW Aimophila carpalis 

B 179377 NM RUFOUS-CROWNED SPARROW Aimophila ruficeps 

B 179390 AZ BOTTERI'S SPARROW Aimophila botterii 

B 179393 NM CASSIN'S SPARROW Aimophila cassinii 

B 179395 AZ BLACK-THROATED SPARROW Amphispiza bilineata 

B 179402 NM SAGE SPARROW Amphispiza belli 

B 179410 NM DARK-EYED JUNCO Junco hyemalis 

B 179427 AZ YELLOW-EYED JUNCO Junco phaeonotus 

B 179432 NM AMERICAN TREE SPARROW Spizella arborea 

B 179435 NM CHIPPING SPARROW Spizella passerina 

B 179439 NM CLAY-COLORED SPARROW Spizella pallida 

B 179440 NM BREWER'S SPARROW Spizella breweri 

B 179443 CO FIELD SPARROW Spizella pusilla 

B 179448 AZ BLACK-CHINNED SPARROW Spizella atrogularis 

B 179454 CO HARRIS'S SPARROW Zonotrichia querula 

B 179455 NM WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia leucophrys 
SWReGAP 

 

246 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 179461 NV GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia atricapilla 

B 179462 NM WHITE-THROATED SPARROW Zonotrichia albicollis 

B 179464 NM FOX SPARROW Passerella iliaca 

B 179484 NM LINCOLN'S SPARROW Melospiza lincolnii 

B 179488 NM SWAMP SPARROW Melospiza georgiana 

B 179492 NM SONG SPARROW Melospiza melodia 

B 179525 CO MCCOWN'S LONGSPUR Calcarius mccownii 

B 179526 CO LAPLAND LONGSPUR Calcarius lapponicus 

B 179530 NM CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR Calcarius ornatus 

B 179532 UT SNOW BUNTING Plectrophenax nivalis 

B 179628 NM HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 

B 179637 NM EUROPEAN STARLING Sturnus vulgaris 

B 179667 NM GRAY JAY Perisoreus canadensis 

B 179680 CO BLUE JAY Cyanocitta cristata 

B 179685 NM STELLER'S JAY Cyanocitta stelleri 

B 179707 AZ MEXICAN JAY Aphelocoma ultramarina 

B 179720 NM BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE Pica hudsonia 

B 179725 NM COMMON RAVEN Corvus corax 

B 179730 NM CHIHUAHUAN RAVEN Corvus cryptoleucus 

B 179731 NM AMERICAN CROW Corvus brachyrhynchos 

B 179748 NM PINYON JAY Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus 

B 179750 NM CLARK'S NUTCRACKER Nucifraga columbiana 

B 179759 NM AMERICAN ROBIN Turdus migratorius 

B 179773 NV VARIED THRUSH Ixoreus naevius 

B 179777 CO WOOD THRUSH Hylocichla mustelina 

B 179779 NM HERMIT THRUSH Catharus guttatus 

B 179788 NM SWAINSON'S THRUSH Catharus ustulatus 

B 179793 CO GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH Catharus minimus 

B 179796 CO VEERY Catharus fuscescens 

B 179801 NM EASTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia sialis 

B 179806 NM WESTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia mexicana 

B 179811 NM MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD Sialia currucoides 

B 179824 NM TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE Myadestes townsendi 

B 179853 NM BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER Polioptila caerulea 

B 179857 AZ BLACK-TAILED GNATCATCHER Polioptila melanura 

B 179863 AZ BLACK-CAPPED GNATCATCHER* Polioptila nigriceps 

B 179865 NM GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus satrapa 

B 179870 NM RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus calendula 

B 179877 NM PHAINOPEPLA Phainopepla nitens 

B 179882 NM WESTERN TANAGER Piranga ludoviciana 

B 179884 NM HEPATIC TANAGER Piranga flava 

B 179888 NM SUMMER TANAGER Piranga rubra 

B 179891 AZ FLAME-COLORED TANAGER* Piranga bidentata 

B 554027 NV CLARK'S GREBE Aechmophorus clarkii 

B 554030 AZ FIVE-STRIPED SPARROW Aimophila quinquestriata 

B 554127 NM AMERICAN PIPIT Anthus rubescens 

B 554128 NM WESTERN SCRUB-JAY Aphelocoma californica 

B 554135 NM GREAT EGRET Ardea alba 
SWReGAP 

 

247 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

B 554137 AZ GRAY HAWK Asturina nitida 

B 554139 NM JUNIPER TITMOUSE Baeolophus ridgwayi 

B 554141 AZ BRIDLED TITMOUSE Baeolophus wollweberi 

B 554145 CO STILT SANDPIPER Calidris himantopus 

B 554146 AZ CRESTED CARACARA Caracara plancus 

B 554221 NM OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER Contopus cooperi 

B 554254 NM HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER Empidonax hammondii 

B 554255 NM CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER Empidonax occidentalis 

B 554256 NM HORNED LARK Eremophila alpestris 

B 554267 NM BULLOCK'S ORIOLE Icterus bullockii 

B 554268 NM MISSISSIPPI KITE Ictinia mississippiensis 

B 554375 AZ NEOTROPIC CORMORANT Phalacrocorax brasilianus 

B 554376 CO RED PHALAROPE Phalaropus fulicaria 

B 554380 NM SPOTTED TOWHEE Pipilo maculatus 

B 554382 CO BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE Poecile atricapilla 

B 554385 NM MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE Poecile gambeli 

B 554388 AZ MEXICAN CHICKADEE Poecile sclateri 

B 554456 NV CASSIN'S VIREO Vireo cassinii 

B 554477 NM PLUMBEOUS VIREO Vireo plumbeus 

B 555388 AZ WESTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus kennicottii 

B 555544 NM COMMON POORWILL Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 

M -3 NM ARIZONA MYOTIS Myotis occultus 

M 179921 CO VIRGINIA OPOSSUM Didelphis virginiana 

M 179929 CO MASKED SHREW Sorex cinereus 

M 179932 UT VAGRANT SHREW Sorex vagrans 

M 179933 NM NORTHERN WATER SHREW Sorex palustris 

M 179939 AZ ARIZONA SHREW Sorex arizonae 

M 179946 CO PYGMY SHREW Sorex hoyi 

M 179949 NM MERRIAM'S SHREW Sorex merriami 

M 179950 NM MONTANE SHREW Sorex monticolus 

M 179951 NM DWARF SHREW Sorex nanus 

M 179954 UT PREBLE'S SHREW Sorex preblei 

M 179955 NV INYO SHREW Sorex tenellus 

M 179956 NV TROWBRIDGE'S SHREW Sorex trowbridgii 

M 179969 CO ELLIOT'S SHORT-TAILED SHREW Blarina hylophaga 

M 179971 CO LEAST SHREW Cryptotis parva 

M 179973 NM DESERT SHREW Notiosorex crawfordi 

M 179979 CO EASTERN MOLE Scalopus aquaticus 

M 179981 NV BROAD-FOOTED MOLE Scapanus latimanus 

M 179988 NM LITTLE BROWN BAT Myotis lucifugus 

M 179990 NM LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS Myotis volans 

M 179991 NM CALIFORNIA MYOTIS Myotis californicus 

M 179992 AZ SOUTHWESTERN MYOTIS Myotis auriculus 

M 179995 NM LONG-EARED MYOTIS Myotis evotis 

M 179999 CO WESTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS Myotis leibii 

M 180002 NM FRINGED MYOTIS Myotis thysanodes 

M 180003 NM CAVE MYOTIS Myotis velifer 

M 180004 NM YUMA MYOTIS Myotis yumanensis 
SWReGAP 

 

248 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

M 180006 NM PALLID BAT Antrozous pallidus 

M 180008 NM BIG BROWN BAT Eptesicus fuscus 

M 180010 UT SPOTTED BAT Euderma maculatum 

M 180012 AZ ALLEN'S BIG-EARED BAT Idionycteris phyllotis 

M 180014 NM SILVER-HAIRED BAT Lasionycteris noctivagans 

M 180016 UT WESTERN RED BAT Lasiurus blossevillii 

M 180017 NM HOARY BAT Lasiurus cinereus 

M 180018 AZ SOUTHERN YELLOW BAT Lasiurus ega 

M 180024 NM WESTERN PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus hesperus 

M 180062 AZ MEXICAN LONG-TONGUED BAT Choeronycteris mexicana 

M 180068 NM MEXICAN LONG-NOSED BAT Leptonycteris nivalis 

M 180071 AZ CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT Macrotus californicus 

M 180080 AZ WESTERN MASTIFF BAT Eumops perotis 

M 180081 AZ UNDERWOOD'S MASTIFF BAT Eumops underwoodi 

M 180085 AZ POCKETED FREE-TAILED BAT Nyctinomops femorosaccus 

M 180086 NM BIG FREE-TAILED BAT Nyctinomops macrotis 

M 180088 NM BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT Tadarida brasiliensis 

M 180103 NM NINE-BANDED ARMADILLO Dasypus novemcinctus 

M 180109 CO AMERICAN PIKA Ochotona princeps 

M 180112 CO SNOWSHOE HARE Lepus americanus 

M 180114 AZ ANTELOPE JACK RABBIT Lepus alleni 

M 180115 NM BLACK-TAILED JACK RABBIT Lepus californicus 

M 180116 NM WHITE-SIDED JACK RABBIT Lepus callotis 

M 180118 NM WHITE-TAILED JACK RABBIT Lepus townsendii 

M 180122 NM DESERT COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus audubonii 

M 180124 NM EASTERN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus floridanus 

M 180126 NM MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus nuttallii 

M 180133 NV MOUNTAIN BEAVER Aplodontia rufa 

M 180140 NM YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT Marmota flaviventris 

M 180147 UT UINTA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus armatus 

M 180148 NV CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beecheyi 

M 180149 NV BELDING'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beldingi 

M 180152 CO WYOMING GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus elegans 

M 180154 NM GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus lateralis 

M 180155 NM MEXICAN GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus mexicanus 

M 180159 NM SPOTTED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus spilosoma 

M 180160 AZ ROUND-TAILED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tereticaudus 

M 180161 NV TOWNSEND'S GROUND SQUIRREL* Spermophilus townsendii 

M 180162 CO THIRTEEN-LINED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 

M 180163 NM ROCK SQUIRREL Spermophilus variegatus 

M 180166 NM RED SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

M 180167 NV DOUGLAS' SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus douglasii 

M 180169 UT NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL Glaucomys sabrinus 

M 180172 CO FOX SQUIRREL Sciurus niger 

M 180173 NM ABERT'S SQUIRREL Sciurus aberti 

M 180174 AZ ARIZONA GRAY SQUIRREL Sciurus arizonensis 

M 180176 NV WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL Sciurus griseus 

M 180177 AZ NAYARIT SQUIRREL Sciurus nayaritensis 
SWReGAP 

 

249 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

M 180179 AZ HARRIS' ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus harrisii 

M 180180 NM TEXAS ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus interpres 

M 180181 NM WHITE-TAILED ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus leucurus 

M 180184 NM GUNNISON'S PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys gunnisoni 

M 180185 CO WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys leucurus 

M 180186 CO BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys ludovicianus 

M 180187 UT UTAH PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys parvidens 

M 180190 NV YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK Tamias amoenus 

M 180191 NM GRAY-FOOTED CHIPMUNK Tamias canipes 

M 180192 AZ GRAY-COLLARED CHIPMUNK Tamias cinereicollis 

M 180193 NM CLIFF CHIPMUNK Tamias dorsalis 

M 180195 NM LEAST CHIPMUNK Tamias minimus 

M 180198 NV PALMER'S CHIPMUNK Tamias palmeri 

M 180199 NV PANAMINT CHIPMUNK Tamias panamintinus 

M 180200 NV LONG-EARED CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrimaculatus 

M 180201 CO COLORADO CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrivittatus 

M 180203 NV ALLEN'S CHIPMUNK Tamias senex 

M 180206 NV LODGEPOLE CHIPMUNK Tamias speciosus 

M 180208 NV TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK* Tamias townsendii 

M 180209 NV UINTA CHIPMUNK Tamias umbrinus 

M 180212 NM BEAVER Castor canadensis 

M 180215 NM DESERT POCKET GOPHER Geomys arenarius 

M 180216 CO PLAINS POCKET GOPHER Geomys bursarius 

M 180220 NM YELLOW-FACED POCKET GOPHER Pappogeomys castanops 

M 180222 NM BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER Thomomys bottae 

M 180225 UT IDAHO POCKET GOPHER Thomomys idahoensis 

M 180227 NV MOUNTAIN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys monticola 

M 180228 NM NORTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys talpoides 

M 180229 NV TOWNSEND'S POCKET GOPHER Thomomys townsendii 

M 180230 AZ SOUTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys umbrinus 

M 180236 UT DESERT KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys deserti 

M 180241 NM MERRIAM'S KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys merriami 

M 180242 UT CHISEL-TOOTHED KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys microps 

M 180244 NM ORD'S KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys ordii 

M 180245 NV PANAMINT KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys panamintinus 

M 180246 NM BANNER-TAILED KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys spectabilis 

M 180252 NV DARK KANGAROO MOUSE Microdipodops megacephalus 

M 180253 NV PALE KANGAROO MOUSE Microdipodops pallidus 

M 180256 AZ ARIZONA POCKET MOUSE Perognathus amplus 

M 180260 CO OLIVE-BACKED POCKET MOUSE Perognathus fasciatus 

M 180261 NM PLAINS POCKET MOUSE Perognathus flavescens 

M 180262 NM SILKY POCKET MOUSE Perognathus flavus 

M 180267 NV LITTLE POCKET MOUSE Perognathus longimembris 

M 180269 NV GREAT BASIN POCKET MOUSE Perognathus parvus 

M 180276 NM DEER MOUSE Peromyscus maniculatus 

M 180278 NM WHITE-FOOTED MOUSE Peromyscus leucopus 

M 180282 NM BRUSH MOUSE Peromyscus boylii 

M 180284 AZ CANYON MOUSE Peromyscus crinitus 
SWReGAP 

 

250 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

M 180286 AZ CACTUS MOUSE Peromyscus eremicus 

M 180287 AZ BLACK-EARED MOUSE* Peromyscus melanotis 

M 180288 AZ MERRIAM'S MOUSE Peromyscus merriami 

M 180289 NM WHITE-ANKLED MOUSE Peromyscus pectoralis 

M 180291 NM PINON MOUSE Peromyscus truei 

M 180294 NM SOUTHERN RED-BACKED VOLE Clethrionomys gapperi 

M 180297 CO MEADOW VOLE Microtus pennsylvanicus 

M 180299 NM LONG-TAILED VOLE Microtus longicaudus 

M 180310 NM MONTANE VOLE Microtus montanus 

M 180312 CO PRAIRIE VOLE Microtus ochrogaster 

M 180315 UT WATER VOLE Microtus richardsoni 

M 180318 NM MUSKRAT Ondatra zibethicus 

M 180341 AZ FULVOUS HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys fulvescens 

M 180343 NM WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys megalotis 

M 180344 NM PLAINS HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys montanus 

M 180347 AZ ARIZONA COTTON RAT Sigmodon arizonae 

M 180348 AZ TAWNY-BELLIED COTTON RAT Sigmodon fulviventer 

M 180349 AZ HISPID COTTON RAT Sigmodon hispidus 

M 180350 AZ YELLOW-NOSED COTTON RAT Sigmodon ochrognathus 

M 180359 CO HEATHER VOLE Phenacomys intermedius 

M 180366 NM HOUSE MOUSE Mus musculus 

M 180368 AZ NORTHERN PYGMY MOUSE Baiomys taylori 

M 180370 NM WHITE-THROATED WOODRAT Neotoma albigula 

M 180371 NM BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT Neotoma cinerea 

M 180372 CO EASTERN WOODRAT Neotoma floridana 

M 180374 NV DESERT WOODRAT Neotoma lepida 

M 180375 NM MEXICAN WOODRAT Neotoma mexicana 

M 180376 NM SOUTHERN PLAINS WOODRAT Neotoma micropus 

M 180377 AZ STEPHENS' WOODRAT Neotoma stephensi 

M 180381 NM MEARNS' GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys arenicola 

M 180382 NM NORTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys leucogaster 

M 180383 AZ SOUTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys torridus 

M 180386 CO MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE Zapus hudsonius 

M 180387 NM WESTERN JUMPING MOUSE Zapus princeps 

M 180393 NM PORCUPINE Erethizon dorsatum 

M 180543 CO BROWN BEAR Ursus arctos 

M 180544 NM AMERICAN BLACK BEAR Ursus americanus 

M 180549 CO RIVER OTTER Lontra canadensis 

M 180551 CO WOLVERINE Gulo gulo 

M 180553 CO MINK Mustela vison 

M 180555 UT ERMINE Mustela erminea 

M 180556 NM LONG-TAILED WEASEL Mustela frenata 

M 180557 CO BLACK-FOOTED FERRET Mustela nigripes 

M 180559 CO MARTEN Martes americana 

M 180560 UT FISHER Martes pennanti 

M 180562 NM STRIPED SKUNK Mephitis mephitis 

M 180563 AZ HOODED SKUNK Mephitis macroura 

M 180565 NM BADGER Taxidea taxus 
SWReGAP 

 

251 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

M 180568 AZ HOG-NOSED SKUNK Conepatus mesoleucus 

M 180570 CO EASTERN SPOTTED SKUNK Spilogale putorius 

M 180575 NM RACCOON Procyon lotor 

M 180577 NM RINGTAIL Bassariscus astutus 

M 180582 NM BOBCAT Lynx rufus 

M 180585 CO LYNX Lynx canadensis 

M 180593 NM JAGUAR Panthera onca 

M 180596 CO GRAY WOLF Canis lupus 

M 180599 NM COYOTE Canis latrans 

M 180604 NM RED FOX Vulpes vulpes 

M 180606 CO KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis 

M 180607 CO SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox 

M 180609 NM GRAY FOX Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

M 180695 NM WAPITI Cervus elaphus 

M 180698 NM MULE DEER Odocoileus hemionus 

M 180699 NM WHITE-TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus 

M 180703 UT MOOSE Alces alces 

M 180711 NM BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis canadensis 

M 180713 CO MOUNTAIN GOAT Oreamnos americanus 

M 180717 NM PRONGHORN Antilocapra americana 

M 180719 NM BARBARY SHEEP Ammotragus lervia 

M 203452 NM TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT Corynorhinus townsendii 

M 203618 CO BISON Bos bison 

M 552462 AZ WHITE-NOSED COATI Nasua narica 

M 552464 AZ SOUTHERN LONG-NOSED BAT Leptonycteris curasoae 

M 552466 UT WESTERN SPOTTED SKUNK Spilogale gracilis 

M 552470 AZ OCELOT* Leopardus pardalis 

M 552479 CO MOUNTAIN LION Puma concolor 

M 552480 NM MOGOLLON VOLE Microtus mogollonensis 

M 552482 NV LONG-TAILED POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus formosus 

M 552483 NM HISPID POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus hispidus 

M 552484 AZ ROCK POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus intermedius 

M 552486 AZ DESERT POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus penicillatus 

M 552487 AZ SPINY POCKET MOUSE* Chaetodipus spinatus 

M 552488 NM MERRIAM'S POCKET MOUSE Perognathus merriami 

M 552490 NV SAGEBRUSH VOLE Lemmiscus curtatus 

M 552494 UT ARIZONA WOODRAT Neotoma devia 

M 552495 NM OSGOOD'S MOUSE Peromyscus gratus 

M 552496 NM ROCK MOUSE Peromyscus nasutus 

M 552499 NV MERRIAM'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus canus 

M 552503 CO HOPI CHIPMUNK Tamias rufus 

M 552504 UT PIUTE GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus mollis 

M 552512 NM EASTERN RED BAT Lasiurus borealis 

M 552520 AZ BAILEY'S POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus baileyi 

M 552521 NV PYGMY RABBIT Brachylagus idahoensis 

M 552761 AZ COLLARED PECCARY Pecari tajacu 

M 555657 NM NEW MEXICO SHREW Sorex neomexicanus 
SWReGAP 

 

252 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

M 555658 NM DAVIS MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL Silvilagus robustus 

M 625180 NM ORYX Oryx gazella 

R -1 CO TRIPLOID CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neotesselatus 

R 173752 NM SNAPPING TURTLE Chelydra serpentina 

R 173766 CO YELLOW MUD TURTLE Kinosternon flavescens 

R 173768 AZ SONORAN MUD TURTLE Kinosternon sonoriense 

R 173774 NV WESTERN POND TURTLE Clemmys marmorata 

R 173778 NM ORNATE BOX TURTLE Terrapene ornata 

R 173783 NM PAINTED TURTLE Chrysemys picta 

R 173819 NM COMMON SLIDER Trachemys scripta 

R 173856 AZ DESERT TORTOISE Gopherus agassizii 

R 173865 NM EASTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus undulatus 

R 173868 AZ CLARK'S SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus clarkii 

R 173870 NM SAGEBRUSH LIZARD Sceloporus graciosus 

R 173872 AZ YARROW'S SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus jarrovii 

R 173873 AZ DESERT SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus magister 

R 173875 UT WESTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus occidentalis 

R 173878 NM CREVICE SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus poinsettii 

R 173879 AZ BUNCH GRASS LIZARD Sceloporus scalaris 

R 173881 AZ STRIPED PLATEAU LIZARD Sceloporus virgatus 

R 173906 NV ZEBRA-TAILED LIZARD Callisaurus draconoides 

R 173910 NM GREATER EARLESS LIZARD Cophosaurus texanus 

R 173912 NM COLLARED LIZARD Crotaphytus collaris 

R 173921 AZ DESERT IGUANA Dipsosaurus dorsalis 

R 173924 CO LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Gambelia wislizenii 

R 173927 NM LESSER EARLESS LIZARD Holbrookia maculata 

R 173938 CO TEXAS HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma cornutum 

R 173941 AZ FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma mcallii 

R 173942 NM ROUND-TAILED HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma modestum 

R 173943 NV DESERT HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma platyrhinos 

R 173944 AZ REGAL HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma solare 

R 173949 AZ COLORADO DESERT FRINGE-TOED 

LIZARD 

Uma notata 

R 173950 AZ MOJAVE FRINGE-TOED LIZARD Uma scoparia 

R 173952 AZ LONG-TAILED BRUSH LIZARD Urosaurus graciosus 

R 173954 AZ TREE LIZARD Urosaurus ornatus 

R 173956 NM SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD Uta stansburiana 

R 173964 AZ MOUNTAIN SKINK Eumeces callicephalus 

R 173966 NV GILBERT'S SKINK Eumeces gilberti 

R 173967 NM MANY-LINED SKINK Eumeces multivirgatus 

R 173968 NM GREAT PLAINS SKINK Eumeces obsoletus 

R 173970 NV WESTERN SKINK Eumeces skiltonianus 

R 173971 NM FOUR-LINED SKINK Eumeces tetragrammus 

R 174014 CO SIX-LINED RACERUNNER Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

R 174015 AZ CANYON SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus burti 

R 174016 NM GRAY-CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus dixoni 

R 174017 NM CHIHUAHUAN SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus exsanguis 

R 174018 AZ GILA SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus flagellicaudus 
SWReGAP 

 

253 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

R 174019 NM TEXAS SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus gularis 

R 174021 AZ LITTLE STRIPED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus inornatus 

R 174024 NM NEW MEXICO WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neomexicanus 

R 174025 AZ SONORAN SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus sonorae 

R 174026 CO CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tesselatus 

R 174038 NM TEXAS BANDED GECKO Coleonyx brevis 

R 174041 AZ WESTERN BANDED GECKO Coleonyx variegatus 

R 174092 NV DESERT NIGHT LIZARD Xantusia vigilis 

R 174113 AZ GILA MONSTER Heloderma suspectum 

R 174136 NM COMMON GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis sirtalis 

R 174140 NV WESTERN AQUATIC GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis couchii 

R 174141 NM BLACK-NECKED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis cyrtopsis 

R 174142 NM WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER 

SNAKE 

Thamnophis elegans 

R 174143 AZ MEXICAN GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis eques 

R 174144 NM CHECKERED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis marcianus 

R 174146 NM WESTERN RIBBON SNAKE Thamnophis proximus 

R 174147 CO PLAINS GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis radix 

R 174148 AZ NARROW-HEADED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis rufipunctatus 

R 174155 NM WESTERN HOG-NOSED SNAKE Heterodon nasicus 

R 174158 NM RING-NECKED SNAKE Diadophis punctatus 

R 174169 NM RACER Coluber constrictor 

R 174175 NM CORN SNAKE Elaphe guttata 

R 174187 NM MILK SNAKE Lampropeltis triangulum 

R 174192 AZ SONORAN MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis pyromelana 

R 174202 NM GLOSSY SNAKE Arizona elegans 

R 174210 AZ BANDED SAND SNAKE Chilomeniscus cinctus 

R 174212 AZ WESTERN SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE Chionactis occipitalis 

R 174213 AZ SONORAN SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE Chionactis palarostris 

R 174230 NM WESTERN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE Gyalopion canum 

R 174233 NM NIGHT SNAKE Hypsiglena torquata 

R 174237 AZ SONORAN WHIPSNAKE Masticophis bilineatus 

R 174238 NM COACHWHIP Masticophis flagellum 

R 174240 NM STRIPED WHIPSNAKE Masticophis taeniatus 

R 174244 NM PLAIN-BELLIED WATER SNAKE Nerodia erythrogaster 

R 174251 CO NORTHERN WATER SNAKE Nerodia sipedon 

R 174258 AZ BROWN VINE SNAKE Oxybelis aeneus 

R 174260 AZ SADDLED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE Phyllorhynchus browni 

R 174261 AZ SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE Phyllorhynchus decurtatus 

R 174267 NM LONG-NOSED SNAKE Rhinocheilus lecontei 

R 174269 NM BIG BEND PATCH-NOSED SNAKE* Salvadora deserticola 

R 174270 NM MOUNTAIN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora grahamiae 

R 174271 AZ WESTERN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora hexalepis 

R 174275 AZ GROUND SNAKE Sonora semiannulata 

R 174282 AZ SOUTHWESTERN BLACK-HEADED 

SNAKE 

Tantilla hobartsmithi 

R 174283 NM PLAINS BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla nigriceps 

R 174288 AZ CHIHUAHUAN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla wilcoxi 

R 174289 AZ YAQUI BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla yaquia 
SWReGAP 

 

254 

Taxon 

Group 

ITIS Lead 

State 

Common Name Scientific Name 

 

R 174291 AZ WESTERN LYRE SNAKE Trimorphodon biscutatus 

R 174293 NM LINED SNAKE Tropidoclonion lineatum 

R 174304 CO MASSASAUGA Sistrurus catenatus 

R 174310 NM WESTERN DIAMONDBACK 

RATTLESNAKE 

Crotalus atrox 

R 174311 AZ SIDEWINDER Crotalus cerastes 

R 174312 NM ROCK RATTLESNAKE Crotalus lepidus 

R 174313 AZ SPECKLED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus mitchellii 

R 174314 AZ BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus molossus 

R 174315 AZ TWIN-SPOTTED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus pricei 

R 174317 AZ MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE Crotalus scutulatus 

R 174318 AZ TIGER RATTLESNAKE Crotalus tigris 

R 174319 CO WESTERN RATTLESNAKE Crotalus viridis 

R 174320 AZ RIDGE-NOSED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus willardi 

R 174326 NV RUBBER BOA Charina bottae 

R 174336 CO TEXAS BLIND SNAKE Leptotyphlops dulcis 

R 174337 NV WESTERN BLIND SNAKE Leptotyphlops humilis 

R 174352 AZ WESTERN CORAL SNAKE Micruroides euryxanthus 

R 208657 NM BIG BEND SLIDER Trachemys gaigeae 

R 208677 NM SMOOTH SOFTSHELL TURTLE Apalone mutica 

R 208680 NM SPINY SOFTSHELL TURTLE Apalone spinifera 

R 208791 UT MOJAVE BLACK-COLLARED LIZARD Crotaphytus bicinctores 

R 208896 CO VARIABLE SKINK* Eumeces gaigeae 

R 208940 AZ WESTERN WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tigris 

R 208947 AZ DESERT GRASSLAND WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus uniparens 

R 208948 AZ PLATEAU STRIPED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus velox 

R 209008 NV NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD Elgaria coerulea 

R 209017 AZ MADREAN ALLIGATOR LIZARD Elgaria kingii 

R 209247 CO COMMON KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis getula 

R 209266 NM GRAY-BANDED KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis alterna 

R 209400 NM BULLSNAKE Pituophis catenifer 

R 209455 NM TRANS-PECOS RAT SNAKE Bogertophis subocularis 

R 209458 AZ GREEN RAT SNAKE Senticolis triaspis 

R 551766 NM RIO GRANDE RIVER COOTER Pseudemys gorzugi 

R 563907 AZ ROSY BOA Charina trivirgata 

R 563909 AZ THORNSCRUB HOOK-NOSED SNAKE Gyalopion quadrangulare 

R 563910 CO SMOOTH GREEN SNAKE Liochlorophis vernalis 

R 564567 NV PYGMY SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma douglasii 

R 564571 AZ BLACK SPINY-TAILED IGUANA* Ctenosaura hemilopha 

R 564574 NM SAND DUNE LIZARD Sceloporus arenicolus 

R 564594 NV GREATER SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma hernandesi 

R 564596 AZ COMMON CHUCKWALLA Sauromalus ater 
SWReGAP 

 

255 

Appendix 3-2. Decision Rules for Taxa inclusion 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_HM-2.pdf
SWReGAP 

 

256 

Appendix 3-3. Habitat Modeling Protocol 

This appendix summarizes the major habitat modeling components included in the Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships database and associated user interface, for the SWReGAP project. The 

complete protocol and instructions on the user interface are available at http://fwsnmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_HM-3.pdf

Model Description: This is the description of the model and includes any information regarding 

the assumptions used within the creation of the model including information regarding 

seasonality of model or restricted range of model. 

Life History: This is available to enter information regarding life history traits or other 

important information about the species that may be useful in modeling. It may be important to 

identify plant species or vegetation/landscape features that a taxon is associated with. 

Description Changes: This field provides information regarding the modifications that have 

been made to the database. We want information regarding the modifications of the model 

including general attributes that were changed. 

Weighted Overlay: We are interested in pursuing weighted overlay modeling. Please indicate if 

factors such as expert knowledge, data, and literature are sufficient to pursue a weighted model. 

If there are sufficient data of high quality check this box. 

Sensitive Data: This entry is to identify if the data or work presented is sensitive and should be 

handled differently than other data. 

Patch Size: Patch size refers to the minimum habitat patch size in hectares. This information 

filters patches too small to be used by a taxon. Patch size information may not be available for 

many species, if it is indicate that it is available and the minimum size applicable. Patch size is 

an important species specific modeling consideration and we should view patch size in a metapopulation context. Hollings (1992) examines the relationship of home-range size to body mass. 

Slope: Check if data information is available. Slope should be entered in degrees with minimum 

and maximum values. If only a maximum value is present include that value and indicate there is 

no minimum value with a (0). 

Aspect: Check if this is identified as a factor or is not known to be a factor. If this is identified 

then aspect categories, in degrees, associated with the taxa should be checked. If all aspects are 

used check only the Aspect All box and if flat aspects are used check Aspect Flat. 

Elevation: If elevation data is available, elevation should be entered in meters with both the 

minimum and maximum indicated appropriately. Elevation is a constraining layer. 

Landform: The landform coverage provided by USU may contain certain associations that can be 

identified for use in modeling. If this information is available check the land form available box. 

Check all that are appropriate. 

Hydrology: Proximity to hydrological features can be an important modeling factor. We want to include 

several features including the type of hydrological feature the taxon is associated with and at what 

distance is the taxon associated with water. Check for each feature which this applies. If any feature is 

checked then the distance to water feature must be assigned a value in meters. 
SWReGAP 

 

257 

Hydrological Feature Description 

Stream/riparian buffer Species has an affinity to streams or riparian areas 

that can be identified

Lakes/Ponds Species has an affinity to lakes or ponds that can be 

identified

Reservoirs Species has an affinity to reservoirs that can be 

identified

Springs/Seeps Species has an affinity to springs/seeps that can be 

identified.

Wetlands Species has an affinity to wetlands that can be 

identified.

Intermittent Waters Species has an affinity to intermittent streams that 

can be identified.

Distance to water (in meters) Species has an affinity to water and a distance to 

water function can be derived for the species. 

Land Cover: WHR’s were built using associations with the Ecological Systems. 

Soil Type Categories: Soil Type refers to the predominant soil particle size. Use the soil types 

below to identify the associations. Be as specific as possible. 

[Choices available: Clay, Silt, Sand, Loam, Gravel, Cobble, Stone, Boulder, Rocky] 

Soil Depth Class: Depth Class is an indication of the depth to bedrock. This is particularly 

helpful when modeling fossorial species. Information should be input; if minimum depth to 

bedrock is available. This should be provided in centimeters (cm) if available, if not use 

categories below 

Shallow – less than 50 cm 

Pan – Restrictive root zone 

Deep – greater than 50 cm 

Percent Rock Outcrop: The Percent Rock Outcrop may be helpful with certain species 

associating to rock outcrops. Association information should be identified by the below 

categories. 

< 15 % 

15 – 30 % 

30 – 65 % 

> 65% 
SWReGAP 

 

258 

Appendix 3-4. Example habitat modeling data form 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_HM-4.pdf

Appendix 3-5. Complete list of references used in creating habitat models. 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_HM-5.pdf
SWReGAP 

 

259 

Appendix 3-6. List of Animal Habitat Model external reviewers. 

The following experts reviewed our habitat models and provided expertise and comments to 

modify the models. Habitat modelers took this information and modified the model based on the 

regional aspect of the project. We appreciate the comments made by the reviewers. All errors 

remain the responsibility of SWReGAP. A = Amphibians, B = Birds, M = Mammals, R = 

Reptiles. 

Name Affilitation State A B M R 

 

Abele, Steve Abele Inc. Region x 

Abele, Susan The Nature Conservancy NV x 

Alexander, Lois University of Nevada at Las Vegas NV, Region x 

Ammon, Elisabeth Great Basin Bird Observatory NV x 

Armstrong, Dave University of Colorado CO, Region x 

Baldino, Cristi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NV, NM x 

Bauman, Bradley Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x x 

Beier, Paul Northern Arizona University AZ x 

Blair, Kathleen USFWS - Bill Williams River National Wildlife 

Refuge 

AZ, Region x x x 

Bogan, Michael USGS AZ,NM x 

Boydston, Erin USGS NV, Region x 

Boyle, Steve BIO-Logic Environmental CO, Region x 

Bunnell, Kevin Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UT x 

Burroughs, Michael USFWS NV, Region x x 

Catalano, David P. Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x x 

Chung-MacCoubrey, 

Alice 

USDA Forest Service NM x 

Corman, Troy Arizona Game and Fish Department AZ x 

Dewey, Tanya University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Region x 

Eidel, Jim Great Basin Bird Observatory 

Fellows, Suzanne USFWS Region x 

Frey, Jennifer New Mexico State University NM, Region x 

Gammonley, Jim Colorado Division of Wildlife Region x 

Ganey, Joseph USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station Region x 

Hafner, John C. Occidental College Region x 

Hall, Derek US Department of Energy NV x 

Hall, Linnea Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology Region x 

Hammerson, Geoff The Nature Conservancy - Nature Serve Region x 

Hayes, Chuck New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Region x 

Heindl, Alex University of Nevada at Las Vegas NV x 

Hickman, Gerald BLM AZ, NV x 

Hodson, Ron Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UT x 

Jackson, Tina Colorado Division of Wildlife CO x x 

Jeffers, Jennifer Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x 

Jezkova, Tereza University of Nevada at Las Vegas Region x 

Jones, Cheri University of Colorado, Denver CO x 

Jones, Stephanie L. USFWS AZ, CO, Region x 

Klinger, Christina Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x 

Klute, Dave Colorado Division of Wildlife CO x 
SWReGAP 

 

260 

Name Affilitation State A B M R 

 

Kritz, Kevin USFWS NV x 

Lambeth, Ron BLM CO x 

Leukering, Tony Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory CO x 

Levad, Rich Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory CO x 

Livo, Lauren University of Colorado, Boulder CO, Region x x 

Loeffler, Chuck Retired - Colorado Division of Wildlife CO x x 

Mantooth, Stacy University of Nevada at Las Vegas NV x 

Marlow, Ron University of Nevada at Reno NV x 

Maxfield, Brian Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UT x 

Medica, Philip USGS/Biological Resources Division Region x 

Mitchell, Dean Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UT x 

Navo, Kirk Colorado Division of Wildlife CO x 

Neel, Larry Nevada Department of Wildlife NV, UT, Region x 

Newmark, Jennifer Nevada Natural Heritage Program NV x 

NM CWCS Review New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NM x x x x 

Nowak, Erika USGS Colorado Plateau Research Station AZ, Region x x 

Oliver, George Utah Natural Heritage Program, Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources 

UT x x x 

Painter, Charles New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NM x x 

Prather, John Northern Arizona University Region x 

Rickart, Eric Utah Museum of Natural History, University of 

Utah 

NV, UT, Region x 

Schnurr, Pam Colorado Division of Wildlife CO x 

Schorr, Rob Colorado Natural Heritage Program/Colorado 

State University 

CO x 

Schwalbe, Cecil USGS, Southwest Biological Science Center AZ x 

Seglund, Amy Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Region x 

Shaul, Anita Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x x 

Stoner, David Utah State University UT x 

Stuart, Jim New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NM x 

Swett, John US Bureau of Reclamation NV x 

Tomlinson, Cris Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x x 

Toolen, John Colorado Division of Wildlife CO, Region x 

Utah Natural Heritage 

Program 

 UT x x 

Van Pelt, Bill Arizona Game and Fish Department AZ x 

Wasley, Tony Nevada Department of Wildlife NV x 

Williams, Jason Nevada Department of Wildlife NV, Region x 

1

NM CWCS Review – New Mexico Department of Game and Fish provided land cover associations reviews of draft 

species habitat models. 

2

Utah Natural Heritage Program- Heritage staff provided review of models 
SWReGAP 

 

261 

Appendix 3-7. Examples of model documents including Model Report, Range, 

and Model 

Model reports for all species are available from the SWReGAP web Site (http://fwsnmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/habitatreview/Review.asp) Below is a link to an example set for the Nothern 

Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus). 

Report

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/habitatreview/TextModels/180169.pdf

Range

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/habitatreview/Range/180169.pdf

Model

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/habitatreview/Models/180169.pdf

Appendix 3-8. Review Documentation for Habitat Models 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_HM-8.pdf
SWReGAP 

 

262 

Appendix 3-9. Example Vertebrate Habitat Distribution Metadata 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/habitatreview/swregaphabitatmodelmetadata.htm

SWReGAP Vertebrate Habitat Distribution Models 

Metadata also available as 

Metadata: 

• Identification_Information

• Data_Quality_Information

• Spatial_Data_Organization_Information

• Spatial_Reference_Information

• Entity_and_Attribute_Information

• Distribution_Information

• Metadata_Reference_Information

Identification_Information: 

Citation: 

Citation_Information: 

Originator: New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Publication_Date: 20050930 

Title: SWReGAP Vertebrate Habitat Distribution Models 

Edition: 1.0 

Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital data 

Publication_Information: 

Publication_Place: Las Cruces, NM 

Online_Linkage: <http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/>

Larger_Work_Citation: 

Citation_Information: 

Originator: USGS GAP Analysis Program 

Publication_Date: 20050930 

Publication_Time: Unknown 

Title: Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report 

Other_Citation_Details: <http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/>

Online_Linkage: <http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/>

Description: 

Abstract: 

Mapping of terrestrial vertebrates focuses on linking a spatial representation of species-habitat matrices to 

geographic distribution. Each model is a combination of distribution from regional and state references in 

association with contiguous appropriate habitats. Ranges for all species were based on 8-digit HUCs. 

Habitats were based on a raster SWReGAP 1 acre MMU land cover data set, with hydrology habitats added 

in from USGS NHD dataset directly or through modeling. Habitat association information was obtained 

from various state, regional, and national references with updates from scientific literature. This portion of 

the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project produced predicted habitat distribution maps for 820 species. 

Purpose: 

The digital dataset was created for the creation of habitat models for a regional biodiversity assessment. 

These data are not intended to be used at scales larger than 1:100,000. This data was prepared in 

compliance with the National GAP effort. Distributions of 37 amphibians, 132 reptiles, 436 birds and 215 

mammals were predicted by 8-digit HUC using a variety of sources. Most (650 of 820)models benefitted 

from review by taxa experts throughout the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project area. Habitat 

relationships for all terrestrial vertebrates were taken from various databases and most recent published 
SWReGAP 

 

263 

scientific literature on each taxa, with review of collected relationships by species experts. These habitat 

relationships were cross-linked to one or several of the 52 land cover/vegetation types delineated on the 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project land cover map. Predicted distribution maps were produced for 

each species based on county of occurrence and habitat affinities 

Supplemental_Information: 

Species List including ITIS CODE, Common Name and Scientific Name; -3 ARIZONA MYOTIS Myotis 

occultus -2 GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE Centrocercus minimus -1 TRIPLOID CHECKERED 

WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neotesselatus 173429 COUCH'S SPADEFOOT Scaphiopus couchii 173438 

GREEN FROG Rana clamitans 173440 WOOD FROG Rana sylvatica 173441 BULLFROG Rana 

catesbeiana 173443 NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG Rana pipiens 173446 RED-LEGGED FROG Rana 

aurora 173447 RIO GRANDE LEOPARD FROG Rana berlandieri 173448 PLAINS LEOPARD FROG 

Rana blairi 173451 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG Rana chiricahuensis 173454 MOUNTAIN 

YELLOW-LEGGED FROG Rana muscosa 173457 RELICT LEOPARD FROG Rana onca 173458 

SPOTTED FROG Rana pretiosa 173461 TARAHUMARA FROG Rana tarahumarae 173462 YAVAPAI 

LEOPARD FROG Rana yavapaiensis 173468 GREAT PLAINS NARROWMOUTH TOAD Gastrophryne 

olivacea 173476 WOODHOUSE'S TOAD Bufo woodhousii 173481 COLORADO RIVER TOAD Bufo 

alvarius 173482 WESTERN TOAD Bufo boreas 173484 GREAT PLAINS TOAD Bufo cognatus 173485 

GREEN TOAD Bufo debilis 173490 SOUTHWESTERN TOAD Bufo microscaphus 173491 REDSPOTTED TOAD Bufo punctatus 173492 SONORAN GREEN TOAD Bufo retiformis 173493 TEXAS 

TOAD Bufo speciosus 173510 CANYON TREEFROG Hyla arenicolor 173513 MOUNTAIN TREEFROG 

Hyla eximia 173520 NORTHERN CRICKET FROG Acris crepitans 173525 WESTERN CHORUS FROG 

Pseudacris triseriata 173534 LOWLAND BURROWING TREEFROG Pternohyla fodiens 173549 

AFRICAN CLAWED FROG Xenopus laevis 173592 TIGER SALAMANDER Ambystoma tigrinum 

173663 JEMEZ MOUNTAINS SALAMANDER Plethodon neomexicanus 173702 SACRAMENTO 

MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER Aneides hardii 173752 SNAPPING TURTLE Chelydra serpentina 173766 

YELLOW MUD TURTLE Kinosternon flavescens 173768 SONORAN MUD TURTLE Kinosternon 

sonoriense 173774 WESTERN POND TURTLE Clemmys marmorata 173778 ORNATE BOX TURTLE 

Terrapene ornata 173783 PAINTED TURTLE Chrysemys picta 173819 COMMON SLIDER Trachemys 

scripta 173856 DESERT TORTOISE Gopherus agassizii 173865 EASTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus 

undulatus 173868 CLARK'S SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus clarkii 173870 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 

Sceloporus graciosus 173872 YARROW'S SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus jarrovii 173873 DESERT SPINY 

LIZARD Sceloporus magister 173875 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus occidentalis 173878 

CREVICE SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus poinsettii 173879 BUNCH GRASS LIZARD Sceloporus scalaris 

173881 STRIPED PLATEAU LIZARD Sceloporus virgatus 173906 ZEBRA-TAILED LIZARD 

Callisaurus draconoides 173910 GREATER EARLESS LIZARD Cophosaurus texanus 173912 

COLLARED LIZARD Crotaphytus collaris 173921 DESERT IGUANA Dipsosaurus dorsalis 173924 

LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Gambelia wislizenii 173927 LESSER EARLESS LIZARD 

Holbrookia maculata 173938 TEXAS HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma cornutum 173941 FLAT-TAILED 

HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma mcallii 173942 ROUND-TAILED HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma 

modestum 173943 DESERT HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma platyrhinos 173944 REGAL HORNED 

LIZARD Phrynosoma solare 173949 COLORADO DESERT FRINGE-TOED LIZARD Uma notata 

173950 MOJAVE FRINGE-TOED LIZARD Uma scoparia 173952 LONG-TAILED BRUSH LIZARD 

Urosaurus graciosus 173954 TREE LIZARD Urosaurus ornatus 173956 SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD Uta 

stansburiana 173964 MOUNTAIN SKINK Eumeces callicephalus 173966 GILBERT'S SKINK Eumeces 

gilberti 173967 MANY-LINED SKINK Eumeces multivirgatus 173968 GREAT PLAINS SKINK 

Eumeces obsoletus 173970 WESTERN SKINK Eumeces skiltonianus 173971 FOUR-LINED SKINK 

Eumeces tetragrammus 174014 SIX-LINED RACERUNNER Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 174015 

CANYON SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus burti 174016 GRAY-CHECKERED WHIPTAIL 

Cnemidophorus dixoni 174017 CHIHUAHUAN SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus exsanguis 

174018 GILA SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus flagellicaudus 174019 TEXAS SPOTTED 

WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus gularis 174021 LITTLE STRIPED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus inornatus 

174024 NEW MEXICO WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neomexicanus 174025 SONORAN SPOTTED 

WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus sonorae 174026 CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tesselatus 

174038 TEXAS BANDED GECKO Coleonyx brevis 174041 WESTERN BANDED GECKO Coleonyx 

variegatus 174092 DESERT NIGHT LIZARD Xantusia vigilis 174113 GILA MONSTER Heloderma 

suspectum 174136 COMMON GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis sirtalis 174140 WESTERN AQUATIC 
SWReGAP 

 

264 

GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis couchii 174141 BLACK-NECKED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis 

cyrtopsis 174142 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis elegans 174143 

MEXICAN GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis eques 174144 CHECKERED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis 

marcianus 174146 WESTERN RIBBON SNAKE Thamnophis proximus 174147 PLAINS GARTER 

SNAKE Thamnophis radix 174148 NARROW-HEADED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis rufipunctatus 

174155 WESTERN HOG-NOSED SNAKE Heterodon nasicus 174158 RING-NECKED SNAKE 

Diadophis punctatus 174169 RACER Coluber constrictor 174175 CORN SNAKE Elaphe guttata 174187 

MILK SNAKE Lampropeltis triangulum 174192 SONORAN MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis 

pyromelana 174202 GLOSSY SNAKE Arizona elegans 174210 BANDED SAND SNAKE Chilomeniscus 

cinctus 174212 WESTERN SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE Chionactis occipitalis 174213 SONORAN 

SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE Chionactis palarostris 174230 WESTERN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE 

Gyalopion canum 174233 NIGHT SNAKE Hypsiglena torquata 174237 SONORAN WHIPSNAKE 

Masticophis bilineatus 174238 COACHWHIP Masticophis flagellum 174240 STRIPED WHIPSNAKE 

Masticophis taeniatus 174244 PLAIN-BELLIED WATER SNAKE Nerodia erythrogaster 174251 

NORTHERN WATER SNAKE Nerodia sipedon 174258 BROWN VINE SNAKE Oxybelis aeneus 174260 

SADDLED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE Phyllorhynchus browni 174261 SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE 

Phyllorhynchus decurtatus 174267 LONG-NOSED SNAKE Rhinocheilus lecontei 174269 BIG BEND 

PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora deserticola 174270 MOUNTAIN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE 

Salvadora grahamiae 174271 WESTERN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora hexalepis 174275 

GROUND SNAKE Sonora semiannulata 174282 SOUTHWESTERN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla 

hobartsmithi 174283 PLAINS BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla nigriceps 174288 CHIHUAHUAN 

BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla wilcoxi 174289 YAQUI BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla yaquia 

174291 WESTERN LYRE SNAKE Trimorphodon biscutatus 174293 LINED SNAKE Tropidoclonion 

lineatum 174304 MASSASAUGA Sistrurus catenatus 174310 WESTERN DIAMONDBACK 

RATTLESNAKE Crotalus atrox 174311 SIDEWINDER Crotalus cerastes 174312 ROCK 

RATTLESNAKE Crotalus lepidus 174313 SPECKLED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus mitchellii 174314 

BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus molossus 174315 TWIN-SPOTTED RATTLESNAKE 

Crotalus pricei 174317 MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE Crotalus scutulatus 174318 TIGER RATTLESNAKE 

Crotalus tigris 174319 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE Crotalus viridis 174320 RIDGE-NOSED 

RATTLESNAKE Crotalus willardi 174326 RUBBER BOA Charina bottae 174336 TEXAS BLIND 

SNAKE Leptotyphlops dulcis 174337 WESTERN BLIND SNAKE Leptotyphlops humilis 174352 

WESTERN CORAL SNAKE Micruroides euryxanthus 174469 COMMON LOON Gavia immer 174470 

YELLOW-BILLED LOON Gavia adamsii 174474 RED-THROATED LOON Gavia stellata 174475 

PACIFIC LOON Gavia pacifica 174479 RED-NECKED GREBE Podiceps grisegena 174482 HORNED 

GREBE Podiceps auritus 174485 EARED GREBE Podiceps nigricollis 174503 WESTERN GREBE 

Aechmophorus occidentalis 174505 PIED-BILLED GREBE Podilymbus podiceps 174684 AMERICAN 

WHITE PELICAN Pelecanus erythrorhynchos 174717 DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT 

Phalacrocorax auritus 174773 GREAT BLUE HERON Ardea herodias 174793 GREEN HERON Butorides 

virescens 174803 CATTLE EGRET Bubulcus ibis 174813 SNOWY EGRET Egretta thula 174827 LITTLE 

BLUE HERON Egretta caerulea 174832 BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nycticorax nycticorax 

174842 YELLOW-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nyctanassa violacea 174846 LEAST BITTERN 

Ixobrychus exilis 174856 AMERICAN BITTERN Botaurus lentiginosus 174926 WHITE-FACED IBIS 

Plegadis chihi 174987 TUNDRA SWAN Cygnus columbianus 174992 TRUMPETER SWAN Cygnus 

buccinator 174999 CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis 175011 BRANT Branta bernicla 175020 

GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser albifrons 175038 SNOW GOOSE Chen caerulescens 

175041 ROSS'S GOOSE Chen rossii 175044 BLACK-BELLIED WHISTLING-DUCK Dendrocygna 

autumnalis 175063 MALLARD Anas platyrhynchos 175068 AMERICAN BLACK DUCK Anas rubripes 

175073 GADWALL Anas strepera 175074 NORTHERN PINTAIL Anas acuta 175081 GREEN-WINGED 

TEAL Anas crecca 175086 BLUE-WINGED TEAL Anas discors 175089 CINNAMON TEAL Anas 

cyanoptera 175092 EURASIAN WIGEON Anas penelope 175094 AMERICAN WIGEON Anas 

americana 175096 NORTHERN SHOVELER Anas clypeata 175122 WOOD DUCK Aix sponsa 175125 

REDHEAD Aythya americana 175128 RING-NECKED DUCK Aythya collaris 175129 CANVASBACK 

Aythya valisineria 175130 GREATER SCAUP Aythya marila 175134 LESSER SCAUP Aythya affinis 

175141 COMMON GOLDENEYE Bucephala clangula 175144 BARROW'S GOLDENEYE Bucephala 

islandica 175145 BUFFLEHEAD Bucephala albeola 175147 LONG-TAILED DUCK Clangula hyemalis 

175149 HARLEQUIN DUCK Histrionicus histrionicus 175163 WHITE-WINGED SCOTER Melanitta 
SWReGAP 

 

265 

fusca 175170 SURF SCOTER Melanitta perspicillata 175175 RUDDY DUCK Oxyura jamaicensis 175183 

HOODED MERGANSER Lophodytes cucullatus 175185 COMMON MERGANSER Mergus merganser 

175187 RED-BREASTED MERGANSER Mergus serrator 175265 TURKEY VULTURE Cathartes aura 

175272 BLACK VULTURE Coragyps atratus 175274 CALIFORNIA CONDOR Gymnogyps californianus 

175282 WHITE-TAILED KITE Elanus leucurus 175300 NORTHERN GOSHAWK Accipiter gentilis 

175304 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK Accipiter striatus 175309 COOPER'S HAWK Accipiter cooperii 

175350 RED-TAILED HAWK Buteo jamaicensis 175365 BROAD-WINGED HAWK Buteo platypterus 

175367 SWAINSON'S HAWK Buteo swainsoni 175368 ZONE-TAILED HAWK Buteo albonotatus 

175373 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK Buteo lagopus 175377 FERRUGINOUS HAWK Buteo regalis 175397 

HARRIS'S HAWK Parabuteo unicinctus 175402 COMMON BLACK-HAWK Buteogallus anthracinus 

175407 GOLDEN EAGLE Aquila chrysaetos 175420 BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus leucocephalus 175430 

NORTHERN HARRIER Circus cyaneus 175590 OSPREY Pandion haliaetus 175599 GYRFALCON Falco 

rusticolus 175603 PRAIRIE FALCON Falco mexicanus 175604 PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus 

175610 APLOMADO FALCON Falco femoralis 175613 MERLIN Falco columbarius 175622 

AMERICAN KESTREL Falco sparverius 175790 RUFFED GROUSE Bonasa umbellus 175827 WHITETAILED PTARMIGAN Lagopus leucurus 175834 GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus cupido 

175838 LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 175841 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE 

Tympanuchus phasianellus 175848 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE-COLUMBIAN Tympanuchus 

phasianellus columbianus 175852 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE-PLAINS Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesi 

175855 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE Centrocercus urophasianus 175860 BLUE GROUSE Dendragapus 

obscurus 175863 NORTHERN BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus 175872 SCALED QUAIL Callipepla 

squamata 175876 CALIFORNIA QUAIL Callipepla californica 175877 GAMBEL'S QUAIL Callipepla 

gambelii 175893 MOUNTAIN QUAIL Oreortyx pictus 175900 MONTEZUMA QUAIL Cyrtonyx 

montezumae 175905 RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus 175908 CHUKAR Alectoris 

chukar 175915 GRAY PARTRIDGE Perdix perdix 176136 WILD TURKEY Meleagris gallopavo 176176 

WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana 176177 SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis 176177 SANDHILL 

CRANE Grus canadensis 176209 CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris 176221 VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus 

limicola 176221 VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicola 176242 SORA Porzana carolina 176263 BLACK RAIL 

Laterallus jamaicensis 176284 COMMON MOORHEN Gallinula chloropus 176292 AMERICAN COOT 

Fulica americana 176506 SEMIPALMATED PLOVER Charadrius semipalmatus 176507 PIPING 

PLOVER Charadrius melodus 176510 SNOWY PLOVER Charadrius alexandrinus 176520 KILLDEER 

Charadrius vociferus 176522 MOUNTAIN PLOVER Charadrius montanus 176564 AMERICAN 

GOLDEN-PLOVER Pluvialis dominica 176567 BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER Pluvialis squatarola 176571 

RUDDY TURNSTONE Arenaria interpres 176580 AMERICAN WOODCOCK Scolopax minor 176593 

LONG-BILLED CURLEW Numenius americanus 176599 WHIMBREL Numenius phaeopus 176610 

UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda 176612 SPOTTED SANDPIPER Actitis macularia 176615 

SOLITARY SANDPIPER Tringa solitaria 176619 GREATER YELLOWLEGS Tringa melanoleuca 

176620 LESSER YELLOWLEGS Tringa flavipes 176638 WILLET Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 176642 

RED KNOT Calidris canutus 176653 PECTORAL SANDPIPER Calidris melanotos 176654 WHITERUMPED SANDPIPER Calidris fuscicollis 176655 BAIRD'S SANDPIPER Calidris bairdii 176656 

LEAST SANDPIPER Calidris minutilla 176661 DUNLIN Calidris alpina 176667 SEMIPALMATED 

SANDPIPER Calidris pusilla 176668 WESTERN SANDPIPER Calidris mauri 176669 SANDERLING 

Calidris alba 176675 SHORT-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus griseus 176679 LONG-BILLED 

DOWITCHER Limnodromus scolopaceus 176684 BUFF-BREASTED SANDPIPER Tryngites 

subruficollis 176686 MARBLED GODWIT Limosa fedoa 176700 COMMON SNIPE Gallinago gallinago 

176721 AMERICAN AVOCET Recurvirostra americana 176726 BLACK-NECKED STILT Himantopus 

mexicanus 176735 RED-NECKED PHALAROPE Phalaropus lobatus 176736 WILSON'S PHALAROPE 

Phalaropus tricolor 176808 GLAUCOUS GULL Larus hyperboreus 176824 HERRING GULL Larus 

argentatus 176828 THAYER'S GULL Larus thayeri 176829 CALIFORNIA GULL Larus californicus 

176830 RING-BILLED GULL Larus delawarensis 176838 FRANKLIN'S GULL Larus pipixcan 176839 

BONAPARTE'S GULL Larus philadelphia 176866 SABINE'S GULL Xema sabini 176887 FORSTER'S 

TERN Sterna forsteri 176888 COMMON TERN Sterna hirundo 176923 LEAST TERN Sterna antillarum 

176924 CASPIAN TERN Sterna caspia 176959 BLACK TERN Chlidonias niger 177065 BAND-TAILED 

PIGEON Columba fasciata 177071 ROCK DOVE Columba livia 177121 WHITE-WINGED DOVE 

Zenaida asiatica 177125 MOURNING DOVE Zenaida macroura 177134 SPOTTED DOVE Streptopelia 

chinensis 177152 COMMON GROUND-DOVE Columbina passerina 177162 INCA DOVE Columbina 
SWReGAP 

 

266 

inca 177831 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus americanus 177834 BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO 

Coccyzus erythropthalmus 177836 GREATER ROADRUNNER Geococcyx californianus 177851 

COMMON BARN-OWL Tyto alba 177856 EASTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus asio 177875 WHISKERED 

SCREECH-OWL Otus trichopsis 177878 FLAMMULATED OWL Otus flammeolus 177884 GREAT 

HORNED OWL Bubo virginianus 177896 SNOWY OWL Nyctea scandiaca 177902 NORTHERN 

PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium gnoma 177908 FERRUGINOUS PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium brasilianum 

177912 ELF OWL Micrathene whitneyi 177925 SPOTTED OWL Strix occidentalis 177932 LONGEARED OWL Asio otus 177935 SHORT-EARED OWL Asio flammeus 177938 BOREAL OWL Aegolius 

funereus 177942 NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL Aegolius acadicus 177946 BURROWING OWL 

Athene cunicularia 177961 WHIP-POOR-WILL Caprimulgus vociferus 177966 BUFF-COLLARED 

NIGHTJAR Caprimulgus ridgwayi 177979 COMMON NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles minor 177988 LESSER 

NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles acutipennis 177997 BLACK SWIFT Cypseloides niger 178001 CHIMNEY 

SWIFT Chaetura pelagica 178002 VAUX'S SWIFT Chaetura vauxi 178014 WHITE-THROATED SWIFT 

Aeronautes saxatalis 178030 LUCIFER HUMMINGBIRD Calothorax lucifer 178033 BLACK-CHINNED 

HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus alexandri 178035 COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte costae 178036 

ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte anna 178038 BROAD-TAILED HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus 

platycercus 178040 RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus rufus 178041 ALLEN'S HUMMINGBIRD 

Selasphorus sasin 178048 CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD Stellula calliope 178050 MAGNIFICENT 

HUMMINGBIRD Eugenes fulgens 178054 BLUE-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD Lampornis clemenciae 

178065 BERYLLINE HUMMINGBIRD Amazilia beryllina 178066 VIOLET-CROWNED 

HUMMINGBIRD Amazilia violiceps 178069 WHITE-EARED HUMMINGBIRD Hylocharis leucotis 

178073 BROAD-BILLED HUMMINGBIRD Cynanthus latirostris 178096 ELEGANT TROGON Trogon 

elegans 178101 EARED TROGON Euptilotis neoxenus 178112 GREEN KINGFISHER Chloroceryle 

americana 178119 BELTED KINGFISHER Ceryle alcyon 178154 NORTHERN FLICKER Colaptes 

auratus 178164 GILDED FLICKER Colaptes chrysoides 178186 RED-HEADED WOODPECKER 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 178189 ACORN WOODPECKER Melanerpes formicivorus 178195 REDBELLIED WOODPECKER Melanerpes carolinus 178196 LEWIS'S WOODPECKER Melanerpes lewis 

178198 GILA WOODPECKER Melanerpes uropygialis 178208 WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER 

Sphyrapicus thyroideus 178211 RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus nuchalis 178212 REDBREASTED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus ruber 178251 THREE-TOED WOODPECKER Picoides 

tridactylus 178256 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER Picoides albolarvatus 178259 DOWNY 

WOODPECKER Picoides pubescens 178260 LADDER-BACKED WOODPECKER Picoides scalaris 

178261 STRICKLAND'S WOODPECKER Picoides stricklandi 178262 HAIRY WOODPECKER Picoides 

villosus 178279 EASTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus tyrannus 178282 TROPICAL KINGBIRD Tyrannus 

melancholicus 178287 WESTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus verticalis 178288 CASSIN'S KINGBIRD 

Tyrannus vociferans 178292 THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD Tyrannus crassirostris 178293 SCISSORTAILED FLYCATCHER Tyrannus forficatus 178305 SULPHUR-BELLIED FLYCATCHER 

Myiodynastes luteiventris 178309 GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus crinitus 178312 

BROWN-CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus tyrannulus 178316 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 

Myiarchus cinerascens 178319 DUSKY-CAPPED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus tuberculifer 178329 

EASTERN PHOEBE Sayornis phoebe 178330 BLACK PHOEBE Sayornis nigricans 178333 SAY'S 

PHOEBE Sayornis saya 178340 ALDER FLYCATCHER Empidonax alnorum 178341 WILLOW 

FLYCATCHER Empidonax traillii 178346 DUSKY FLYCATCHER Empidonax oberholseri 178347 

GRAY FLYCATCHER Empidonax wrightii 178348 PACIFIC-SLOPE FLYCATCHER Empidonax 

difficilis 178352 BUFF-BREASTED FLYCATCHER Empidonax fulvifrons 178356 GREATER PEWEE 

Contopus pertinax 178360 WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE Contopus sordidulus 178371 VERMILION 

FLYCATCHER Pyrocephalus rubinus 178376 NORTHERN BEARDLESS-TYRANNULET 

Camptostoma imberbe 178384 ROSE-THROATED BECARD Pachyramphus aglaiae 178427 VIOLETGREEN SWALLOW Tachycineta thalassina 178431 TREE SWALLOW Tachycineta bicolor 178436 

BANK SWALLOW Riparia riparia 178443 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis 178448 BARN SWALLOW Hirundo rustica 178455 CLIFF SWALLOW Petrochelidon 

pyrrhonota 178460 CAVE SWALLOW Petrochelidon fulva 178464 PURPLE MARTIN Progne subis 

178499 SPRAGUE'S PIPIT Anthus spragueii 178511 NORTHERN SHRIKE Lanius excubitor 178515 

LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Lanius ludovicianus 178529 BOHEMIAN WAXWING Bombycilla garrulus 

178532 CEDAR WAXWING Bombycilla cedrorum 178536 AMERICAN DIPPER Cinclus mexicanus 

178541 HOUSE WREN Troglodytes aedon 178547 WINTER WREN Troglodytes troglodytes 178562 
SWReGAP 

 

267 

BEWICK'S WREN Thryomanes bewickii 178581 CAROLINA WREN Thryothorus ludovicianus 178587 

CACTUS WREN Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus 178605 SEDGE WREN Cistothorus platensis 178608 

MARSH WREN Cistothorus palustris 178610 CANYON WREN Catherpes mexicanus 178614 ROCK 

WREN Salpinctes obsoletus 178620 NORTHERN MOCKINGBIRD Mimus polyglottos 178625 GRAY 

CATBIRD Dumetella carolinensis 178627 BROWN THRASHER Toxostoma rufum 178636 BENDIRE'S 

THRASHER Toxostoma bendirei 178637 CURVE-BILLED THRASHER Toxostoma curvirostre 178645 

LE CONTE'S THRASHER Toxostoma lecontei 178652 CRISSAL THRASHER Toxostoma crissale 

178654 SAGE THRASHER Oreoscoptes montanus 178759 VERDIN Auriparus flaviceps 178764 

BUSHTIT Psaltriparus minimus 178775 WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta carolinensis 178784 

RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta canadensis 178788 PYGMY NUTHATCH Sitta pygmaea 178803 

BROWN CREEPER Certhia americana 178841 RUFOUS-CAPPED WARBLER Basileuterus rufifrons 

178844 BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER Mniotilta varia 178855 TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora 

peregrina 178856 ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER Vermivora celata 178861 NASHVILLE 

WARBLER Vermivora ruficapilla 178864 VIRGINIA'S WARBLER Vermivora virginiae 178866 LUCY'S 

WARBLER Vermivora luciae 178874 OLIVE WARBLER Peucedramus taeniatus 178878 YELLOW 

WARBLER Dendroica petechia 178891 YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER Dendroica coronata 178896 

BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER Dendroica nigrescens 178897 TOWNSEND'S WARBLER 

Dendroica townsendi 178902 HERMIT WARBLER Dendroica occidentalis 178909 GRACE'S 

WARBLER Dendroica graciae 178913 BLACKPOLL WARBLER Dendroica striata 178918 PRAIRIE 

WARBLER Dendroica discolor 178921 PALM WARBLER Dendroica palmarum 178927 OVENBIRD 

Seiurus aurocapillus 178931 NORTHERN WATERTHRUSH Seiurus noveboracensis 178940 

MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER Oporornis tolmiei 178944 COMMON YELLOWTHROAT Geothlypis 

trichas 178964 YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT Icteria virens 178970 RED-FACED WARBLER Cardellina 

rubrifrons 178973 WILSON'S WARBLER Wilsonia pusilla 178979 AMERICAN REDSTART Setophaga 

ruticilla 178986 PAINTED REDSTART Myioborus pictus 178997 HUTTON'S VIREO Vireo huttoni 

179003 BELL'S VIREO Vireo bellii 179008 GRAY VIREO Vireo vicinior 179021 RED-EYED VIREO 

Vireo olivaceus 179023 WARBLING VIREO Vireo gilvus 179032 BOBOLINK Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

179034 EASTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella magna 179039 WESTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella 

neglecta 179043 YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 179045 REDWINGED BLACKBIRD Agelaius phoeniceus 179060 TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD Agelaius tricolor 

179064 ORCHARD ORIOLE Icterus spurius 179070 HOODED ORIOLE Icterus cucullatus 179079 

STREAK-BACKED ORIOLE Icterus pustulatus 179082 SCOTT'S ORIOLE Icterus parisorum 179083 

BALTIMORE ORIOLE Icterus galbula 179094 BREWER'S BLACKBIRD Euphagus cyanocephalus 

179104 COMMON GRACKLE Quiscalus quiscula 179109 GREAT-TAILED GRACKLE Quiscalus 

mexicanus 179112 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD Molothrus ater 179116 BRONZED COWBIRD 

Molothrus aeneus 179124 NORTHERN CARDINAL Cardinalis cardinalis 179132 PYRRHULOXIA 

Cardinalis sinuatus 179139 ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK Pheucticus ludovicianus 179140 BLACKHEADED GROSBEAK Pheucticus melanocephalus 179145 BLUE GROSBEAK Guiraca caerulea 179150 

INDIGO BUNTING Passerina cyanea 179151 LAZULI BUNTING Passerina amoena 179152 VARIED 

BUNTING Passerina versicolor 179156 PAINTED BUNTING Passerina ciris 179165 DICKCISSEL Spiza 

americana 179173 EVENING GROSBEAK Coccothraustes vespertinus 179186 PURPLE FINCH 

Carpodacus purpureus 179190 CASSIN'S FINCH Carpodacus cassinii 179191 HOUSE FINCH 

Carpodacus mexicanus 179205 PINE GROSBEAK Pinicola enucleator 179215 GRAY-CROWNED 

ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte tephrocotis 179222 BLACK ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte atrata 179222 BLACK 

ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte atrata 179223 BROWN-CAPPED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte australis 179223 

BROWN-CAPPED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte australis 179230 COMMON REDPOLL Carduelis 

flammea 179232 LAWRENCE'S GOLDFINCH Carduelis lawrencei 179233 PINE SISKIN Carduelis 

pinus 179234 LESSER GOLDFINCH Carduelis psaltria 179236 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH Carduelis 

tristis 179259 RED CROSSBILL Loxia curvirostra 179268 WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL Loxia 

leucoptera 179293 CANYON TOWHEE Pipilo fuscus 179307 ABERT'S TOWHEE Pipilo aberti 179310 

GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE Pipilo chlorurus 179312 LARK BUNTING Calamospiza melanocorys 

179314 SAVANNAH SPARROW Passerculus sandwichensis 179333 GRASSHOPPER SPARROW 

Ammodramus savannarum 179339 BAIRD'S SPARROW Ammodramus bairdii 179345 LE CONTE'S 

SPARROW Ammodramus leconteii 179366 VESPER SPARROW Pooecetes gramineus 179371 LARK 

SPARROW Chondestes grammacus 179375 RUFOUS-WINGED SPARROW Aimophila carpalis 179377 

RUFOUS-CROWNED SPARROW Aimophila ruficeps 179390 BOTTERI'S SPARROW Aimophila 
SWReGAP 

 

268 

botterii 179393 CASSIN'S SPARROW Aimophila cassinii 179395 BLACK-THROATED SPARROW 

Amphispiza bilineata 179402 SAGE SPARROW Amphispiza belli 179410 DARK-EYED JUNCO Junco 

hyemalis 179427 YELLOW-EYED JUNCO Junco phaeonotus 179432 AMERICAN TREE SPARROW 

Spizella arborea 179435 CHIPPING SPARROW Spizella passerina 179439 CLAY-COLORED 

SPARROW Spizella pallida 179440 BREWER'S SPARROW Spizella breweri 179443 FIELD SPARROW 

Spizella pusilla 179448 BLACK-CHINNED SPARROW Spizella atrogularis 179454 HARRIS'S 

SPARROW Zonotrichia querula 179455 WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia leucophrys 179461 

GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia atricapilla 179462 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 

Zonotrichia albicollis 179464 FOX SPARROW Passerella iliaca 179484 LINCOLN'S SPARROW 

Melospiza lincolnii 179488 SWAMP SPARROW Melospiza georgiana 179492 SONG SPARROW 

Melospiza melodia 179525 MCCOWN'S LONGSPUR Calcarius mccownii 179526 LAPLAND 

LONGSPUR Calcarius lapponicus 179530 CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR Calcarius ornatus 

179532 SNOW BUNTING Plectrophenax nivalis 179628 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus 179637 

EUROPEAN STARLING Sturnus vulgaris 179667 GRAY JAY Perisoreus canadensis 179680 BLUE JAY 

Cyanocitta cristata 179685 STELLER'S JAY Cyanocitta stelleri 179707 MEXICAN JAY Aphelocoma 

ultramarina 179720 BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE Pica hudsonia 179725 COMMON RAVEN Corvus corax 

179730 CHIHUAHUAN RAVEN Corvus cryptoleucus 179731 AMERICAN CROW Corvus 

brachyrhynchos 179748 PINYON JAY Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus 179750 CLARK'S NUTCRACKER 

Nucifraga columbiana 179759 AMERICAN ROBIN Turdus migratorius 179773 VARIED THRUSH 

Ixoreus naevius 179777 WOOD THRUSH Hylocichla mustelina 179779 HERMIT THRUSH Catharus 

guttatus 179788 SWAINSON'S THRUSH Catharus ustulatus 179793 GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH 

Catharus minimus 179796 VEERY Catharus fuscescens 179801 EASTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia sialis 

179806 WESTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia mexicana 179811 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD Sialia currucoides 

179824 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE Myadestes townsendi 179853 BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER 

Polioptila caerulea 179857 BLACK-TAILED GNATCATCHER Polioptila melanura 179863 BLACKCAPPED GNATCATCHER Polioptila nigriceps 179865 GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus 

satrapa 179870 RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus calendula 179877 PHAINOPEPLA Phainopepla 

nitens 179882 WESTERN TANAGER Piranga ludoviciana 179884 HEPATIC TANAGER Piranga flava 

179888 SUMMER TANAGER Piranga rubra 179891 FLAME-COLORED TANAGER Piranga bidentata 

179921 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM Didelphis virginiana 179929 MASKED SHREW Sorex cinereus 179932 

VAGRANT SHREW Sorex vagrans 179933 NORTHERN WATER SHREW Sorex palustris 179939 

ARIZONA SHREW Sorex arizonae 179946 PYGMY SHREW Sorex hoyi 179949 MERRIAM'S SHREW 

Sorex merriami 179950 MONTANE SHREW Sorex monticolus 179951 DWARF SHREW Sorex nanus 

179954 PREBLE'S SHREW Sorex preblei 179955 INYO SHREW Sorex tenellus 179956 

TROWBRIDGE'S SHREW Sorex trowbridgii 179969 ELLIOT'S SHORT-TAILED SHREW Blarina 

hylophaga 179971 LEAST SHREW Cryptotis parva 179973 DESERT SHREW Notiosorex crawfordi 

179979 EASTERN MOLE Scalopus aquaticus 179981 BROAD-FOOTED MOLE Scapanus latimanus 

179988 LITTLE BROWN BAT Myotis lucifugus 179990 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS Myotis volans 

179991 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS Myotis californicus 179992 SOUTHWESTERN MYOTIS Myotis 

auriculus 179995 LONG-EARED MYOTIS Myotis evotis 179999 WESTERN SMALL-FOOTED 

MYOTIS Myotis leibii 180002 FRINGED MYOTIS Myotis thysanodes 180003 CAVE MYOTIS Myotis 

velifer 180004 YUMA MYOTIS Myotis yumanensis 180006 PALLID BAT Antrozous pallidus 180008 

BIG BROWN BAT Eptesicus fuscus 180010 SPOTTED BAT Euderma maculatum 180012 ALLEN'S 

BIG-EARED BAT Idionycteris phyllotis 180014 SILVER-HAIRED BAT Lasionycteris noctivagans 

180016 WESTERN RED BAT Lasiurus blossevillii 180017 HOARY BAT Lasiurus cinereus 180018 

SOUTHERN YELLOW BAT Lasiurus ega 180024 WESTERN PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus hesperus 

180062 MEXICAN LONG-TONGUED BAT Choeronycteris mexicana 180068 MEXICAN LONGNOSED BAT Leptonycteris nivalis 180071 CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT Macrotus californicus 

180080 WESTERN MASTIFF BAT Eumops perotis 180081 UNDERWOOD'S MASTIFF BAT Eumops 

underwoodi 180085 POCKETED FREE-TAILED BAT Nyctinomops femorosaccus 180086 BIG FREETAILED BAT Nyctinomops macrotis 180088 BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT Tadarida brasiliensis 

180103 NINE-BANDED ARMADILLO Dasypus novemcinctus 180109 AMERICAN PIKA Ochotona 

princeps 180112 SNOWSHOE HARE Lepus americanus 180114 ANTELOPE JACK RABBIT Lepus 

alleni 180115 BLACK-TAILED JACK RABBIT Lepus californicus 180116 WHITE-SIDED JACK 

RABBIT Lepus callotis 180118 WHITE-TAILED JACK RABBIT Lepus townsendii 180122 DESERT 

COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus audubonii 180124 EASTERN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus floridanus 180126 
SWReGAP 

 

269 

MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus nuttallii 180133 MOUNTAIN BEAVER Aplodontia rufa 180140 

YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT Marmota flaviventris 180147 UINTA GROUND SQUIRREL 

Spermophilus armatus 180148 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beecheyi 180149 

BELDING'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beldingi 180152 WYOMING GROUND SQUIRREL 

Spermophilus elegans 180154 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus lateralis 

180155 MEXICAN GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus mexicanus 180159 SPOTTED GROUND 

SQUIRREL Spermophilus spilosoma 180160 ROUND-TAILED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus 

tereticaudus 180161 TOWNSEND'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus townsendii 180162 

THIRTEEN-LINED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tridecemlineatus 180163 ROCK SQUIRREL 

Spermophilus variegatus 180166 RED SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 180167 DOUGLAS' 

SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus douglasii 180169 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL Glaucomys sabrinus 

180172 FOX SQUIRREL Sciurus niger 180173 ABERT'S SQUIRREL Sciurus aberti 180174 ARIZONA 

GRAY SQUIRREL Sciurus arizonensis 180176 WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL Sciurus griseus 180177 

NAYARIT SQUIRREL Sciurus nayaritensis 180179 HARRIS' ANTELOPE SQUIRREL 

Ammospermophilus harrisii 180180 TEXAS ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus interpres 

180181 WHITE-TAILED ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus leucurus 180184 GUNNISON'S 

PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys gunnisoni 180185 WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys leucurus 180186 

BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys ludovicianus 180187 UTAH PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys 

parvidens 180190 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK Tamias amoenus 180191 GRAY-FOOTED CHIPMUNK 

Tamias canipes 180192 GRAY-COLLARED CHIPMUNK Tamias cinereicollis 180193 CLIFF 

CHIPMUNK Tamias dorsalis 180195 LEAST CHIPMUNK Tamias minimus 180198 PALMER'S 

CHIPMUNK Tamias palmeri 180199 PANAMINT CHIPMUNK Tamias panamintinus 180200 LONGEARED CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrimaculatus 180201 COLORADO CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrivittatus 

180203 ALLEN'S CHIPMUNK Tamias senex 180206 LODGEPOLE CHIPMUNK Tamias speciosus 

180208 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK Tamias townsendii 180209 UINTA CHIPMUNK Tamias umbrinus 

180212 BEAVER Castor canadensis 180215 DESERT POCKET GOPHER Geomys arenarius 180216 

PLAINS POCKET GOPHER Geomys bursarius 180220 YELLOW-FACED POCKET GOPHER 

Pappogeomys castanops 180222 BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER Thomomys bottae 180225 IDAHO 

POCKET GOPHER Thomomys idahoensis 180227 MOUNTAIN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys 

monticola 180228 NORTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys talpoides 180229 TOWNSEND'S 

POCKET GOPHER Thomomys townsendii 180230 SOUTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys 

umbrinus 180236 DESERT KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys deserti 180241 MERRIAM'S KANGAROO 

RAT Dipodomys merriami 180242 CHISEL-TOOTHED KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys microps 180244 

ORD'S KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys ordii 180245 PANAMINT KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys 

panamintinus 180246 BANNER-TAILED KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys spectabilis 180252 DARK 

KANGAROO MOUSE Microdipodops megacephalus 180253 PALE KANGAROO MOUSE 

Microdipodops pallidus 180256 ARIZONA POCKET MOUSE Perognathus amplus 180260 OLIVEBACKED POCKET MOUSE Perognathus fasciatus 180261 PLAINS POCKET MOUSE Perognathus 

flavescens 180262 SILKY POCKET MOUSE Perognathus flavus 180267 LITTLE POCKET MOUSE 

Perognathus longimembris 180269 GREAT BASIN POCKET MOUSE Perognathus parvus 180276 DEER 

MOUSE Peromyscus maniculatus 180278 WHITE-FOOTED MOUSE Peromyscus leucopus 180282 

BRUSH MOUSE Peromyscus boylii 180284 CANYON MOUSE Peromyscus crinitus 180286 CACTUS 

MOUSE Peromyscus eremicus 180287 BLACK-EARED MOUSE Peromyscus melanotis 180288 

MERRIAM'S MOUSE Peromyscus merriami 180289 WHITE-ANKLED MOUSE Peromyscus pectoralis 

180291 PINON MOUSE Peromyscus truei 180294 SOUTHERN RED-BACKED VOLE Clethrionomys 

gapperi 180297 MEADOW VOLE Microtus pennsylvanicus 180299 LONG-TAILED VOLE Microtus 

longicaudus 180310 MONTANE VOLE Microtus montanus 180312 PRAIRIE VOLE Microtus 

ochrogaster 180315 WATER VOLE Microtus richardsoni 180318 MUSKRAT Ondatra zibethicus 180341 

FULVOUS HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys fulvescens 180343 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE 

Reithrodontomys megalotis 180344 PLAINS HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys montanus 180347 

ARIZONA COTTON RAT Sigmodon arizonae 180348 TAWNY-BELLIED COTTON RAT Sigmodon 

fulviventer 180349 HISPID COTTON RAT Sigmodon hispidus 180350 YELLOW-NOSED COTTON 

RAT Sigmodon ochrognathus 180359 HEATHER VOLE Phenacomys intermedius 180366 HOUSE 

MOUSE Mus musculus 180368 NORTHERN PYGMY MOUSE Baiomys taylori 180370 WHITETHROATED WOODRAT Neotoma albigula 180371 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT Neotoma cinerea 

180372 EASTERN WOODRAT Neotoma floridana 180374 DESERT WOODRAT Neotoma lepida 
SWReGAP 

 

270 

180375 MEXICAN WOODRAT Neotoma mexicana 180376 SOUTHERN PLAINS WOODRAT Neotoma 

micropus 180377 STEPHENS' WOODRAT Neotoma stephensi 180381 MEARNS' GRASSHOPPER 

MOUSE Onychomys arenicola 180382 NORTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys leucogaster 

180383 SOUTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys torridus 180386 MEADOW JUMPING 

MOUSE Zapus hudsonius 180387 WESTERN JUMPING MOUSE Zapus princeps 180393 PORCUPINE 

Erethizon dorsatum 180543 BROWN BEAR Ursus arctos 180544 AMERICAN BLACK BEAR Ursus 

americanus 180549 RIVER OTTER Lontra canadensis 180551 WOLVERINE Gulo gulo 180553 MINK 

Mustela vison 180555 ERMINE Mustela erminea 180556 LONG-TAILED WEASEL Mustela frenata 

180557 BLACK-FOOTED FERRET Mustela nigripes 180559 MARTEN Martes americana 180560 

FISHER Martes pennanti 180562 STRIPED SKUNK Mephitis mephitis 180563 HOODED SKUNK 

Mephitis macroura 180565 BADGER Taxidea taxus 180568 HOG-NOSED SKUNK Conepatus 

mesoleucus 180570 EASTERN SPOTTED SKUNK Spilogale putorius 180575 RACCOON Procyon lotor 

180577 RINGTAIL Bassariscus astutus 180582 BOBCAT Lynx rufus 180585 LYNX Lynx canadensis 

180593 JAGUAR Panthera onca 180596 GRAY WOLF Canis lupus 180599 COYOTE Canis latrans 

180604 RED FOX Vulpes vulpes 180606 KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis 180607 SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox 

180609 GRAY FOX Urocyon cinereoargenteus 180695 WAPITI Cervus elaphus 180698 MULE DEER 

Odocoileus hemionus 180699 WHITE-TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus 180703 MOOSE Alces 

alces 180711 BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis canadensis 180713 MOUNTAIN GOAT Oreamnos americanus 

180717 PRONGHORN Antilocapra americana 180719 BARBARY SHEEP Ammotragus lervia 203452 

TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT Corynorhinus townsendii 203618 BISON Bos bison 206989 PLAINS 

SPADEFOOT Spea bombifrons 206991 GREAT BASIN SPADEFOOT Spea intermontana 206993 NEW 

MEXICO SPADEFOOT Spea multiplicata 207312 BOREAL CHORUS FROG Pseudacris maculata 

207313 PACIFIC CHORUS FROG Pseudacris regilla 207724 BARKING FROG Eleutherodactylus 

augusti 208657 BIG BEND SLIDER Trachemys gaigeae 208677 SMOOTH SOFTSHELL TURTLE 

Apalone mutica 208680 SPINY SOFTSHELL TURTLE Apalone spinifera 208791 MOJAVE BLACKCOLLARED LIZARD Crotaphytus bicinctores 208896 VARIABLE SKINK Eumeces gaigeae 208940 

WESTERN WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tigris 208947 DESERT GRASSLAND WHIPTAIL 

Cnemidophorus uniparens 208948 PLATEAU STRIPED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus velox 209008 

NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD Elgaria coerulea 209017 MADREAN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 

Elgaria kingii 209247 COMMON KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis getula 209266 GRAY-BANDED 

KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis alterna 209400 BULLSNAKE Pituophis catenifer 209455 TRANS-PECOS 

RAT SNAKE Bogertophis subocularis 209458 GREEN RAT SNAKE Senticolis triaspis 550236 

AMARGOSA TOAD Bufo nelsoni 550241 RAMSEY CANYON LEOPARD FROG Rana subaquavocalis 

550546 COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG Rana luteiventris 551766 RIO GRANDE RIVER COOTER 

Pseudemys gorzugi 552462 WHITE-NOSED COATI Nasua narica 552464 SOUTHERN LONG-NOSED 

BAT Leptonycteris curasoae 552466 WESTERN SPOTTED SKUNK Spilogale gracilis 552470 OCELOT 

Leopardus pardalis 552479 MOUNTAIN LION Puma concolor 552480 MOGOLLON VOLE Microtus 

mogollonensis 552482 LONG-TAILED POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus formosus 552483 HISPID 

POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus hispidus 552484 ROCK POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus intermedius 

552486 DESERT POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus penicillatus 552487 SPINY POCKET MOUSE 

Chaetodipus spinatus 552488 MERRIAM'S POCKET MOUSE Perognathus merriami 552490 

SAGEBRUSH VOLE Lemmiscus curtatus 552494 ARIZONA WOODRAT Neotoma devia 552495 

OSGOOD'S MOUSE Peromyscus gratus 552496 ROCK MOUSE Peromyscus nasutus 552499 

MERRIAM'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus canus 552503 HOPI CHIPMUNK Tamias rufus 

552504 PIUTE GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus mollis 552512 EASTERN RED BAT Lasiurus 

borealis 552520 BAILEY'S POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus baileyi 552521 PYGMY RABBIT 

Brachylagus idahoensis 552761 COLLARED PECCARY Pecari tajacu 554027 CLARK'S GREBE 

Aechmophorus clarkii 554030 FIVE-STRIPED SPARROW Aimophila quinquestriata 554127 

AMERICAN PIPIT Anthus rubescens 554128 WESTERN SCRUB-JAY Aphelocoma californica 554135 

GREAT EGRET Ardea alba 554137 GRAY HAWK Asturina nitida 554139 JUNIPER TITMOUSE 

Baeolophus ridgwayi 554141 BRIDLED TITMOUSE Baeolophus wollweberi 554145 STILT 

SANDPIPER Calidris himantopus 554146 CRESTED CARACARA Caracara plancus 554221 OLIVESIDED FLYCATCHER Contopus cooperi 554254 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER Empidonax hammondii 

554255 CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER Empidonax occidentalis 554256 HORNED LARK Eremophila 

alpestris 554267 BULLOCK'S ORIOLE Icterus bullockii 554268 MISSISSIPPI KITE Ictinia 

mississippiensis 554375 NEOTROPIC CORMORANT Phalacrocorax brasilianus 554376 RED 
SWReGAP 

 

271 

PHALAROPE Phalaropus fulicaria 554380 SPOTTED TOWHEE Pipilo maculatus 554382 BLACKCAPPED CHICKADEE Poecile atricapilla 554385 MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE Poecile gambeli 554388 

MEXICAN CHICKADEE Poecile sclateri 554456 CASSIN'S VIREO Vireo cassinii 554477 

PLUMBEOUS VIREO Vireo plumbeus 555388 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus kennicottii 555544 

COMMON POORWILL Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 555657 NEW MEXICO SHREW Sorex neomexicanus 

555658 DAVIS MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL Silvilagus robustus 563907 ROSY BOA Charina trivirgata 

563909 THORNSCRUB HOOK-NOSED SNAKE Gyalopion quadrangulare 563910 SMOOTH GREEN 

SNAKE Liochlorophis vernalis 564567 PYGMY SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma douglasii 

564571 BLACK SPINY-TAILED IGUANA Ctenosaura hemilopha 564574 SAND DUNE LIZARD 

Sceloporus arenicolus 564594 GREATER SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma hernandesi 564594 

GREATER SHORT-HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma hernandesi 564596 COMMON CHUCKWALLA 

Sauromalus ater 625180 ORYX Oryx gazella 

Time_Period_of_Content: 

Time_Period_Information: 

Single_Date/Time: 

Calendar_Date: 

REQUIRED: The year (and optionally month, or month and day) for which the data set corresponds to the 

ground. 

Currentness_Reference: publication date 

Status: 

Progress: Complete 

Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned 

Spatial_Domain: 

Bounding_Coordinates: 

West_Bounding_Coordinate: -122.066986 

East_Bounding_Coordinate: -100.746328 

North_Bounding_Coordinate: 44.182132 

South_Bounding_Coordinate: 28.940260 

Keywords: 

Theme: 

Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None 

Theme_Keyword: Habitat Modeling 

Theme_Keyword: Amphibians 

Theme_Keyword: Birds 

Theme_Keyword: Mammals 

Theme_Keyword: Reptiles 

Theme_Keyword: Predicted Habitat 

Place: 

Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None 

Place_Keyword: Southwest United States 

Place_Keyword: Arizona 

Place_Keyword: Colorado 

Place_Keyword: New Mexico 

Place_Keyword: Nevada 

Place_Keyword: Utah 

Access_Constraints: None; public domain 

Use_Constraints: 

This database in not intended for site-specific analyses. Interpretations derived from its use are suited for 

regional and planning purposes only. Acknowledgment of Southwest Regional Gap Analsysi Project is 

appreciated. See limitations and disclaimers in Larger Work Citation, on national GAP home 

page(http:www.gap.uidaho.edu), or New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

(<http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap>). 

Point_of_Contact: 

Contact_Information: 

Contact_Organization_Primary: 

Contact_Organization: New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 
SWReGAP 

 

272 

Contact_Person: Ken Boykin 

Contact_Position: Research Specialist 

Contact_Address: 

Address_Type: mailing and physical address 

Address: Box 30003, MSC 4901 

City: Las Cruces 

State_or_Province: New Mexico 

Postal_Code: 88003 

Country: USA 

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 505-646-6303 

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 505-646-1281 

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: kboykin@nmsu.edu 

Data_Set_Credit: 

Arizona: USGS Southwest Biological Science Center, Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona 

University, P.O. Box 5614, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5614, Principle Investigator: Kathryn Thomas, Habitat 

Modelers: Charles Drost, J. Judson Wynne . Colorado: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Habitat Resources 

Section, 6060 N. Broadway, Denver, CO 80216, Principle Investigators: Don Schrupp, Lee O'Brien, 

Habitat Modelers: Tammy Hamer, Katy Oakes, Chris Mettinbrink. 

Nevada: US EPA, National Exposure Research Lab - ESD/LEB, P.O. Box 25047, Las 

Vegas, NV 89193-3478, Principle Investigators: Bruce Jones, Bill Kepner, David 

Bradford, Habitat Modelers: David Bradford, Chad Cross, Bruce Jones. 

New Mexico: New Mexico Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico 

State University, P.O. Box 30003, MSC 4901, Las Cruces, NM 88003, Principle 

Investigators: Bruce Thompson, Ken Boykin, Database Creator: Robert Deitner, Habitat 

Modelers: Susanne Propeck-Gray, Jennifer Puttere, Cynthia King, Zachary Schwenke, 

Utah: RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, UMC 5275, Utah State 

University, Logan, UT 84322-5275, Principle Investigators: Doug Ramsey, John Lowry, 

Habitat Modelers: Wendy Rieth. 

NatureServe: NatureServe, 2400 Spruce St., Suite 201, Bolder, CO 80302, Vegetation 

Ecologists: Keith Schulz, Pat Comer. 

USGS/Biological Resources Discipline: P.O. Box 30003, MSC 4901, Las Cruces, NM 

88003, SWReGAP Project Coordinator: Julie Prior-Magee. 

Security_Information: 

Security_Classification: Unclassified 

Native_Data_Set_Environment: 

Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.1.0.722 

Data_Quality_Information: 

Attribute_Accuracy: 

Attribute_Accuracy_Report: 

We received 1000+ reviews throughout the region on 650 species. Although models were reviewed and 

modified based on information from taxa experts, any errors in modeling remain the responsibility of 

SWReGAP. Habitat modelers made final judgments regarding model attributes. 

Logical_Consistency_Report: Not applicable for raster data 

Completeness_Report: 
SWReGAP 

 

273 

Distributions of 37 amphibians, 132 reptiles, 436 birds and 215 mammals were predicted by 8-digit HUC 

using a variety of sources. All cells within the Southwest regional boundary (AZ, CO, NV, NM and UT) 

have an attributed CODE. See Process_Description for more details. 

Lineage: 

Process_Step: 

Process_Description: 

Habitat models were completed using a gmd file included within the downloaded zip file. For a full 

description of the procedures involved in constructing this database please refer to the SWReGAP Final 

Report chapter on "Predicted Animal Distributions and Species Richness" at the URL: 

<http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/> 

Process_Date: 20050930 

Process_Contact: 

Contact_Information: 

Contact_Organization_Primary: 

Contact_Organization: New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Contact_Person: Ken Boykin 

Contact_Position: Research Specialist 

Contact_Address: 

Address_Type: mailing and physical address 

City: Las Cruces 

State_or_Province: New Mexico 

Postal_Code: 88003 

Country: USA 

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 505-646-6303 

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 505-646-1281 

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: kboykin@nmsu.edu 

Process_Step: 

Process_Description: Metadata imported. 

Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: C:\swregap.xml 

Spatial_Data_Organization_Information: 

Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Raster 

Raster_Object_Information: 

Raster_Object_Type: Pixel 

Row_Count: 48964 

Column_Count: 55872 

Vertical_Count: 1 

Spatial_Reference_Information: 

Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition: 

Planar: 

Map_Projection: 

Map_Projection_Name: Albers Conical Equal Area 

Albers_Conical_Equal_Area: 

Standard_Parallel: 29.500000 

Standard_Parallel: 45.500000 

Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -96.000000 

Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 23.000000 

False_Easting: 0.000000 

False_Northing: 0.000000 

Planar_Coordinate_Information: 

Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: row and column 

Coordinate_Representation: 

Abscissa_Resolution: 30.000000 

Ordinate_Resolution: 30.000000 

Planar_Distance_Units: meters 
SWReGAP 

 

274 

Geodetic_Model: 

Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983 

Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80 

Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000 

Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222 

Entity_and_Attribute_Information: 

Detailed_Description: 

Entity_Type: 

Entity_Type_Label: Layer_1 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: ObjectID 

Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number. 

Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI 

Attribute_Domain_Values: 

Unrepresentable_Domain: 

Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: Value 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: Count 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: Red 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: Green 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: Blue 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Label: Class_names 

Detailed_Description: 

Entity_Type: 

Entity_Type_Label: Class_names 

Entity_Type_Definition: Range Coding 

Attribute: 

Attribute_Domain_Values: 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K12 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or Probable occurrence, breeding, wintering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K13 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K14 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or probable occurrence, breeding, winter and summering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K21 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K22 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, wintering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K23 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, summering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K24 
SWReGAP 

 

275 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Known or probable occurrence, breeding, wintering and 

summering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K33 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: 

Known or probable occurrence, both breeding and non-breeding, summering 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: K34 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: 

Known or probable occurrence, both breeding and non-breeding, witner and summer 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: P34 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: 

Potential occurrence, both breeding and non-breeding, witner and summer 

Enumerated_Domain: 

Enumerated_Domain_Value: X34 

Enumerated_Domain_Value_Definition: Extirpated, both breeding and non-breeding, witner and summer 

Attribute_Measurement_Frequency: None planned 

Overview_Description: 

Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation: The following fields are present in the dataset 

Distribution_Information: 

Distributor: 

Contact_Information: 

Contact_Organization_Primary: 

Contact_Organization: New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Contact_Person: Ken Boykin 

Contact_Address: 

Address_Type: mailing and physical address 

Address: 2980 South Espina 

City: Las Cruces 

State_or_Province: New Mexico 

Postal_Code: 88003 

Country: USA 

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 505-646-6303 

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 505-646-1281 

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: kboykin@nmsu.edu 

Hours_of_Service: 8:00am-5:00pm Mountain Time Zone 

Resource_Description: SWReGAP Vertebrate Habitat Distribution Models Digital Dataset 

Distribution_Liability: 

The digital data described by this metadata report were prepared by the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Project. Neither the States invovled nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any 

warranty, for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process 

disclosed in this report or media or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 

favoring by the States. Any views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or 

reflect those of the States involved. Data on this media may have been derived from federal agencies or 

from other external sources or from data developed by the agencies involved . In those cases where data has 

been translated from one format to another or initially developed from map or other sources the agencies 

involved has made all reasonable efforts to preserve the data quality as originally developed, however no 

warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the agencies involved as to the completeness or accuracy of the 

data and related materials. The act of distribution does not constitute any such warranty, and no 

responsibility is assumed by the agencies involved in the use of this data, or related materials. 

Standard_Order_Process: 

Digital_Form: 
SWReGAP 

 

276 

Digital_Transfer_Information: 

Format_Name: 

"ERDAS" ERDAS image files (ERDAS Corporation) or ArcInfo GRID format (ESRI) 

Format_Version_Number: 8.7 

File_Decompression_Technique: Compression type *.zip. For windows use WinZip. 

Transfer_Size: 0.000 

Fees: None 

Metadata_Reference_Information: 

Metadata_Date: 20051003 

Metadata_Contact: 

Contact_Information: 

Contact_Organization_Primary: 

Contact_Organization: New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

Contact_Person: Ken Boykin 

Contact_Address: 

Address_Type: mailing and physical address 

Address: 2980 South Espina Street 

City: Las Cruces 

State_or_Province: New Mexico 

Postal_Code: 88003 

Country: USA 

Contact_Voice_Telephone: 505-646-6303 

Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 505-646-1281 

Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: kboykin@nmsu.edu 

Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata 

Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998 

Metadata_Time_Convention: local time 

Metadata_Security_Information: 

Metadata_Security_Classification: Unclassified 

Metadata_Extensions: 

Online_Linkage: <http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/>

Profile_Name: NPS NR and GIS Metadata Profile 

Metadata_Extensions: 

Online_Linkage: <http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html>

Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile 

Generated by mp version 2.8.6 on Fri Oct 21 08:36:47 2005
SWReGAP 

 

277 

Appendix 3-10. Database Description 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_HM-10.pdf
SWReGAP 

 

278 

Appendix 3-11. Species Richness by Land Cover Type 

Species richness for each each land cover type mapped in Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Project by taxon group. Species richness is biased toward the high side, as habitat selection 

could identify broad categories (e.g. grasslands) with the idea that use of HUCs would constrain 

habitat models to grasslands within the known range. A = Amphibians, B = Birds, M = 

Mammals, R = Reptiles. 

Code Land Cover Description A B M R Total 

 

D01 Disturbed, NON-SPECIFIC 19 4 23 

D02 Recently Burned 8 5 13 

D03 Recently mined or quarried 3 2 1 6 

D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 4 45 24 3 76 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 1 24 8 1 34 

D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 11 2 13 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 1 21 8 30 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 10 3 1 14 

D10 Recently Logged Areas 11 7 1 19 

D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 1 12 8 5 26 

D14 Disturbed, oil well 1 2 1 4 

N11 Open water 7 125 13 11 156 

N21 Developed, Low Intensity 118 37 8 163 

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 57 18 2 77 

N31 Barren Lands 3 13 3 19 

N80 Agriculture 2 165 49 12 228 

S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 3 1 4 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 1 7 11 19 

S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 3 3 1 7 

S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 1 7 12 6 26 

S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff and Canyon 2 82 61 24 169 

S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 20 13 5 38 

S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 1 22 18 16 57 

S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 3 63 40 36 142 

S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 3 71 46 44 164 

S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 9 10 11 30 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dunes 1 15 33 16 65 

S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 2 22 52 29 105 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 3 18 41 14 76 

S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 2 29 40 13 84 

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 3 34 50 43 130 

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 4 6 8 18 

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 2 17 33 26 78 

S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 10 18 13 41 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 4 60 56 22 142 

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 8 6 9 23 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 4 19 16 11 50 
SWReGAP 

 

279 

Code Land Cover Description A B M R Total 

 

S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 3 79 55 13 150 

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 2 50 52 11 115 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 

1 39 57 7 104 

S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 

2 42 64 10 118 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 

4 54 57 10 125 

S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Woodland 1 17 17 4 39 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 

5 63 61 9 138 

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 2 49 29 6 86 

S032 Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

5 102 90 17 214 

S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

1 34 23 5 63 

S034 Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

5 95 81 19 200 

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 4 148 94 61 307 

S036 Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 3 101 95 30 229 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 3 107 90 53 253 

S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 4 100 87 53 244 

S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 4 100 59 47 210 

S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland Complex 

2 81 51 10 144 

S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 20 14 1 35 

S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 2 15 22 11 50 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 3 96 66 24 189 

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2 49 41 13 105 

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 3 36 53 26 118 

S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrubland 

2 30 31 13 76 

S051 Madrean Encinal 2 89 81 48 220 

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 4 101 71 41 217 

S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 1 54 25 17 97 

S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 3 70 79 23 175 

S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 3 57 48 18 126 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 3 48 46 13 110 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 1 66 67 25 159 

S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 7 96 74 62 239 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon Tea Shrubland 1 30 61 25 117 

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 3 56 45 28 132 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 6 46 69 39 160 

S062 Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 9 65 90 42 206 

S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 3 64 68 49 184 

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3 44 76 16 139 

S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 5 17 30 17 69 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 7 48 74 47 176 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Desert Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3 41 28 12 84 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 4 61 70 17 152 
SWReGAP 

 

280 

Code Land Cover Description A B M R Total 

 

S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 4 80 72 46 202 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 3 72 64 45 184 

S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and 

Steppe 

8 106 100 69 283 

S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1 53 52 12 118 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe 3 74 104 27 208 

S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 5 52 62 21 140 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 1 18 29 2 50 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 2 28 32 8 70 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 3 61 52 11 127 

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 6 79 49 25 159 

S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 3 88 49 22 162 

S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 9 87 74 44 214 

S089 Western Great Plains Sandhill Prairie 3 46 51 23 123 

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 7 84 96 43 230 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 7 89 47 13 156 

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 6 117 85 16 224 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

10 219 96 36 361 

S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

8 206 74 46 334 

S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 6 147 45 25 223 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 3 46 61 13 123 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 7 228 74 58 367 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 11 143 56 48 258 

S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 11 168 50 13 242 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 5 108 45 16 174 

S103 Temperate Pacific Montane Wet Meadow 1 29 11 4 45 

S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 1 14 4 2 21 

S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 3 47 6 3 59 

S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 7 61 66 32 166 

S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 4 91 70 18 183 

S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 4 122 89 61 276 

S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 4 50 55 14 123 

S114 Sonora-Mojave-Baja Semi-Desert Chaparral 1 40 20 15 76 

S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 2 70 74 57 203 

S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2 40 58 33 133 

S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 26 15 11 52 

S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

7 161 49 18 235 

S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain Herbaceous Wetland 8 170 70 27 275 

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 27 23 3 53 

S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland 28 21 1 50 

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and 

Woodland 

 29 24 3 56 

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 2 72 63 31 168 

S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 1 18 25 7 51 

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 2 41 44 26 113 
SWReGAP 

 

281 

Code Land Cover Description A B M R Total 

 

S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 2 46 42 18 108 

S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 2 17 12 2 33 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 2 14 20 8 44 

S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 2 12 14 8 36 
SWReGAP 

 

282 

Appendix 4-1. Management coding system for land stewardship. 

Land Management Descriptor

1000

1100

1101 Area of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM)

1102 Globally Important Bird Area (BLM)

1103 National Conservation Area (BLM)

1104 National Monument (BLM)

1105 National Natural or Historic Landmark (BLM)

1106 National Outstanding Natural Area (BLM)

1107 National Recreation Area (BLM)

1108 National Scenic Research Area (BLM)

1109 Research Natural Area (BLM)

1110 Significant Cave & Cave System (BLM)

1111 Wild, Scenic & Recreation River (BLM)

1112 Wilderness Area (BLM)

1113 Wilderness Study Area (BLM)

1114 World Heritage & Biosphere Site (BLM)

1189 Special Management Area (BLM)

1190 Bureau of Land Management Public Land (BLM)

1193 Botanical Reserve (BLM)

1194 Archaeological Area (BLM)

1195 Wildlife Habitat Area (BLM)

1196 Special or Extensive Recreation Management Area (BLM)

1197 Historical Area (BLM)

1198 Fossil Area (BLM)

1199 Scenic Area (BLM)

1200

1201 National Recreation Area (BOR)

1202 Wildlife/Recreation Management Area (BOR)

1290 Other Bureau of Reclamation Land (BOR)

1300

1301 National Wildlife Refuge (FWS)

1302 Waterfowl Production Area (FWS)

1303 Wilderness Area (FWS)

1304 Conservation Easement (FWS)

1391 Research Natural Area (FWS)

1392 Wildlife Management Area (FWS)

1393 Federal Fish Hatchery (FWS)

1394 National Wildlife Refuge Overlay (FWS/DOD)

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)

Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR)

Federal Land

Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS)
SWReGAP 

 

283 

Appendix 4-1. Management coding system for land stewardship (continued). 

1400

1401 Archaeological Area (USFS)

1402 Botanical Reserve (USFS)

1403 Geological Area (USFS)

1404 Municipal Watershed (USFS)

1405 National Game Refuge (USFS)

1406 National Monument (USFS)

1407 National Primitive Area (USFS)

1408 National Recreation Area (USFS)

1409 National Scenic Research Area (USFS)

1410 Research Natural Area (USFS)

1411 Wild, Scenic & Recreation River (USFS)

1412 Wilderness Area (USFS)

1413 Wilderness Study Area (USFS)

1487 National Preserve (USFS)

1488 Demonstration Area (USFS)

1489 Environmental Study Area (USFS)

1490 Forest Service Public Land (USFS)

1491 National Natural or Historic Landmark (USFS)

1492 Historical Area (USFS)

1493 Habitat Protection Area (USFS)

1494 Biosphere Reserve (USFS)

1495 Experimental Forest (USFS)

1496 National Grassland (USFS)

1497 Scenic Area (USFS)

1498 Other Congressionally Designated Area (USFS)

1499 Zoological Area (USFS)

1500

1501 Ecological Reserve (DOD)

1503 Special Resources Area/Research Natural Area (DOD)

1550 Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)

1560 Department of Energy (DOE)

1590 Military Reservation (DOD)

1600

1601 International Historic Site (NPS)

1602 National Battlefield (NPS)

1603 National Battlefield Park (NPS)

1604 National Battlefield Site (NPS)

1605 National Historical Park (NPS)

1606 National Historic Site (NPS)

Department of Defense 

(DOD) and Department of 

Energy (DOE)

National Park Service 

(NPS)

Forest Service (USFS)
SWReGAP 

 

284 

Appendix 4-1. Management coding system for land stewardship (continued). 

1607 National Lakeshore (NPS)

1608 National Memorial (NPS)

1609 National Military Park (NPS)

1610 National Monument (NPS)

1611 National Park (NPS)

1612 National Preserve (NPS)

1613 National Recreation Area (NPS)

1614 National Reserve (NPS)

1615 National River & Wild & Scenic Riverway (NPS)

1616 National Seashore (NPS)

1617 Wilderness Area (NPS)

1618 National Cemetery (NPS)

1619 National Parkway (NPS)

1620 Other NPS Protected Areas (NPS)

1621 NPS Affiliated Areas (NPS)

1690 National Trail (NPS)

1691 Research Natural Area (NPS)

1692 Cave Protection Area (NPS) (Only one 04/06/06)

1700

1701 Conservation Easement (NRCS)

1702 Conservation Reserve Program Land (NRCS)

1703 Wetland Reserve Program Land (NRCS)

1704 Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Land (NRCS)

1750

1751 Experimental Range (ARS)

1800

1801 Wildlife Reserve (BIA)

1900

1901 National Estuarine Research Reserve (NOAA)

1950

1951 National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA)

2000

2200

2201 Native American Reservation

2202 Tribal Park

2203 Indian Allotment

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)

Tribal Land

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

(NRCS)

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA)

Department of Commerce 

(DOC)

Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS)

Tribal Land
SWReGAP 

 

285 

Appendix 4-1. Management coding system for land stewardship (continued). 

3000

3100

3101 State Park

3102 State Recreation Area

3103 State Historical Park

3104 State Historic Site

3105 State Natural Area

3106 State Resort Park

3200

3201 State Trust Land

3202 State Stewardship Trust Land

3300

3301 State Wildlife Reserve

3302 State Habitat Area

3303 State Fishing Unit

3304 State Wildlife Recreation Area

3305 State Wildlife Administration Building

3306 State Fish Hatchery

3400

3401 Other State Land

3402 State Sovereign Land

4000

4100

4190 Regional Park

4191 Regional Open Space

5000

5100

5190 City Park

5191 City Open Space

5192 City Facility

5200

5290 County Facility

5291 County Park

5292 County Playground

5293 County Open Space

5294 County Conservation Easement

Local Government Land

State Land Board

State Land

State Park & Recreation 

Areas

State Wildlife Reserve

Other State Land

Regional Government 

Land

City Land

County Land

Regional Government Land
SWReGAP 

 

286 

Appendix 4-1. Management coding system for land stewardship (continued). 

6000

6100 Audubon Society

6101 Audubon Society Preserve

6200

6201 Local Land Trust Preserve/Easement

6300

6301 Nature Conservancy Easement (TNC)

6302 Nature Conservancy Preserve (TNC)

6303 Nature Conservancy Cooperative Managed Property (TNC)

7000

7100

7101 Private Conservation Easement/Conservation Deed Restriction

7200

7201 Private Institution - Managed for Biodiversity

7300

7301 Private Land - No Known Restriction

8000

8100 Water

8101 Water

9000

9100 Unknown

Private Land

Local Land Trust 

Preserve/Easement

The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC)

Non-Governmental Organization Land

Unknown

Private Conservation 

Easement/Conservation 

Deed Restriction

Private InstitutionManaged for Biodiversity

Private Unrestricted for 

Development/No Known 

Restriction

Water
SWReGAP 

 

287 

Appendix 4-2. Standardized questionnaire used to interview land mangers to 

guide determination of biodiversity management state codes. 

GAP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE 

Date:________________________________ 

Agency:______________________________ 

Parcel Name:___________________________________________________________ 

Approximate Size of Parcel:_______________________________________________ 

Contact Name:__________________________________________________________ 

Contact Position:________________________________________________________ 

Phone Number: _________________________________________________________ 

What is the primary management objective for this land tract?_____________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

Does this land tract have a written agency or institutional documentation that guides the 

management of the land, (i.e. management plan)? _______________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

Is the land tract subject to forcible protection from land conversion through legislation, deed 

restrictions, or easements? __________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

If so, is this protection intended for permanent status? How long does it last?______ 

____________________________________________________________________ 

Is this area open to visitor use?:__________________________________________ 
SWReGAP 

 

288 

What types of activities do the visitors participate in?________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

To what extent of the area is impacted by visitor use?__________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

What are the general guiding principles for natural resource 

management?________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Are natural processes, such as fire, flooding or affects from insects, suppressed or allowed 

through active management?_____________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Are activities such as livestock grazing, mineral extraction, or harvesting/cultivation allowed on 

this land tract at any time? ____________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

Other comments: ____________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________ 
SWReGAP 

 

289 

Appendix 4-3. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Arizona. 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

111 Ranch ACEC/RNA; Bear Springs Badlands ACEC; 

Bowie Mountains Scenic ACEC; Dos Cabezas Peaks ACEC; 

Eagle Creek Bat Cave ACEC; Guadalupe Canyon 

ACEC/ONA; San Rafael ACEC/RNA; St. David Cienega 

ACEC/RNA; Table Mountain ACEC/RNA; Turkey Creek 

Riparian ACEC; Willcox Playa ACEC/NNL; Dos Cabezas 

Mountains Wilderness; Fishhooks Wilderness; North Santa 

Teresa Wilderness; Redfield Canyon Wilderness 

Final Safford District Resource 

Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

08/1991 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Aubrey Peak Bighorn Sheep Habitat ACEC; Black 

Mountains ACEC; Burro Creek Riparian and Cultural 

ACEC; Carrow-Stephens Ranches ACEC; Hualapai 

Mountain ACEC/RNA; Joshua Tree Forest-Grand Wash 

Cliffs ACEC; McCracken Desert Tortoise Habitat ACEC; 

Poachie Desert Tortoise Habitat ACEC; Three Rivers 

Riparian ACEC; White-Margined Penstemon Reserve 

ACEC; Wright-Cottonwood Creeks Riparian-Cultural 

ACEC; Arrastra Mountain Wilderness; Aubrey Peak 

Wilderness; Mount Nutt Wilderness; Mount Tipton 

Wilderness; Mount Wilson Wilderness; Tres Alamos 

Wilderness; Upper Burro Creek Wilderness; Wabayuma 

Peak Wilderness; Mount Nutt Wilderness; Mount Wilson 

Wilderness; Tres Alamos Wilderness; Upper Burro Creek 

Wilderness; Warm Springs Wilderness 

Record of Decision for the 

Approval of the Kingman 

Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan 03/1995; 

Kingman Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 01/1992 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Coffeepot Botanical ACEC; Gila River Cultural ACEC; 

Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC 

Final Lower Gila South 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environemental Impact 

Statement Phoenix District, 

Arizona 08/1995 
SWReGAP 

 

290 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Fort Pierce ACEC; Johnson Spring ACEC; Little Black 

Mountain ACEC; Lost Spring Mountain ACEC; Marble 

Canyon ACEC; Moonshine Ridge ACEC; Nampaweap 

ACEC; Pakoon ACEC; Virgin River Corridor ACEC; Virgin 

Slope ACEC; Witch Pool ACEC; White-Margined 

Penstemon Reserve ACEC; Wright-Cottonwood Creeks 

Riparian-Cultural ACEC; Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness; 

Kanab Creek Wilderness 

Proposed Arizona Strip District 

Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Statement 

12/1990 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Perry Mesa ACEC; Tanner Wash ACEC; Waterman 

Mountains ACEC; White Canyon ACEC; Big Horn 

Mountains Wilderness; Harquahala Mountains Wilderness; 

Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness; Hells Canyon 

Wilderness; Hummingbird Springs Wilderness; North 

Maricopa Mountains Wilderness; Sierra Estrella 

Wilderness; Signal Mountain Wilderness, South Maricopa 

Mountains Wilderness; Tabletop Wilderness; Woolsey Peak 

Wilderness 

Proposed Phoenix Resource 

Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

12/1988 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Gila Box Riparian NCA 

Gila Box Management Plan, 

Environmental Assessment and 

Decision Record 01/1998 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Las Cienegas NCA 

Approved Las Cienegas 

Resource Management Plan and 

Record of Decision 07/2003 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

San Pedro Riparian NCA; Agua Fria NM; Grand CanyonParashant NM; Ironwood Forest NM; Sonoran Desert NM; 

Vermillion Cliffs NM 

Interim Management Policy for 

BLM National Monuments and 

BLM National Conservation 

Areas 10/2001 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Eagletail Mountains Wilderness; Muggins Mountains 

Wilderness 

Record of Decision for the 

Yuma District Resource 

Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

04/1987; Final Amendment 

01/1992; Final Amendment 

03/1996 
SWReGAP 

 

291 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Baboquivari Peak Wilderness; Coyote Mountains 

Wilderness; Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness; Needle's Eye 

Wilderness; Rawhide Mountains Wilderness; Swansea 

Wilderness; Trigo Mountains Wilderness; White Canyon 

Wilderness 

Wilderness Management Policy 

09/1981 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Baker Canyon WSA, Cactus Plain WSA 

Interim Management Policy for 

Lands Under Wilderness Review 

07/1995 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness 

Wilderness Management Plan 

Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness 

02/1988 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness; Paiute Wilderness 

Final Wilderness Management 

Plan Paiute and Beaver Dam 

Mountains 06/1990 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Cottonwood Point Wilderness 

Wilderness Management Plan 

for the Cottonwood Point 

Wilderness 09/1991 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

East Cactus Plain Wilderness 

East Cactus Plain Wilderness 

Management Plan, 

Environmental Assessment, and 

Decision Record 09/1994 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness 

Gibraltar Mountain 

Interdisciplinary Management 

Plan and Environmental 

Assessment 03/2001 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Mount Logan Wilderness; Mount Trumbull Wilderness 

Wilderness Management Plan 

Mt. Trumbull Wilderness Mt. 

Logan Wilderness 12/1990 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Mount Tipton Wilderness; Wabayuma Peak Wilderness 

Wabayuma Peak and Mount 

Tipton Wilderness Management 

Plan, Environmental 

Assessment, and Decision 

Record 08/1995 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness 

Final Wilderness Management 

Plan Paria Canyon-Vermillion 

Cliffs 03/1986 
SWReGAP 

 

292 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness 

Peloncillo Mountains 

Wilderness Management Plan, 

Environemental Assessment, and 

Decision Record 06/1995 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management / 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

New Water Mountains Wilderness 

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 

& Wilderness and New Water 

Mountains Wilderness 

Interagency Management Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

10/1996 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 09/2003 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 

URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/r

efuges/arizona/cabeza.html 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Apache NF (MA 18); Blue Range Primitive Area (MA 8); 

Escudilla Wilderness (MA 13); Hayground RNA (MA 10); 

Phelps Cabin RNA (MA 10); Sitgreaves NF (MA 16); 

Wildcat RNA (MA 10) 

Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest Plan 1987; Amendment 

No. 6. 07/1996 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area (MA 6); Franks Lake 

Geologic-Botanical Area (MA 20); Kendrick Mountain 

Wilderness (MA 4); Saddle Mountain Wilderness (MA 19); 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (MA 1) 

Kaibab National Forest Land 

Management Plan 04/1988; 

Amendment No. 5. 02/2003 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Chiricahua Wilderness (MA 9); Coronado NF (MA 2A & 

MA 2B); Elgin Research Ranch (MA 8); Galiuro Wilderness 

(MA 9); Miller Peak Wilderness (MA 9); Mt. Graham WSA 

(MA 9); Mt. Wrightson Wilderness (MA 9); Pajarita 

Wilderness (MA 9); Pusch Ridge Wilderness (MA 9); Rincon 

Mountain Wilderness (MA 9); Santa Teresa Wilderness (MA 

9); South Fork of Cave Creek Botanical Area (MA 14); Wild 

Chili Botanical Area (MA 15-1& MA 15-4 & MA 15-7) 

Coronado National Forest Plan 

1986; Forest Plan Change Notice 

No. 3 06/1999 
SWReGAP 

 

293 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Coconino NF (MA 4 & MA 8); Fossil Springs Wilderness 

(MA 1); Kachina Peaks Wilderness (MA 1); Kendrick 

Mountain Wilderness (MA 1); Mazatzal Wilderness (MA 1); 

Mount Elden ESA (MA 18); Munds Mountain Wilderness 

(MA 1); Red Mountain Geological Area (MA 17); Red RockSecret Mountain Wilderness; Verde Scenic River Area (MA 

1); West Clear Creek Wilderness (MA 1); Wet Beaver 

Wilderness (MA 1) 

Coconino National Forest Plan 

08/1987; Amendment No. 17. 

12/2002 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Four Peaks Wilderness (MA 3D & MA 6I); Four Peaks 

Wilderness (MA 6I); Hellsgate Wilderness (MA 4C & MA 

5B); Mazatzal Wilderness (MA 1B & MA 3A & MA 4A); 

Pine Mountain Wilderness (MA 1A); Salome Wilderness 

(MA 5C & MA 6H); Salt River Canyon Wilderness (MA 2B 

& MA 6G); Sierra Ancha Wilderness (MA 5A); Sierra Anche 

Experimental Forest (MA 5E); Superstition Wilderness (MA 

2A & MA 2A & MA 3B & MA 3C & MA 6B); Tonto 

NF(3H& 4E& 6C); Verde National Wild River (MA 1C & 

MA 4B) 

Tonto National Forest Plan 

10/1985; Amendment No. 22. 

06/1996 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Granite Mountain Wilderness (MA 6C); Pine Mountain 

Wilderness (MA 6H); Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (MA 

6E); Verde National Wild River (MA 7) 

Prescott National Forest Plan 

11/1986; Amendment No. 11. 

03/2000 

National Park 

Service Tuzigoot NM 

Statement for Management 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

01/1986 

National Park 

Service Tumacacori NHP 

General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Tumacacori National Historical 

Park 09/1996 

National Park 

Service Chiricahua NM 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement General Management 

Plan Chiricahua National 

Monument 12/1999 

National Park 

Service Coronado National Memorial 

Final General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement Coronado National 

Memorial 01/2004 
SWReGAP 

 

294 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

National Park 

Service Canyon de Chelly NM 

Joint Management Plan 

Canyon de Chelly National 

Monument 10/1989 

National Park 

Service Casa Grande Ruins NM 

Master Plan of 

Casa Grande Ruins National 

Monument 09/1964 

National Park 

Service Montezuma Castle NM 

Final Master Plan 

Montezuma Castle - Tuzigoot 

National Monuments 10/1975 

National Park 

Service Navajo NM 

Final General Management Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Navajo National Monument 

12/2003 

National Park 

Service Pipe Spring NM 

Statement for Management 

Pipe Spring National Monument 

02/1987 

Native 

American 

Lands 

Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park 

Interviewed Navajo Reservation 

Zoologist: David Mikesic - 

02/2004 

Department of 

Defense 

Crater Range SRMA; Gran Desierto Dunes ACEC; Mohawk 

Mountains & Sand Dunes ACEC; Sentinel Plain Lava Flow 

SRMA; Tinajas Atlas Mountains ACEC 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Proposed Integrated 

Natural Resource Management 

Plan Barry M. Goldwater Range 

02/2003 

Arizona 

Game & Fish 

Department 

Roper Lake State Park; Arlington Wildlife Area; Base & 

Meridian Wildlife Area; Bear Springs; Becker Lake Wildlife 

Area; Black River Lands; Bog Hole Wildlife Area; Chevelon 

Canyon Ranch; Chevelon Canyon Wildlife Area; Cluff 

Ranch Wildlife Area; Concho Lake and Land; Cunningham 

Tracts; Fool Hollow Lake and Land; Gila River Wildlife 

Area; Grasslands Wildlife Area; Green Dove Nesting Area; 

House Rock Ranch; Lee Valley; Luna Lake Wildlife Area; 

Manhatten Claims; May Memorial Wildlife Area; Mittry 

Lake Wildlife Area; Nelson Lake; Picacho 

Reservoir/McFarland; Powers Butte Wildlife Area; Quigley 

Wildlife Area; Rainbow Lake Land; Raymond Ranch 

Wildlife Area; Robbins Butte Wildlife Area; Roper Lake; 

Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area; Sunflower Flats; Texas 

Hill; Topock Marsh; Upper Verde River Wildlife Area; Veit 

Ranch; Wenima Wildlife Area; Whitewater Draw Wildlife 

Area; Wilcox Playa Wildlife Area 

URL: http://www.azgfd.gov/ 

outdoor_recreation/watchable_w

ildlife. shtml 
SWReGAP 

 

295 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Arizona Source of Management 

Plan 

Arizona 

Game & Fish 

Department 

Sonita Creek State Natural Area; State Trust Land; Alamo 

Lake Wildlife Area; Painted Rock Wildlife Area; San Rafael 

Ranch State Park 

URL: 

http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_r

ecreation/watchable_wildlife.sht

ml 

Local Land 

Trust Cascabel Hermitage Association Land Trust 

Interviewed Secreatry of 

Cascabel Hermitage Association 

Land Trust: Daniel Baker - 

04/2005 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Aravaipa Canyon Preserve; Baboquivari; Bingham 

Cienega; Bingham Cienega Nature Preserve; Buehman 

Canyon; Cascabel; Desert Foothills Land Trust; 

Dudleyville-Cook's Lake;Escondido Falls; Fern Mountain; 

Hartwell Canyon; Holy Joe; Muleshoe Ranch Cooperative 

Management Area; O'Donnell Creek; Upper San Pedro 

Partnership 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewe

work/ 

northamerica/states/arizona/pres

erves/ 
SWReGAP 

 

296 

 

Appendix 4-4. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Colorado. 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Black's Gulch ACEC; Coal Draw ACEC; Coal Oil Rim 

ACEC; Deer Gulch ACEC; Duck Creek ACEC; Dudley 

Bluffs ACEC; East Douglas Creek ACEC; Lower 

Greaswood Creek ACEC; Moosehead Mountain ACEC; Oil 

Spring Mountain ACEC; Raven Ridge ACEC; Ryan Gulch 

ACEC; South Cathedral Bluffs ACEC; Yanks Gulch/Upper 

Greasewood Creek ACEC; White River Riparian ACEC 

White River Record of Decision 

and Approved Resource 

Management Plan 07/1997 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Adobe Badlands ACEC/ONA; Escalante Canyon ACEC; 

Needle Rock ACEC/ISA/ONA 

Uncompahgre Basin Resource 

Management Plan and Record of 

Decision 07/1989 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

American Basin ACEC; Dillon Pinnacles ACEC; Redcloud 

Peak ACEC; Slumgullion Earthflow National Natural 

Landmark ACEC; South Beaver Creek ACEC; West 

Antelope Creek ACEC 

Gunnison Resource Area Record 

of Decision, Approved Resource 

Management Plan, and Rangeland 

Program Summary 02/1993 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse ACEC/IBA; Native Plant 

Community ACEC/ONA; Gunnison Gorge NCA; Gunnison 

Gorge Wilderness 

Gunnison Gorge National 

Conservation Area Approved 

Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 11/2004 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Anasazi Culture Multiple Use Area ACEC; Tabeguache 

Creek ONA 

San Juan/San Miguel Planning 

Area Resource Management Plan 

09/1985 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Arkansas Canyonlands ACEC; Beaver Creek ACEC; 

Browns Canyon ACEC; Cucharas Canyon ACEC; Droney 

Gulch ACEC; Garden Park Fossil Area National Natural 

Landmark ACEC; Grape Creek ACEC; Phantom Canyon 

ACEC 

Royal Gorge Resource Area 

Record of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan 

05/1996 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Badger Wash ACEC; Gunnison Gravels ACEC/RNA; 

Rough Canyon ACEC/RNA; The Palisade ACEC/ONA; 

Unaweep Seep ACEC/RNA 

Grand Junction Resource Area 

Resource Management Plan and 

Record of Decision 01/1987 
SWReGAP 

 

297 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area ACEC; Cumbres and Toltec 

Scenic Railroad Corridor ACEC; Elephant Rocks ACEC; 

Los Mogotes ACEC; Ra Jadero Canyon ACEC; Rio Grande 

River Corridor ACEC; Sand Castle ACEC; San Luis 

Hills/Flattop ACEC; Trickle Mountain ACEC 

San Luis Resource Area Record 

of Decision and Approved 

Resource Management Plan 

12/1991 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Blue Hill Archaeological District ACEC; Bull Gulch 

ACEC; Glenwood Springs Debris Flow Hazard Zone 

ACEC; Deep Creek ACEC; Lower Colorado River 

Cooperative Management Area ACEC 

Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Glenwood 

Springs Resource Area (Revised 

1988) 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Cross Mountain Canyon ACEC; Irish Canyon ACEC; 

Limestone Ridge ACEC/RNA; Lookout Mountain ACEC; 

Ace in the Hole BA; Hells Canyon BA; G Gap BA; 

Vermillion Creek BA; Vermillion Bluffs BA; Horse Draw 

BA 

Little Snake Resource 

Management Plan and Record of 

Decision 06/1989 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

San Miguel River ACEC 

1993 - Amendment for San 

Miguel River ACEC, Recreation, 

Riparian, & Visual Resources 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Adobe Badlands WSA; American Flats WSA; Ant Hills 

WSA; Beaver Creek WSA; Bill Hare Gulch WSA; Black 

Canyon WSA; Black Mountain WSA; Browns Canyon WSA; 

Bull Canyon WSA; Bull Gulch WSA; Cahone Canyon WSA; 

Camel Back WSA; Castle Peak WSA; Chew Winter Camp 

WSA; Cold Spring West WSA; Cross Canyon WSA; Cross 

Mountain WSA; Demaree Canyon WSA; Diamond Breaks 

WSA; Dinosaur Adjacent North WSA; Dolores River 

Canyon WSA; Dominguez Canyon WSA; Eagle Mountain 

WSA; Grape Creek WSA; Hack Lake WSA; Handies Peak 

WSA; Little Book Cliffs WSA; Lower Grape Creek WSA; 

McIntyre Hills WSA; McKenna Peak WSA 

Interim Management Policy for 

Lands Under Wilderness Review 

07/1995 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

(continued) 

Menefee Mountain WSA; Oil Spring Mountain WSA; 

Peterson Draw WSA; Platte River Contigous; Powderhorn 

ISA; Redcloud Peak WSA; San Luis Hills WSA; Sand Castle 

WSA; Sewemup Mesa WSA; Skull Creek WSA; 

Squaw/Papoose Canyon WSA; Tabeguache Creek WSA; 

Tepee Draw WSA; The Palisade WSA; Troublesome WSA; 

Upper Grape Creek WSA; Vale of Tears WSA; Weber 

Mountain WSA; West Cold Springs WSA; Willow Creek 

WSA; Windy Gulch WSA 

Interim Management Policy for 

Lands Under Wilderness Review 

07/1995 
SWReGAP 

 

298 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness; McInnis Canyons NCA 

Draft Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Colorado 

Canyons NCA and Black Ridge 

Canyons Wilderness 10/2003 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Canyons of the Ancients NM 

Interim Management Policy for 

BLM National Monuments and 

BLM National Conservation 

Areas 10/2001 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

09/2003 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge 

Two Ponds National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive 

Management Plan 09/1997 

National Park 

Service Black Canyon of the Gunnison NP 

General Management Plan Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Monument and Curecanti 

National Recreation Area 12/1997 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

5 Card Draw; Aiken Canyon Preserve; Antelope Canyon; 

Bohart Ranch & Preserve; Bohart Ranch & Preserve; Cap 

Rock; Carpenter Ranch & Preserve; Fox Ranch & 

Preserve; Medano-Zapata Ranch & Preserve; Phantom 

Canyon Preserve; San Miguel Canyon Preserve; South 

Fork Preserve; Tabeguache Creek Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wherewew

ork/northamerica/states/colorado/

preserves/ 

Colorado State 

Land Board State Stewardship Trust Land 

Interviewed Colorado State Land 

Board GIS Specialist: Bill Martin 

- 06/2005 

Tribal Lands Ute Mountain Tribal Park 

URL: 

http://www.utemountainute.com/ 

tribalpark.htm 
SWReGAP 

 

299 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

West Stoneham Archeological District SIA (MA 3.1); Grays 

Peak SIA (MA 3.1); Pawnee Buttes SIA (MA 3.1); Todd 

Gulch Fen SIA (MA 3.1); Arapaho NRA (MA 3.1); Bowen 

Gulch RNA (MA 2.2); Hell Canyon RNA (MA 2.2); 

Pennock Creek RNA (MA 2.2); West Creek RNA (MA 2.2); 

Cache La Poudre Wild and Scenic River (MA 1.5); Cache 

La Poudre Wilderness (MA 1.1); Comanche Peak 

Wilderness (MA 1.1); Indian Peaks Wilderness (MA 1.1); 

James Peak Wilderness (MA 1.1); Mount Evans Wilderness 

(MA 1.1); Neota Wilderness (MA 1.1); Never Summer 

Wilderness (MA 1.1); Rawah Wilderness (MA 1.1); Prairie 

Ecosystem Demonstration Area SIA (MA 3.1); Arapaho NF 

(MA 1.2); Roosevelt NF (MA 1.2); Roosevelt NF (MA 1.41 

& MA 1.5); Homestead Meadows SIA (MA 3.1); Stuck 

Creek Splash Dam SIA (MA 3.1); Bowen Gulch Protection 

Area SIA (MA 3.1); James Peak SIA (MA 3.1); Rist Canyon 

SIA (MA 3.1); Niwot Ridge Biosphere Reserve (MA 3.1); 

Fraser Experimental Forest (MA 5.31); Central Plains 

Experimental Range 

1997 Revision of the Land and 

Resource Management Plan 

Arapaho and Roosevelt National 

Forests and Pawnee National 

Grassland 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry Paleontological Site SIA (MA 

10C); Ophir Needles SIA (MA 10C); Grand Mesa NF (MA 

10E); Collegiate Peaks Wilderness (MA 8B); Fossil Ridge 

Wilderness (MA 8B); La Garita Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 

8C); Lizard Head Wilderness (MA 8B); Maroon BellsSnowmass Wilderness (MA 8B); Mount Sneffels Wilderness 

(MA 8B & MA 8C); Powderhorn Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 

8C); Raggeds Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); 

Uncompahgre Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); West Elk 

Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); Slumgullion Earthflow NNL 

(MA 10C); Alpine Tunnel Historic District SIA (MA 10C); 

Roubideau Special Management Area OCD; Tabeguache 

Special Management Area OCD 

Amended Land and Resource 

Management Plan Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 

National Forests 1991 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Pike NF (MA 10E); San Isabel NF (MA 10E); Byers Peak 

Wilderness (MA 1.1); Buffalo Peaks Wilderness (MA 8B); 

Collegiate Peaks Wilderness (MA 8C); Greenhorn 

Mountain Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); Holy Cross 

Wilderness (MA 8C); Lost Creek Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 

8C); Mount Evans Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); Mount 

Massive Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); Sangre de Cristo 

Wilderness (MA 8B & MA 8C); CSU Southeastern Branch 

Exp. Station (MA 10B); Manitou Experimental Forest (MA 

10B); Picture Canyon Zoological Area (MA 10C); Vasquez 

Peak Wilderness (MA 1.1) 

Land and Resource Management 

Plan Pike and San Isabel National 

Forest; Comanche and Cimarron 

National Grasslands 1984; 

Amendment No. 24. 04/1992 
SWReGAP 

 

300 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Elephant Rocks Botanical Area (MA 3.1); Elephant Rocks 

SIA (MA 3.1); Ripley Milkvetch SIA (MA 3.1); Blowout 

Pass SIA (MA 3.1); Chama Basin Landslide Geologic Area 

(MA 3.1); Devil's Hole Geologic Area (MA 3.1); La Garita 

Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); Sangre de Cristo 

Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); Rio Grande NF (MA 

1.5); John Charles Fremont SIA (MA 3.1); Wagon Wheel 

Gap Watershed Experiment Station SIA (MA 3.1) 

Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan Rio Grande 

National Forest 11/1996 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Little Snake SIA (MA 2.1); California Park SIA (MA 2.1); 

Windy Ridge SIA (MA 2.1 ); Routt NF (MA 3.23); Flat Tops 

Wilderness (MA 1.13); Mount Zirkel Wilderness (MA 1.12 

& MA 1.13); Neota Wilderness (MA 1.12); Never Summer 

Wilderness (MA 1.12); Platte River Wilderness (MA 1.13); 

Sarvis Creek Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); Routt NF 

(MA 1.5); Encampment River SIA (MA 2.1); Teller City SIA 

(MA 2.1); Black Mountain SIA (MA 2.1); Camp Creek SIA 

(MA 2.1) 

Revised Forest Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Routt National Forest 2001 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Chimney Rock Archeological Area SIA (MA 10C); Falls 

Creek Archeological Area SIA (MA 10C); Lizard Head 

Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); Piedra Area (MA 1.12 & 

MA 1.13); South San Juan Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 

1.13); Weminuche Wilderness (MA 1.11A & MA 1.12 & MA 

1.13) 

Amended Land and Resource 

Management Plan San Juan 

National Forest 04/1992; 

Amendment No. 20 08/1998 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Quandry Peak SIA (MA 2.1); Dead Horse Creek SIA (MA 

2.1); Collegiate Peaks Wilderness (MA 1.12); Eagles Nest 

Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); Flat Tops Wilderness 

(MA 1.12); Holy Cross Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); 

Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); 

Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness (MA 1.12 & MA 1.13); 

Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness (MA 1.12); Raggeds 

Wilderness (MA 1.12); White River NF (MA 1.13 & MA 1.2 

& MA 1.5); Continental Divide Land Bridge & Porcupine 

SIA (MA 2.1); Main Elk SIA (MA 2.1); Mitchell Creek SIA 

(MA 2.1); Sterry Lake SIA (MA 2.1); Taylor Pass SIA (MA 

2.1); Warren Lakes SIA (MA 2.1) 

2002 Revision for Land and 

Resource Management Plan 

White River National Forest 
SWReGAP 

 

301 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

63 Ranch SWA; Adams SWA; Adobe Creek Reservoir SWA; 

Alberta Park Reservoir SWA; Alma SWA; Almont Triangle 

SWA; Andrew's Lake SWA; Antero Reservoir SWA; 

Apishapa SWA; Arkansas River SWA; Atwood SWA; 

Badger Basin SWA; Bailey Lake SWA; Banner Lakes SWA; 

Basalt SWA; Bear Lake Reservoir SWA; Beaver Creek 

Reservoir SWA; Beaver Creek SWA; Beaver Lake SWA; 

Beaver Reservoir SWA; Bel Aire SWA; Bellaire Lake SWA; 

Bergen Peak SWA; Big Creek Reservoir SWA; Big 

Meadows Reservoir SWA; Big Thompson Ponds SWA; Billy 

Creek SWA; Bitter Brush SWA; Black Lakes SWA; Blacktail 

Easement SWA; Blanca SWA; Blinberry Gulch SWA; Bliss 

SWA; Blue River SWA; Bodo SWA; Boedecker Reservoir 

SWA; Bosque Del Oso SWA; Boyd Ponds SWA; 

Brackenbury SWA; Bravo SWA; Brower SWA; Brown 

Lakes SWA; Brownlee SWA; Brown's Park SWA; Brush 

Creek SWA; Brush Hollow SWA; Brush Prairie Ponds 

SWA; Brush SWA; Buena Vista SWA; Burchfield SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Cabin Creek SWA; Centennial SWA; Centennial Valley 

SWA; Chance Gulch SWA; Cherokee SWA; Chipeta Lakes 

SWA; Christina SWA; Chuck Lewis SWA; Cimarron SWA; 

Clear Creek Reservoir SWA; Coalbed Canyon SWA; 

Cochetopa SWA; Coke Oven SWA; Coller SWA; Colorado 

River Island SWA; Columbine SWA; Cottonwood Creek 

SWA; Cottonwood SWA; Cowdry Lake SWA; Crystal River 

Ranch SWA; Dan Noble SWA; De Weese Reservoir SWA; 

Deadman SWA; Delaney Butte Lakes SWA; Delta SWA; 

Devil Creek SWA; Diamond J SWA; Dixon Lake SWA; 

Dodd Bridge SWA; Dome Lakes SWA; Dome Rock SWA; 

Douglas Reservoir SWA; Dowdy Lake SWA; Dry Creek 

Basin SWA; Duck Creek SWA; Dumont Lake SWA; Dune 

Ridge SWA; Dutch Gulch SWA; Eagle River SWA; Echo 

Canyon Lake SWA; Elkhead Lake SWA; Elliot SWA; 

Emerald Mountain SWA; Escalante SWA; Fish Creek SWA; 

Flagler Reservoir SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Forks SWA; Frank SWA; Franklin Island SWA; Frenchman 

Creek SWA; Frying Pan River SWA; Garfield Creek SWA; 

Georgetown Reservoir SWA; Goose Lake SWA; Granada 

SWA; Grandview Ponds SWA; Granite SWA; Grieves 

Easement SWA; Groundhog Reservoir SWA; Gunnison 

SWA; Gypsum Ponds SWA; Hahn's Peak Reservoir SWA; 

Hallenbeck Ranch SWA; Haviland Lake SWA; Heckendorf 

SWA; Higel SWA; Hohnholz Lakes SWA; Hohnholz Lakes 

SWA; Hohnholz Lakes SWA ; Hohnholz Lakes SWA; 

Holbrook Reservoir SWA; Holly SWA; Holyoke SWA; 

Home Lake SWA; Horse Creek Reservoir SWA; Horse Thief 

Canyon SWA; Hot Creek SWA; Hot Sulphur Springs SWA; 

Hot Sulphur Springs SWA; Hot Sulphur Springs SWA; 

Huerfano SWA; Hugo SWA; Hunt SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 
SWReGAP 

 

302 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Idaho Springs Reservoir SWA; Indian Run SWA; Irvine 

SWA; Jackson Lake SWA; James M. John SWA; James 

Mark Jones SWA; Jensen SWA; Jerry Creek Resevoir SWA; 

Joe Moore Reservoir SWA; John Martin Reservoir SWA; 

Johnson Village SWA; Julesburg SWA; Jumbo Reservoir 

SWA; Junction Butte SWA; Karval Reservoir SWA; KempBreeze SWA; Knight-Imler SWA; Knudson SWA; Kodak 

Watchable SWA; La Jara Creek Ranch SWA; La Jara 

Reservoir SWA; La Jara SWA; Lake Avery SWA; Lake 

Beckwith SWA; Lake Dorothey SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

 Lake Fork of the Gunnison River SWA; Lake John SWA; 

Las Animas City Pond SWA; Lathrop SWA; Leaps Gulch 

SWA; Lennartz SWA; Little Snake SWA; Loma Boat Launch 

SWA; Lon Hagler SWA; Lone Dome SWA; Lonetree 

Reservoir SWA; Lowell Ponds SWA; Manhattan Creek 

SWA; Manville SWA; Marcum SWA; Mason Family SWA; 

McCluskey SWA; Meadow Creek Reservoir SUP; Meeker 

Pasture SWA; Meredith Reservoir SWA; Mesa Lake SWA; 

Messex SWA; Mike Higbee SWA; Mitani-Tokoyasu SWA; 

Mogensen Ponds SWA; Monument Lake SWA; Mount 

Evans SWA; Mount Werner SWA; Mountain Home 

Reservoir SWA; Murphy SWA; Nakagawa SWA; 

Narraguinnep Reservoir SWA; Narrows SWA; 

Nelson/Prather Easement SWA; North Fork SWA; North 

Lake SWA; North Sterling Reservoir SWA; North Sterling 

Reservoir SWA; Oak Ridge SWA; Odd Fellows SWA; 

Ogilvy SWA; Olney Springs SWA; Overland Trail SWA; 

Owl Mountain SWA; Ox Bow SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Paonia SWA; Parachute Ponds SWA; Parvin Lake SWA; 

Pastorius Reservoir SWA; Perins Peak SWA; Piceance 

SWA; Pikes Peak SWA; Pioneer Park SWA; Plateau Creek 

SWA; Playa Blanca SWA; Poage Lake SWA; Pony Express 

SWA; Poudre River SWA; Prewitt Reservoir SWA; Puett 

Reservoir SWA; Purgatoire River SWA; Queens SWA; 

Radium SWA; Ralph White SWA; Ralston Creek SWA; 

Ramah Reservoir SWA; Red Dog SWA; Red Lion SWA; 

Regan Lake SWA; Richard SWA; Rio Blanco Lake SWA; 

Rio Grande River SWA; Rio Grande SWA; Rito Hondo 

Reservoir SWA; Road Canyon Reservoir SWA; Roaring 

Fork River SWA; Rock Creek SWA; Rocky Ford Pond 

SWA; Rocky Ford SWA; Rocky Ford West SWA; Rosemont 

Reservoir SWA; Runyon/Fountain Lakes SWA; Russel 

Lakes SWA; Saint Charles SWA; San Miguel SWA; Sanchez 

Reservoir SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 
SWReGAP 

 

303 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Sand Creek SWA; Sand Draw SWA; Sandsage SWA; Sandy 

Bluffs SWA; Sawhill Ponds SWA; Sawhill Ponds-City Open 

Space; Schuck SWA; Seaman Reservoir SWA; Sedgwick 

Bar SWA; Seeley Reservoir SWA; Sego Springs SWA; 

Service Creek SWA; Setchfield SWA; Seymour Lake SWA; 

Sharptail Ridge SWA; Sheets Lake SWA; Silver Creek SWA; 

Simmons SWA; Simpson Ponds SWA; Skaguay Reservoir 

SWA; Smith Reservoir SWA; South Republican SWA; 

Spanish Peaks SWA; Spinney Mountain SWA; Spring Creek 

Reservoir SWA; Stalker Lake SWA; Steamboat Lake SWA; 

Summit Reservoir SWA; Swede Lake SWA; Tamarack 

Ranch SWA; Tarryall Reservoir SWA; Taylor River 

SWA/MOU 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Terrance Reservoir SWA; Teter Wetlands SWA; Thurston 

Reservoir SWA; Tilman Bishop SWA; Timpas Creek SWA; 

Tomahawk SWA; Totten Reservoir SWA; Trout Lake SWA; 

Trujillo Meadows Reservoir SWA/SUP; Turk's Pond SWA; 

Twin Hills SWA; Twin Sisters SWA; Two Buttes Reservoir 

SWA; Upper Stillwater SWA; Vail Deer Underpass SWA; 

Vaughn Reservoir SWA; Verner SWA; Wahatoya SWA; 

Walker SWA; Ward Pond SWA; Watson Divide SWA; 

Watson Lake SWA; Webster SWA; Wellington Reservoir #4 

and Smith Lake SWA; Wellington SWA; West Lake SWA; 

West Rifle Creek SWA; Wheeler SWA; White Horse SWA; 

White River SWA; Williams Creel Reservoir SWA; Windy 

Gap WWA; Woodhouse SWA; Woods Lake SWA; Wrights 

Lake SWA; Yampa River SWA; Young Gulch SWA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Adobe Ridge SHA; Akey SHA; Berry Creek SHA; Bollinger 

SHA; Coaldale Ponds SHA; Copper Spur SHA; Cover 

Mountain SHA; Crites SHA; Cyprus Yampa Valley SHA; D 

& T Ranch SHA; Elk Valley Estates SHA; Fadenrecht SHA; 

Flatiron Mesa SHA; Grizzly T Gulch SHA; Hawxhurst 

Ranch SHA; Hay Press Lake SHA; Hereford Haven Ranch 

SHA; Kaichen SHA; Love Meadows Easement SHA; 

Maggard SHA; Meserve SHA; Minton SHA; Musgrave 

SHA; Orr SHA; Payne Mesa SHA; Pheasant Habitat 

Leases SHA; Pinon Mesa - Glade Point SHA; Rush Creek 

SHA; Saffer SHA; Salt Wash SHA; Shutt SHA; Skylark 

Creek SHA; Stone SHA; Thunder Mountain SHA; Vermejo 

Park SHA; Viking Valley SHA; Whittington SHA; Witte 

SHA 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 
SWReGAP 

 

304 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Colorado Source of Management Plan 

Colorado 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Bellvue SFU; Buena Vista SFU; Chalk Cliffs SFU; Crystal 

River SFU; Durango SFU; Finger Rock SFU; Glenwood 

Springs SFU; Las Animas SFU; Mount Ouray SFU; Mount 

Shavano SFU; Pitkin SFU; Poudre River SFU; Rifle Falls 

SFU; Roaring Judy SFU; Spicer SFU; Watson Lake SFU; 

Wray SFU 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/LandWa

ter/StateWildlifeAreas/ 
SWReGAP 

 

305 

Appendix 4-5. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Nevada. 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Nevada Source of 

Management Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Arden Historic Sites ACEC; Armagosa Mesquite ACEC; Arrow 

Canyon ACEC; Big Dune ACEC; Bird Spring ACEC; Coyote 

Springs Valley ACEC; Crescent Townsite ACEC; Devil's Throat 

ACEC; Gold Butte ACEC - Part A; Gold Butte ACEC - Part B; 

Gold Butte ACEC - Part C/ Virgin Mountains ACEC; Gold Butte 

Townsite ACEC; Hidden Valley ACEC; Keyhole Canyon ACEC; 

Mormon Mesa ACEC - Las Vegas; Piute/ Eldorado Valley ACEC; 

Rainbow Gardens ACEC; Red Rock Springs ACEC; River 

Mountains ACEC; Sloan Rock Art District ACEC; Stump Springs 

ACEC; Virgin River ACEC; Whitney Pockets ACEC; Arrow 

Canyon Wilderness; Jumbo Springs Wilderness; La Madre 

Mountain Wilderness; Lime Canyon Wilderness; Mount 

Charleston Wilderness; Muddy Mountains Wilderness; North 

McCullough Wilderness; Rainbow Mountain Wilderness; South 

McCullough Wilderness; Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness 

Record of Decision for 

the Approved Las Vegas 

Resource Management 

Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 10/1998 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Beaver Dam Slope ACEC; Kane Springs ACEC; Mormon Mesa 

ACEC - Ely 

Draft Caliente Resource 

Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 1993 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Incandescent Rocks ACEC; Steamboat Hot Springs ACEC 

Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

Lahontan Resource Area 

1984 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Osgood Mountains Milkvetch ACEC 

Paradise-Denio and 

Sonoma-Gerlach 

Management Framework 

Plan: Approved Lands 

Amendment and Decision 

Record 1999 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Salt Lake ACEC 

Record of Decision Wells 

Resource Management 

Plan 06/1985 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Carson Wandering Skipper ACEC; Pah Rah Basin Petroglyph 

ACEC; Virginia Range Williams Combleaf Habitat ACEC 

Carson City Field Office 

Consolidated Resource 

Management Plan 

05/2001 
SWReGAP 

 

306 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Nevada Source of 

Management Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

High Rock Canyon ACEC; Soldier Meadow ACEC; Black Rock 

Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation 

Area; Big Rocks Wilderness; Calico Mountains Wilderness; East 

Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness; High Rock Canyon 

Wilderness; High Rock Lake Wilderness; Little High Rock Canyon 

Wilderness; North Black Rock Range Wilderness; North Jackson 

Mountains Wilderness; Pahute Peak Wilderness; South Jackson 

Mountains Wilderness 

Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

Black Rock Desert-High 

Rock Canyon Emigrant 

Trails National 

Conservation Area (NCA) 

and Associated 

Wilderness, and Other 

Contiguous Lands in 

Nevada 09/2003 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Alder Creek WSA; Antelope Range WSA; Antelope WSA; Augusta 

Mountains WSA; Bad Lands WSA; Blue Eagle WSA; Blue Lakes 

WSA; Bluebell WSA; Buffalo Hills WSA; Burbank Canyons WSA; 

Cedar Ridge WSA; China Mountain WSA; Clan Alpine Mountains 

WSA; Desatoya Mountains WSA; Disaster Peak WSA; Dry Valley 

Rim WSA; Fandango WSA; Five Springs WSA; Fox Range WSA; 

Gabbs Valley Range WSA; Goshute Canyon ISA; Goshute Canyon 

WSA; Goshute Peak WSA; Grapevine Mountains WSA; Heusser 

Mountain Bristlecone Pine ISA; Job Peak WSA; Kawich WSA; 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ISA; Little Humboldt River WSA; 

Marble Canyon WSA; Massacre Rim WSA; Million Hills WSA; 

Morey Peak WSA; Mount Grafton WSA; Mount Limbo WSA; 

Mount Stirling WSA; Mountain Meadow ISA; N. Fork of the Little 

Humboldt River WSA; Owyhee Canyon WSA; Palisade Mesa 

WSA; Park Range WSA; Pigeon Spring WSA; Pinyon Joshua ISA; 

Pole Creek WSA; Poodle Mountain WSA; Pueblo Mountains 

WSA; Queer Mountain WSA; Rawhide Mountain WSA; Red 

Spring WSA; Resting Springs WSA 

Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review 

07/1995 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

(continued) 

Riordan's Well WSA; Roberts Mountain WSA; Rough Hills WSA; 

Selenite Mountains WSA; Sheldon Contiguous WSA; Shoshone 

Ponds ISA; Shoshone Pygmy Sage ISA; Silver Peak Range WSA; 

Simpson Park WSA; Skedaddle WSA; South Egan Range WSA; 

South Fork Owyhee River WSA; South Pequop WSA; South 

Reveille WSA; Stillwater Range WSA; Sunrise Mountain ISA; 

Swamp Cedar ISA; The Wall WSA; Tobin Range WSA; Twin 

Peaks WSA; Virgin Mountain ISA; Wall Canyon WSA 

Interim Management 

Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review 07/95 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area 

Proposed General 

Management Plan and 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for Red 

Rock Canyon National 

Conservation Area 

12/2000 
SWReGAP 

 

307 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Nevada Source of 

Management Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area 

Interim Management 

Policy for BLM National 

Monuments and BLM 

National Conservation 

Areas 10/2001 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Clover Mountains Wilderness; Delamar Mountains Wilderness; 

Far South Egans Wilderness; Fortification Range Wilderness; 

Meadow Valley Range Wilderness; Mormon Mountains 

Wilderness; Mount Irish Wilderness; Parsnip Peak Wilderness; 

South Pahroc Range Wilderness; Tunnel Spring Wilderness; 

Weepah Spring Wilderness; White Rock Range Wilderness; 

Worthington Mountains Wilderness 

Public Law 108-424 - 

11/2004; Wilderness 

Management Policy 

09/1981 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Stillwater WMA; Fallon NWR; Stillwater NWR 

Stillwater National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

06/2003 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Ruby Lake NWR 

Interviewed Refuge 

Manager: Martha 

Collins - 10/2004 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Desert National Wildlife Range 

URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/deser

tcomplex/ 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Alta Toquima Wilderness; Arc Dome Wilderness; Currant 

Mountain Wilderness; Mount Rose Wilderness; Table Mountain 

Wilderness 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

Toiyabe National Forest 

1986 

U.S. Forest 

Service Boundary Peak Wilderness 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan Inyo 

National Forest 1988 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Spring Mountains NRA (MA 11& MA 13& MA 14); Mount 

Stirling WSA (MA 14) 

General Management 

Plan For the Spring 

Mountains National 

Recreation Area: An 

Amendment to the Land 

and Resource 

Management Plan, 

Toiyabe National Forest 

1996 
SWReGAP 

 

308 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Nevada Source of 

Management Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Humboldt NF (MA 11); East Humboldts Wilderness; Grant Range 

Wilderness (MA 15); Jarbidge Wilderness (MA 6); Mount Moriah 

Wilderness (MA 8); Quinn Canyon Wilderness; Ruby Mountains 

Wilderness (MA 4); Santa Rosa - Paradise Peak Wilderness 

Humboldt National Forest 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan 1996 

National Park 

Service Lake Mead NRA 

Final General 

Management Plan 

Environmental Impact 

Statement Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area 

12/1986 

Nevada 

Department of 

Wildlife 

Alkali Lake WMA; Fernley WMA; Franklin Lake WMA; Humboldt 

WMA; Key Pittman WMA; Mason Valley WMA; Overton WMA; 

Railroad Valley WMA; Scripps WMA; Steptoe Valley WMA; 

Wayne E. Kirch WMA 

URL: 

http://www.ndow.org/wil

d/habitat/wma/ 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Gottfredson/Condor Canyon; McCarran Ranch; River Fork 

Ranch 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wh

erewework/ 

northamerica/states/nevad

a/preserves/ 
SWReGAP 

 

309 

Appendix 4-6. Documentation of Status 2 lands in New Mexico. 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Adams Canyon ACEC; Angel Peak ACEC; Archuleta River Tract; 

Ashiih Naa'a ACEC; Bald Eagle ACEC; Beechatuda Tongue 

Geological Formation; Betonnie Tsosie Fossil Area; Bi Yaazh 

ACEC; Blanco Mesa ACEC; Blanco Star Panel ACEC; Bohanon 

Canyon Fossil Complex; Cagle's Site ACEC; Canyon View Ruin 

ACEC; Carson Fossil Pocket Fossil Area; Cereza Canyon 

Wildlife Area; Casa del Rio Archaeological Protection Site 

ACEC; Cedar Hill ACEC; Chacra Mesa Complex ACEC; Cho'li'i 

(Gobernador Knob) ACEC; Christmas Tree Ruin ACEC; Crow 

Canyon ACEC; Crownpoint Steps and Herradura ACEC; Deer 

House ACEC; Delgadita/Pueblo Canyons ACEC; 

Delgadita/Pueblo Canyons SMA; Devil's Spring Mesa ACEC; 

Dzil'na'oodlii ACEC; Encierro Canyon ACEC; Encinada MesaCarrizo Canyon ACEC; Frances Mesa ACEC; Gould Pass Camp 

ACEC; Gobernador and Cereza Canyon Fossil Area; Greenlee 

Ruin Archaeological Protection Site ACEC; Hummingbird ACEC; 

Hummingbird Canyon ACEC; Kachina Mask ACEC; Kin Yazhi 

ACEC; Kiva ACEC; Kutz Canyon Paleontological Area; La Jara 

ACEC 

Record of Decision 

Farmington Proposed 

Resource Management 

Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 09/2003 

 

Lake Valley Archaeological Protection Site ACEC; Largo Canyon 

Star Ceiling ACEC; Lybrook Fossil Area; Martinez Canyon 

ACEC; Mexican Spotted Owl ACEC; Moss Trail ACEC; Munoz 

Canyon ACEC; North Road ACEC; Old Road River Tract; Pinon 

Mesa Fossil Area; Pointed Butte ACEC; Pork Chop Pass ACEC; 

Pregnant Basketmaker ACEC; Pretty Woman ACEC; Prieta Mesa 

ACEC; Rincon Largo District ACEC; Rincon Rockshelter ACEC; 

River Tracts; San Rafael Canyon ACEC; Santos Peak ACEC; 

Shield Bearer ACEC; Star Rock ACEC; Star Spring/Jesus Canyon 

ACEC; String House ACEC; Superior Mesa ACEC; Tapacito and 

Split Rock ACEC; The Hogback ACEC; Truby's Tower ACEC 

Record of Decision 

Farmington Proposed 

Resource Management 

Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 09/2003 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Fort Stanton ACEC; Mescalero Sands ACEC/ONA; North Pecos 

River ACEC; Overflow Wetlands ACEC 

Record of Decision 

Proposed Roswell 

Resource Management 

Plan 10/1997 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Black Mesa ACEC; Copper Hill ACEC; La Cienega ACEC; 

Lower Gorge ACEC; Ojo Caliente ACEC; Rio Chama Wild and 

Scenic River; San Antonio Gorge ACEC; Sombrillo ACEC; Winter 

Range ACEC 

Approved Taos Resource 

Management Plan 10/1988 
SWReGAP 

 

310 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Alamo Hueco Mountains ACEC; Apache Box ACEC; Big Hatchet 

Mountains ACEC; Central Peloncillo Mountains ACEC; Cooke's 

Range ACEC; Dona Ana Mountains ACEC; Florida Mountains 

ACEC; Gila Lower Box ACEC; Granite Gap ACEC; Kilbourne 

Hole NNL; Los Tules ACEC; Northern Peloncillo Mountains 

ACEC; Old Town ACEC; Organ/Franklin Mountains ACEC; 

Rincon ACEC; Robledo Mountains ACEC; San Diego Mountain 

ACEC; Uvas Valley ACEC 

Las Cruces District OfficeMimbres Resource Area - 

Mimbres Resource 

Management Plan 12/1993 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Agua Fria ACEC; Horse Mountain ACEC; Ladron Mountain 

ACEC; Sawtooth ACEC; Soaptree ACEC; Harvey Ecological Plot 

SMA; San Lorenzo Canyon SMA; San Pedro ACEC; Tinajas 

ACEC; The Box SMA 

Final Soccorro Resource 

Management Plan 08/1989 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Blue Spring Riparian Habitat ACEC; Chosa Draw Caves 

Complex ACEC; Dark Canyon ACEC; Pecos River/Canyons 

Complex ACEC 

Approved Carlsbad 

Resource Management 

Plan 09/1988 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

El Malpais NCA; Cebolla Wilderness; West Malpais Wilderness 

El Malpais Plan: A 

Resource Management 

Plan 09/2001 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks NM 

Interim Management 

Policy for BLM National 

Monuments and BLM 

National Conservation 

Areas 10/2001 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Alamo Mountain ACEC; Alkali Lakes ACEC; Cornudas Mountain 

ACEC; Sacramento Escarpment ACEC; Three Rivers Petroglyph 

ACEC; Wind Mountain ACEC 

Otero County Areas of 

Critical Environmental 

Concern Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment Caballo 

Resource Area 08/1997 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Ball Ranch ACEC/RNA; Big Bead Mesa NHL; Bluewater Canyon 

ACEC; Cabezon Peak ACEC; Canon Tapia ACEC; Elk Springs 

ACEC; Jones Canyon ACEC; Ojito ACEC; Pronoun Cave 

Complex ACEC/RNA; San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC; 

Torrejon Fossil Fauna ACEC 

Final Rio Puerco Resource 

Management Plan and 

Record of Decision 

11/1986 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Bisti Wilderness 

Final Wilderness 

Management Plan Bisti 

Wilderness 07/1986 
SWReGAP 

 

311 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

De-Na-Zin Wilderness 

Final De-Na-Zin 

Wilderness Management 

Plan 08/89 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Bitter Lake NWR 

Bitter Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 09/1998 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Bosque Del Apache NWR 

URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/south

west/refuges/ 

newmex/bosque/ 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Grulla NWR 

Muleshoe and Grulla 

National Wildlife Refuges 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 07/2004 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Las Vegas NWR 

Las Vegas National 

Wildlife Refuge Final 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 06/2004 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Maxwell NWR 

Maxwell National Wildlife 

Refuge Draft 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

12/2005 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

San Andres NWR 

Final San Andres National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 09/1998 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Sevilleta NWR 

Sevilleta National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 07/2000 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Gallinas Creek Watershed (MA J); Santa Fe Watershed (MA O); 

Rio Chama River Canyon Wild and Scenic River (MA C); Chama 

River Canyon Wilderness (MA H); Dome Wilderness (MA H); 

Pecos Wilderness (MA H); San Pedro Parks Wilderness (MA H); 

Santa Fe NF (MA L); Pecos Wild and Scenic River 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Plan 07/1987; Amendment 

Change Notice No. 1. 

09/1994 

U.S. Forest 

Service Valles Caldera National Preserve 

Valles Caldera National 

Preserve Draft Framework 

and Strategic Guidance for 

Comprhensive 

Management 2003 
SWReGAP 

 

312 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Gila NF (MA 7D & MA 4D & MA 7C); Aldo Leopold Wilderness 

(MA 2E & MA 5B & MA 5C); Blue Range Wilderness (MA 3A); 

Gila Wilderness (MA 2A & MA 2B & MA 4A & MA 4B & MA 5A 

& MA 6B & MA 7E & MA 7F & MA 7G & MA 8A & MA 5B); 

Gila WSA (MA 2G& MA 5C & MA 5D); Hells Hole WSA (MA 

4C); Lower San Francisco WSA (MA 4B & MA 4C) 

Gila National Forest Plan 

09/1986; Amendment No. 

9 11/2002 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Apache Kid Wilderness (MA 3); Manzano Mountain Wilderness 

(MA 3); Sandia Mountain Wilderness (MA 1); Withington 

Wilderness (MA 3) 

Cibola National Forest 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

07/1985; Amendment No. 

8. 11/1996 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Capitan Mountains Wilderness (MA 1C); White Mountain 

Wilderness (MA 1F); South Guadalupe Escarpment WSA (MA 3A) 

Lincoln National Forest 

Plan 1986; Amendment 

No. 9. 06/1996 

U.S. Forest 

Service Guadalupe Canyon Zoological Area (MA 14) 

Coronado National Forest 

Plan 08/1986; Forest Plan 

Change Notice No. 3. 

06/1999 

National Park 

Service Chaco Culture NHP 

General Management Plan 

Development Concept 

Plan Chaco Culture 

National Historical Park 

09/1985 

National Park 

Service Pecos NHP 

Draft General 

Management Plan 

Environmental Impact 

Statement Pecos National 

Historical Park 08/1995 

National Park 

Service Aztec Ruins NM 

Aztec Ruins General 

Management Plan 

Development Concept 

Plan 09/1989 

National Park 

Service El Malpais NM 

General Management Plan 

Wilderness Suitability 

Study El Malpais National 

Monument 10/1990 

National Park 

Service Petroglyph NM 

Summary of Final General 

Management Plan 

Development Concept 

Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Petroglyph National 

Monument 11/1996 

National Park 

Service El Morro NM 

El Morro National 

Monument Statement For 

Management 05/1992 
SWReGAP 

 

313 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in New Mexico Source of Management 

Plan 

National Park 

Service Salinas Pueblo Missions NM 

General Management Plan 

Development Concept 

Plan Salinas National 

Monument 10/1984 

National Park 

Service Lechuguilla Cave Protection Area Lechuguilla Cave Protection Act of 1993 

Audubon 

Society 

Preserve 

Randall Davey Audubon Preserve 

URL: 

http://nm.audubon.org/iba/

ibawriteups/ rdactnc.html 

Local Land 

Trust 

Preserve/Ease

ment 

Malpai Borderlands Group (Animas Foundation/Gray Ranch); 

Malpai Borderlands Group (Bio-Research Ranch); Malpai 

Borderlands Group (Family Lands Ltd.) 

URL: 

http://www.malpaiborderla

ndsgroup.org/about.asp 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Corrales Bosque Mngmt. Agreement; Gila NF (Headwaters Ranch 

- TNC Grazing Allotment); Gray Ranch; Lama Canyon Preserve; 

Milnesand Prairie Preserve; Ortiz Mountains-Todilto Limestone 

Cons. Area; Lichty Ecological Research Center; Sabo Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/whe

rewework/ 

northamerica/states/newme

xico/ preserves/ 

New Mexico 

Department of 

Game and Fish 

Sugarite Canyon SP 

Interviewed Natural 

Resource Planner New 

Mexico State Parks 

Department: Steve Cary - 

05/2005 

New Mexico 

Department of 

Game and Fish 

Claudell; Fenton Lake Fishing Area (and dam); Brantley Wildlife 

Area; Colin Neblett WMA; Edward Sargent WMA; Elliott Barker 

WMA; Huey Wildlife Area; Jackson Lake WMA; Marquez WMA; 

Picacho Bosque Tract; Red Rock WMA; Rio Chama WMA; Rio de 

los Pinos Wildlife Area; Urraca WMA; Wagon Mound WMA; 

Water Canyon Wildlife Area; William A. Humphries Wildlife 

Management Area; Antelope Flats; Belen Waterfowl Management 

Area; Bernardo Waterfowl Management Area; Black Hills; 

Bledsoe; Casa Colorada Waterfowl Area; Crossroads #1; 

Crossroads #2; Crossroads #3; Crossroads #4; Crossroads #5; 

East Bluit; Farmers Home; Gallinas Wells #1; Gallinas Wells 

#1A; Gallinas Wells #1B; Gallinas Wells #2; Gallinas Wells #3; 

Gallinas Wells #4; Gallinas Wells #5; Gallinas Wells #6; La Joya 

Waterfowl Management Area; Liberty; Little Dipper; Marshall; 

Milnesand; North Bluitt; Pitchfork; South Bluitt; Tatum; Wayside; 

Bear Canyon Lake (and dam); Eagle Nest Lake; Heart Bar WMA 

URL: 

http://www.wildlife.state.n

m.us/ 

conservation/index.htm 
SWReGAP 

 

314 

Appendix 4-7. Documentation of Status 2 lands in Utah. 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Bonneville Salt Flats ACEC; Horseshoe Springs ACEC 

Record of Decision for the 

Pony Express Resource 

Management Plan and 

Rangeland Program 

Summary for Utah County 

01/1990 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Browns Park Complex ACEC; Lower Green River ACEC; Nine 

Mile Canyon ACEC; Pariette Wetlands ACEC; Red Creek 

ACEC; Red Mountain/Dry Fork Complex ACEC 

Diamond Mountain 

Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan and 

Record of Decision 12/1994 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Butler Wash ACEC; Cedar Mesa ACEC; Hovenweep ACEC; 

Indian Creek ACEC; U-95 Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC; 

Shay Canyon ACEC 

San Juan/San Miguel 

Planning Area Resource 

Management Plan 09/1985 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Canaan Mountain ACEC; Little Creek Mountain ACEC; Lower 

Virgin River ACEC; Red Bluff ACEC; Red Mountain ACEC; 

Santa Clara-Gunlock ACEC; Santa Clara River-Land Hill 

ACEC; Upper Beaver Dam Wash ACEC; Warner Ridge/Fort 

Pearce ACEC 

St. George Field Office 

Record of Decision and 

Resource Management Plan 

03/1999 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Copper Globe ACEC; Dry Lake Archaelogical District ACEC; 

Highway I-70 Scenic Corridor ACEC; Muddy Creek ACEC; 

Lower San Rafael Canyon ACEC; Middle San Rafael Canyon 

ACEC; Upper San Rafael Canyon ACEC; San Rafael Reef 

South ACEC; Segers Hole ACEC; Sids Mountain ACEC; 

Swazey Cabin ACEC; Temple Mountain Historic District 

ACEC; Muddy Creek/Tomsich Butte Emphasis Area ACEC 

San Rafael Final Resource 

Management Plan and 

Rangeland Program 

Summary 05/1991 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Crystal Peak ONA/ACEC; Fossil Mountain Historic Site/ACEC; 

Notch Peak NNL/ACEC; Pavant Butte ACEC 

Warm Springs Resource 

Area Resource Management 

Plan Record of Decision 

Rangeland Program 

Summary 04/1987 
SWReGAP 

 

315 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Deep Creek Mountains ONA/ACEC; Gandy Mountain Caves 

ACEC; Grandy Salt Marsh ACEC; Rockwell ONA/ACEC 

House Range Resource 

Area Resource Management 

Plan and Record of 

Decision, Rangeland 

Program Summary 1987 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Donner Creek/Bettridge Creek ACEC; Old Central Pacific 

Railroad Grade ACEC; Salt Wells Wildlife Habitat Area ACEC 

Record of Decision and 

Rangeland Program 

Summary for the Box Elder 

Resource Management Plan 

1986 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Gilbert Badlands ACEC/RNA 

Henry Mountain Parker 

Mountain and Mountain 

Valley Management 

Framework Plans Approved 

Amendments and Record of 

Decision 1982 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Laketown Canyon ACEC 

Decision Statement 

Randolph Management 

Framework Plan 06/1980 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; Deer Creek 

Recreation Site 

Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument 

Management Plan 02/2000 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness 

Final Wilderness 

Management Plan Paria 

Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs 

03/1986 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Beartrap Canyon WSA; Behind the Rocks WSA; Black Ridge 

Canyons WSA; Book Cliffs ISA; Bull Canyon WSA; Bull 

Mountain WSA; Burning Hills WSA; Butler Wash WSA; Canaan 

Mountains WSA; Carcass Canyon WSA; Cedar Mountains 

WSA; Cheese Box Canyon WSA; Coal Canyon WSA; Conger 

Mountain WSA; Cottonwood Canyon WSA; Cougar Canyon 

WSA; Crack Canyon WSA; Cross Canyon WSA; Daniels 

Canyon WSA; Dark Canyon Complex ISA; Death Ridge WSA; 

Deep Creek Mountains WSA; Deep Creek WSA; Desolation 

Canyon WSA; Devils Canyon WSA; Diamond Breaks WSA; 

Dirty Devil WSA; Escalante Canyons Tract 5 ISA; Fiddler Butte 

WSA; Fiftymile Mountain WSA; Fish Creek Canyon WSA; Fish 

Springs WSA; Floy Canyon WSA; Flume Canyon WSA; 

Fremont Gorge WSA; French Spring-Happy Canyon WSA; 

Goose Creek Canyon WSA; Grand Gulch Complex ISA (Bullet 

Canyon); Grand Gulch Complex ISA (Pine Canyon); Grand 

Gulch ISA Complex (Shieks Flat) WSA; Horseshoe Canyon 

(North) WSA; Horseshoe Canyon (South) WSA 

Interim Management Policy 

for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review 07/1995 
SWReGAP 

 

316 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

Howell Peak WSA; Indian Creek WSA; Jack Canyon WSA; King 

Top WSA; La Verkin Creek WSA; Link Flats ISA; Little Rockies 

WSA; Lost Spring Canyon WSA; Mancos Mesa WSA; Mexican 

Mountain WSA; Mill Creek Canyon WSA; Moquith Mountain 

WSA; Mount Ellen-Blue Hills WSA; Mount Hillers WSA; Mount 

Pennel WSA; Mud Spring Canyon WSA; Muddy Creek WSA; 

Mule Canyon WSA; Negro Bill Canyon WSA; North Escalante 

Canyons/The Gulch ISA; North Fork Virgin River WSA; North 

Stansbury Mountains WSA; Notch Peak WSA; Orderville 

Canyon WSA; Paria/Hackberry 202 WSA; Paria/Hackberry 

WSA; Parunuweap WSA; Red Butte WSA; Red Mountain (202) 

WSA; Red Mountain WSA; Road Canyon WSA; Rockwell WSA; 

San Rafael Reef WSA; Scorpion WSA; Sids Cabin WSA; Sids' 

Mountain WSA; South Needles WSA; Spring Creek Canyon 

WSA; Spruce Canyon WSA; Squaw and Papoose Canyon WSA; 

Steep Creek WSA; Swasey Mountain WSA; Taylor Creek 

Canyon WSA; The Blues WSA 

Interim Management Policy 

for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review 07/95 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

(continued) 

The Cockscomb WSA; The Watchman WSA; Turtle Canyon 

WSA; Wah Wah Mountains WSA; Wahweap WSA; Westwater 

Canyon WSA; White Rock Range WSA; Winter Ridge WSA 

Interim Management Policy 

for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review 07/1995 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Bear River NWR 

Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge Comprehensive 

Management Plan 04/1997 

U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife 

Service 

Ouray NWR 

Ouray National Wildlife 

Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 07/2000 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Logan Canyon Botanical Area (MA 2.6 & MA 2.7); Deseret 

Peak Wilderness (MA 1.2); High Uintas Wilderness (MA 1.2); 

Lone Peak Wilderness (MA 1.2); Mount Naomi Wilderness (MA 

1.2); Mount Olympus Wilderness (MA 1.2); Twin Peaks 

Wilderness (MA 1.2); Wellsville Mountain Wilderness (MA 1.2); 

Wasatch-Cache NF (MA 1.2 & MA 2.6); Ben Lomond Peak SIA 

(MA 2.7); Willard Basin SIA (MA 2.7); T.W. Daniel 

Experimental Forest (MA 2.7) 

Revised Forest Plan 

Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest 02/2003 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Sheep Creek Geologic Area (MA E & MA N);High Uintas 

Wilderness (MA I) 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan for 

Ashley National Forest 

10/1986 
SWReGAP 

 

317 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Dixie NF (MA 10B); Ashdown Gorge Wilderness (MA 8A); BoxDeath Hollow Wilderness (MA 8A); Pine Valley Mountain 

Wilderness (MA 8A) 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the 

Dixie National Forest 

09/1986 

U.S. Forest 

Service Fishlake NF (MA 10E & MA 3B) 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan Fishlake 

National Forest 1986 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Manti-La Sal NF (MA - Municipal Water Supply); Dark Canyon 

Wilderness (MA - Wilderness); Manti-La Sal NF (MA - 

Watershed Protection and Improvement) 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan for 

Manti-La Sal National 

Forest; Amendment No. 2. 

09/1990 

U.S. Forest 

Service 

Lone Peak Wilderness (MA 1.4); Mount Nebo Wilderness (MA 

1.4); Mount Timpanogos Wilderness (MA 1.4); Uinta NF (MA 

1.5) 

2003 Land and Resource 

Management Plan Revision 

Unita National Forest 

05/2003 

National Park 

Service Golden Spike NHS 

Statement for Management 

Golden Spike National 

Historic Site 09/1988 

National Park 

Service Rainbow Bridge NM 

General Management Plan/ 

Development Concept 

Plan/Resource Management 

Plan/ Interpretive 

Prospectus and 

Environmental Impact 

Statement 

Rainbow Bridge National 

Monument 07/1990 

National Park 

Service Capitol Reef NP 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement General 

Management Plan 

Development Concept Plan 

Capitol Reef National Park 

09/1988 

National Park 

Service Timpanogos Cave NM 

Environmental Impact 

Statement General 

Management Plan 

Development Concept Plan 

Timpanogos Cave National 

Monument 08/93 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Deep Creek Mountains; Provo River Corridor; South Shore; 

Dugout Ranch Preserve 

URL: 

http://www.nature.org/wher

ewework/ 

northamerica/states/utah/pre

serves/ 
SWReGAP 

 

318 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

Utah State 

Parks & 

Recreation 

Antelope Island SP 

Interviewed Conservation 

Data/GIS Coordinator for 

Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources: Mike Canning - 

06/2005 

Utah 

Department of 

Wildlife 

Annabella WMA; Avintaquin WMA; Bear River Bottoms WMA; 

Beaver County WMA; Bicknell Bottoms WMA; Black Canyon 

WMA; Blue Lake WMA; Book Cliffs WMA; Brigham Face 

WMA; Brown's Park WMA; Bud Phelps WMA; Burraston 

Ponds/Nephi WMA; Carr Fork WMA; City Creek WMA; Clear 

Lake WMA; Coldwater Canyon WMA; Currant Creek WMA; 

Desert Lake WMA; Diamond Mountain WMA; East Canyon/Red 

Rock WMA; East Fork Little Bear River WMA; Emery Farm 

Castle Dale WMA; Emery Farn Harvey Place WMA; 

Farmington Bay WMA; Gordon Creek WMA; Goshen Warm 

Springs WMA; Hardware Ranch WMA; Harold S. Crane WMA; 

Heber WMA - Wallsburg Unit; Heber WMA - West Hills Unit; 

Henefer-Echo WMA; Hixon Canyon WMA; Hobble Creek 

WMA; Howard Slough WMA; Indian Canyon WMA; Indian 

Peaks WMA; James Walter Fitzgerald WMA 

URL: 

http://www.wildlife.utah.go

v/habitat/ 

Utah 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Kamas WMA; L Cook WMA; Lake Fork WMA; Layton Wetlands 

Preserve; Little Montes Creek WMA; Locomotive Springs 

WMA; Lower Fish Creek WMA; Lower Huntington Canyon 

WMA; Lower San Rafael River WMA; Lyne Orme WMA; 

Mallard Springs WMA; Manti Meadows WMA; Marysvale 

WMA; Middle Fork WMA; Millard County WMA;Mills Meadow 

WMA; Millville Face; Monroe Mountain WMA; Morgan WMA; 

Nash Wash WMA; Nephi WMA; North Nebo WMA - Fountain 

Green Unit; North Nebo WMA - Loafer Mountain Unit; North 

Nebo WMA - Mona Bench Unit; North Nebo WMA - Santaquin 

Unit; North Nebo WMA - Spencer Fork Unit; Northwest Manti 

WMA - Birdseye/Lake Fork Unit; Northwest Manti WMA - 

Dairy Fork Unit; Northwest Manti WMA - Hilltop Unit; 

Northwest Manti WMA - Lasson Draw Unit; Northwest Manti 

WMA - Starvation Unit; Ogden Bay WMA; 

URL: 

http://www.wildlife.utah.go

v/habitat/ 
SWReGAP 

 

319 

Land 

Steward 

Name of Status 2 Area in Utah Source of Management 

Plan 

Utah 

Department of 

Wildlife 

(continued) 

Pahvant WMA; Parowan Canyon WMA; Parowan Front WMA; 

Powell Slough WMA; Public Shooting Grounds WMA; Richfield 

WMA; Richmond WMA; Salt Creek WMA; Salt Creek WMA; 

South Nebo WMA - Deep Creek Unit; South Nebo WMA - Levan 

Unit; South Nebo WMA - Maple Canyon Unit; South Nebo 

WMA - Triangle Ranch Unit; Southwest Manti WMA - Ephraim 

Unit; Southwest Manti WMA - Manti Unit; Southwest Manti 

WMA - Mayfield Unit; Stewart Lake WMA; Stoddard Slough 

WMA; Strawberry River WMA; Swan Creek WMA; Tabby 

Mountain WMA; Taylor Flat WMA; Three Corners WMA; 

Timpanogos WMA; Timpie Springs WMA; Topaz Marsh WMA; 

Topaz Slough WMA; Upper Huntington Canyon WMA; Upper 

San Rafael River WMA; Weber Face WMA; Willard Bay 

Upland Game WMA; Willow Creek WMA; Yankee Meadows 

WMA; Cedar City Upland Game Sanctuary; Hat Island SHA; 

Lee Kay Center & Wildife Conservation Area; Roosevelt Game 

Farm; Vernal Game Farm; Henefer Fishing Access 

URL: 

http://www.wildlife.utah.go

v/habitat/ 

Agricultural 

Research 

Service 

Desert Experimental Range 

URL: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/e

xperimental-forests/desertexperimental-range/ 

Utah State 

Land Board State Sovereign Lands 

Utah Lake Comprehensive 

Management Plan: 

Introduction Document on 

Sovereign Land 

Management 06/2005 
320

Appendix 5-1. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the project area. 

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

region 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 

24,313 38.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.4% 0.1% 4.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 3,103 34.8% 0.1% 2.8% 0.5% 10.6% 8.1% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.1% 4.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,873 69.5% 0.0% 1.5% 14.4% 2.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 17,581 49.0% 0.9% 1.7% 0.0% 28.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 3.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 3,297 53.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 26.6% 0.0% 7.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder 

Land 

1,360 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.8% 0.0% 31.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 46 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and 

Scree 

23 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 74.0% 24.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96.1% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S018 North American Warm Desert Active and 

Stabilized Dune 

2,728 26.1% 0.4% 8.2% 0.0% 47.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 112 17.8% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 59.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2.1% 0.1% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 

3,568 45.3% 0.3% 16.0% 9.2% 3.0% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.6% 4.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 393 40.0% 1.3% 1.2% 0.3% 3.5% 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2% 9.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 1,115 25.3% 0.1% 14.2% 0.8% 28.0% 14.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 992 40.1% 0.8% 2.4% 1.4% 18.3% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 3,863 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 84.4% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 761 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 84.8% 0.0% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive 

Bedrock 

2,965 19.3% 0.0% 0.1% 50.5% 0.2% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.1% 2.7% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 123 37.1% 0.0% 0.0% 32.7% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 309 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 97,855 29.9% 0.0% 0.0% 16.6% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 24.9% 0.1% 6.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 50,776 64.9% 0.0% 0.7% 20.2% 2.7% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 666 18.1% 0.0% 2.4% 69.4% 0.4% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S051 Madrean Encinal 4,358 14.3% 0.0% 0.2% 42.4% 0.8% 1.7% 0.1% 0.0% 2.3% 0.1% 14.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 5,733 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 58.7% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 30.9% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 21,918 6.8% 0.0% 0.2% 42.1% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 

795 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 71.3% 0.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 21.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.
321

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

region 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine 

Forest and Woodland 

209 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 69.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.3% 0.

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and 

Woodland 

106 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.

S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 42 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 96.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

8,953 8.8% 0.0% 0.5% 62.5% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.2% 2.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland 

6 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 8,764 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 79.5% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

7,295 10.4% 0.0% 0.4% 57.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.2% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

14,814 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 86.4% 0.1% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

10,359 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 84.0% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 801 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 64.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 1.7% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest 

and Woodland 

20 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 85.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

15,305 13.7% 0.0% 0.4% 18.1% 1.6% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.3% 7.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

50,221 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 58.6% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 13.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 20,985 5.0% 0.0% 0.1% 62.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine 

Woodland 

888 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

3,439 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 71.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 31,685 23.2% 0.1% 0.9% 12.1% 1.2% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 7.6% 0.1% 25.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 27,409 41.4% 0.3% 0.7% 1.3% 7.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.2% 22.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 4,413 29.3% 0.0% 0.7% 9.1% 12.0% 1.7% 0.2% 0.0% 6.1% 0.1% 19.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand 

Flat Scrub 

5,726 39.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.4% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 187 32.8% 0.0% 0.2% 7.9% 1.4% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.1% 28.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 93 16.9% 0.0% 0.0% 43.1% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea 

Shrubland 

13,310 42.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 2,401 42.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% 0.2% 13.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 11,535 70.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.2% 6.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 163 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 76.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.
322

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

region 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 35,433 78.4% 0.0% 2.2% 5.7% 3.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 108,476 64.8% 0.0% 1.1% 2.8% 2.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 0.1% 2.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 4,130 75.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 10.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 79,294 65.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.9% 6.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 11.0% 0.1% 3.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland 

2,550 40.6% 0.0% 2.4% 45.4% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 11,515 19.2% 0.0% 0.2% 45.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.1% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 16,763 52.3% 0.0% 13.7% 2.8% 9.6% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 

18,950 13.7% 0.0% 0.0% 29.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.5% 2.5% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

2,823 27.2% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 0.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.2% 4.6% 2.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage 

Desert Scrub 

58,763 40.8% 0.5% 8.7% 0.1% 14.8% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 8.5% 0.4% 7.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,549 28.1% 0.0% 15.2% 0.1% 13.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 0.2% 4.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 89 11.9% 0.0% 6.0% 80.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,393 45.5% 0.0% 0.4% 9.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 18.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 39,792 34.4% 0.4% 7.2% 6.8% 5.4% 2.5% 0.2% 0.0% 18.6% 0.3% 14.4% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 7,021 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.9% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and 

Shrubland 

1,797 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 12.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 13,894 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 15.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 47 77.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland 

and Steppe 

45,714 28.8% 0.0% 1.8% 4.9% 6.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 20.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 120 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 9.6% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 804 7.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 65.8% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 986 26.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.8% 14.2% 1.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and 

Swale Grassland 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,797 51.1% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.1% 1.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 5,590 11.4% 0.0% 0.4% 2.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 29.1% 0.0% 19.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 40,652 32.3% 0.0% 1.1% 29.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.1% 3.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 33,640 16.1% 0.0% 0.5% 3.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 0.1% 11.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 47,618 31.5% 0.0% 1.3% 2.4% 2.9% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 25.8% 0.0% 10.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 994 22.6% 0.0% 0.2% 23.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.
323

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

region 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 27 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 80.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,779 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 83.7% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 2,177 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 72.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 

11,956 4.7% 0.0% 0.2% 4.3% 1.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.1% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 

10,293 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.5% 5.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont 

Grassland 

5,066 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 3.2% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 5.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.

S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 113,162 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.1% 0.9% 27.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

1,360 18.5% 0.4% 0.7% 13.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.6% 0.9% 2.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 23,770 48.7% 1.6% 0.9% 0.1% 3.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 0.1% 4.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

426 15.0% 0.0% 0.7% 24.7% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 0.4% 9.7% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 

832 9.9% 0.3% 2.8% 4.7% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 47.5% 0.3% 11.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 

422 19.2% 1.2% 5.5% 11.3% 1.8% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 13.5% 0.6% 9.2% 3.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 652 44.3% 2.5% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% 7.9% 0.6% 8.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

2,226 11.5% 0.0% 0.7% 11.5% 0.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 15.2% 1.0% 2.4% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 

3,224 3.3% 0.0% 0.2% 71.4% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 

292 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 45.7% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.

S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 836 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 2.7% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

1,713 2.5% 1.8% 2.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 1.0% 3.3% 3.8% 0.0% 0.1% 1.

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 98.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 1,053 8.8% 4.3% 9.6% 0.9% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.2% 2.3% 9.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,956 2.6% 0.0% 1.1% 60.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.2% 1.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet 

Meadow 

2 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 41 19.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 93 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 46 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 5.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.
324

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

region 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 2,638 45.1% 0.2% 0.4% 1.7% 1.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 2.4% 0.1% 4.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 8,291 57.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.6% 2.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 0.0% 0.0% 31.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,839 9.3% 0.0% 1.1% 2.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 1.3% 0.4% 2.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 1.D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

1,609 18.5% 1.5% 2.8% 0.7% 0.3% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 18.9% 0.8% 3.4% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

D02 Recently Burned 2,033 29.1% 0.0% 1.1% 23.2% 3.1% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 689 54.8% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 10.3% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D10 Recently Logged Areas 836 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 90.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 1,240 19.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 4.1% 0.0% 0.DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 75,977 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 2.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 7,540 2.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.1% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 7,425 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 3.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,421 18.0% 0.2% 0.8% 0.2% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.5% 0.3% 4.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.N11 Open Water 11,023 1.8% 1.2% 0.4% 1.3% 0.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% 1.0% 2.2% 0.3% 0.

TOTAL 1,386,073 30.5% 0.1% 1.3% 14.3% 3.2% 1.7% 0.1% 0.0% 9.5% 0.2% 7.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.

 * For Land Stewardship headings: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, BOR = Bureau of Reclamation, FWS= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, DOD/DOE = Dept. of Defense/Dept. of En

Research Service, Dept. of Com. = Dept. of Commerce, Nativ Amer = Native American Lands, Reg. Gov. = Regional Government, Aud = Audubon, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, Priv-BioDiv = Private Lands Ma
325

Appendix 5-2. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within th

GAP Management Status in the SWReGAP project area. 

Code Land Cover Type Area in region Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 S

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 24,321 1,887 7.8% 5,529 22.7% 14,836 61.0% 2,0S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 3,103 100 3.2% 282 9.1% 1,938 62.4% 7S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,889 48 1.7% 711 24.6% 1,820 63.0% 2S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 17,586 625 3.6% 1,266 7.2% 12,759 72.6% 2,4S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 3,301 42 1.3% 348 10.5% 2,347 71.1% 5S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 1,360 96 7.1% 423 31.1% 573 42.1% 2S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 46 0 0.0% 2 4.4% 22 47.4% S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 39 0 0.0% 17 42.3% 7 16.7% S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 23 5 23.4% 16 69.4% 1 6.2% S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 2,845 260 9.1% 267 9.4% 1,750 61.5% 4S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 113 3 2.7% 50 44.0% 50 44.4% S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 3,635 435 12.0% 1,210 33.3% 1,443 39.7% 4S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 399 26 6.5% 73 18.3% 162 40.6% 1S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 1,146 240 21.0% 111 9.7% 577 50.3% 1S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 995 45 4.5% 303 30.4% 393 39.5% 2S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 3,863 801 20.7% 1,591 41.2% 1,239 32.1% 2S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 761 164 21.6% 310 40.7% 255 33.5% S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 2,971 252 8.5% 523 17.6% 1,595 53.7% 5S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 134 0 0.0% 6 4.5% 92 68.7% S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 315 0 0.0% 3 0.9% 41 13.0% 2EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 97,894 2,470 2.5% 11,148 11.4% 57,617 58.9% 26,5S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 51,234 1,127 2.2% 9,224 18.0% 35,332 69.0% 5,0S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 

670 156 23.2% 274 41.0% 228 34.1% 

S051 Madrean Encinal 4,406 79 1.8% 616 14.0% 2,196 49.8% 1,4S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 5,737 96 1.7% 863 15.0% 4,297 74.9% 4S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 21,930 165 0.8% 2,382 10.9% 13,562 61.8% 5,8
326

Code Land Cover Type Area in region Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 S

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 811 13 1.6% 150 18.5% 592 73.1% S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

2 0 0.0% 1 32.0% 1 62.3% 

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and 

Woodland 

236 0 0.0% 24 10.1% 146 62.1% 

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 114 0 0.0% 24 20.6% 74 64.8% S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 53 0 0.0% 25 47.0% 16 29.9% S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

8,970 454 5.1% 1,619 18.0% 5,055 56.4% 1,8

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 6 0 1.9% 0 1.3% 1 8.1% S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 8,876 434 4.9% 1,215 13.7% 6,089 68.6% 1,0S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

7,297 326 4.5% 1,136 15.6% 4,037 55.3% 1,7

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 

14,846 1,473 9.9% 3,467 23.4% 8,798 59.3% 1,0

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 

10,365 1,120 10.8% 2,255 21.8% 6,097 58.8% 8

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 

802 13 1.6% 193 24.1% 406 50.7% 1

S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland 21 0 0.0% 4 19.1% 15 72.4% S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 15,311 90 0.6% 950 6.2% 4,926 32.2% 9,3S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 50,241 1,494 3.0% 4,189 8.3% 32,837 65.4% 11,6DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 21,050 456 2.2% 2,219 10.5% 12,395 58.9% 5,9S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 898 33 3.7% 69 7.7% 250 27.9% 5MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 

3,445 82 2.4% 308 8.9% 2,379 69.0% 6

SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 32,060 114 0.4% 1,557 4.9% 13,072 40.8% 16,9S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 27,891 141 0.5% 1,219 4.4% 13,353 47.9% 12,6S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 4,448 99 2.2% 207 4.6% 2,353 52.9% 1,7S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 5,891 80 1.4% 59 1.0% 4,176 70.9% 1,4
327

Code Land Cover Type Area in region Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 S

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 189 4 2.2% 9 4.6% 84 44.5% S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 96 27 27.8% 12 13.0% 45 47.2% S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 13,310 651 4.9% 2,018 15.2% 9,567 71.9% 1,0S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 2,401 2 0.1% 156 6.5% 1,174 48.9% 1,0S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 11,536 389 3.4% 3,790 32.9% 5,652 49.0% 1,7S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 169 1 0.3% 56 33.3% 85 50.1% S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 35,631 672 1.9% 3,357 9.4% 27,902 78.3% 3,4S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 109,699 1,297 1.2% 6,256 5.7% 75,102 68.5% 25,7S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 4,155 17 0.4% 254 6.1% 3,031 73.0% 8S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 79,498 594 0.7% 3,996 5.0% 61,601 77.5% 13,0S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrubland 

2,569 139 5.4% 587 22.9% 1,616 62.9% 2

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 11,518 284 2.5% 1,869 16.2% 6,664 57.9% 2,6S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 16,864 2,706 16.0% 4,514 26.8% 7,606 45.1% 1,9S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 13 11.8% 75 68.4% 21 19.3% S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 18,960 190 1.0% 1,212 6.4% 8,139 42.9% 9,4S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2,872 38 1.3% 160 5.6% 1,006 35.0% 1,6S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 59,616 5,605 9.4% 10,585 17.8% 29,651 49.7% 12,8S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,571 172 6.7% 327 12.7% 1,045 40.6% 1,0S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 89 30 34.0% 55 61.6% 3 3.0% S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,395 38 0.7% 1,202 22.3% 2,110 39.1% 2,0S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 40,079 3,656 9.1% 5,122 12.8% 20,783 51.9% 10,2S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 7,021 55 0.8% 188 2.7% 6,281 89.5% 4S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 1,898 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 13 0.7% 1,7S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 14,088 21 0.2% 346 2.5% 2,727 19.4% 10,7S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 54 4 6.8% 9 16.9% 31 56.9% GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 46,038 302 0.7% 2,987 6.5% 18,247 39.6% 24,1S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 123 0 0.0% 3 2.7% 16 13.1% 1S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 805 150 18.7% 3 0.4% 588 73.1% S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 1,050 17 1.6% 27 2.6% 412 39.3% 5S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,851 10 0.6% 35 1.9% 940 50.8% 8
328

Code Land Cover Type Area in region Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 S

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 5,615 12 0.2% 135 2.4% 2,211 39.4% 3,2S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 41,190 593 1.4% 3,238 7.9% 23,505 57.1% 13,3S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 33,693 312 0.9% 1,207 3.6% 15,121 44.9% 16,9S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 47,668 647 1.4% 2,806 5.9% 27,246 57.2% 16,8S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 995 6 0.6% 48 4.8% 479 48.1% 4S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 32 0 0.0% 4 11.4% 22 68.3% S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,779 446 16.0% 1,001 36.0% 1,162 41.8% 1S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 2,178 71 3.3% 321 14.7% 1,271 58.3% 5S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 11,968 23 0.2% 156 1.3% 1,368 11.4% 10,4S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 10,346 104 1.0% 1,077 10.4% 4,565 44.1% 4,5S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 5,096 7 0.1% 114 2.2% 551 10.8% 4,3S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.3% S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 114,340 48 0.0% 726 0.6% 12,012 10.5% 100,2S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 0 0.0% 0 25.8% 0 14.1% WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 

1,387 8 0.6% 91 6.6% 447 32.2% 7

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 23,842 598 2.5% 1,130 4.7% 14,753 61.9% 7,1S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

427 9 2.0% 67 15.6% 153 35.9% 1

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 847 17 2.0% 62 7.3% 455 53.7% 2S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

461 36 7.8% 48 10.4% 125 27.1% 1

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 657 19 2.9% 76 11.5% 316 48.1% 2S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

2,236 39 1.7% 184 8.2% 679 30.4% 1,3

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 3,240 340 10.5% 783 24.2% 1,449 44.7% 6S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 294 5 1.7% 46 15.8% 134 45.7% 1S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 842 0 0.0% 31 3.7% 31 3.6% 7S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,720 2 0.1% 138 8.0% 121 7.0% 1,4EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 0 0.0% 1 45.8% 1 50.7% S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 1,074 59 5.5% 189 17.6% 171 15.9% 4S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,962 183 9.3% 439 22.4% 719 36.7% 6S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 3 0 0.0% 0 1.7% 1 40.2% 
329

Code Land Cover Type Area in region Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 S

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 41 0 0.0% 0 0.5% 8 19.1% ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 93 0 0.0% 6 6.4% 2 2.0% D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 52 0 0.0% 1 1.7% 7 14.4% D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 2,649 17 0.6% 69 2.6% 1,311 49.5% 1,2D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 8,347 21 0.2% 253 3.0% 4,957 59.4% 3,0D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 0 31.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,869 4 0.1% 46 1.6% 438 15.3% 2,3D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 1,666 106 6.4% 161 9.7% 518 31.1% 7D02 Recently Burned 2,033 125 6.1% 180 8.9% 1,029 50.6% 6D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 689 1 0.2% 67 9.8% 454 65.9% 1D10 Recently Logged Areas 855 26 3.0% 29 3.3% 734 85.9% D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 1,240 1 0.1% 6 0.5% 480 38.7% 7DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 77,813 59 0.1% 581 0.7% 2,605 3.3% 72,6N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 7,600 3 0.0% 36 0.5% 425 5.6% 7,0N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 7,463 2 0.0% 17 0.2% 366 4.9% 7,0OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,437 10 0.7% 55 3.8% 1,070 74.5% 2N11 Open Water 11,220 102 0.9% 219 2.0% 1,003 8.9% 9

 TOTAL 1,396,584 36,690 2.6% 123,493 8.8% 688,818 49.3% 526,3
330

Appendix 5-3: Area (in square kilometers) of each land cover type summarized by land steManagement Status in the SWReGAP project area. 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 281 0 0 71 0 1536 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 4407 0 2 289 0 586 214 <1 8 20 0 0 <1 0 0  3 4624 <1 0 381 <1 2147 7651 18 3 <1 3 0 5 0 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 252 0 970 0 0 <1 0 4 793 S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 4 0 1 <1 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 160 1 85 <1 0 7 9 0 1 6 0 0 13 0 0  3 917 1 0 16 328 150 522 4 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 144 0 0 <1 0 2 542 S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC Private 

 1 3 0 29 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 539 <1 <1 163 0 0 9 0 <1 0 <1 <1 0  3 1454 <1 15 241 61 0 0 46 <1 1 0 <1 <1  4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 <1 0 20 0 0 263 S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC P

 1 579 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 759 106 255 <1 0 2 0 1 0 137 2 0 0 0 6  3 7273 45 <1 7 5071 0 123 1 21 <1 156 0 0 42 21  4 0 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 669 0 0 <1 <1 <1 0 S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

City County TNC PrivBioDiv P

 1 4 0 0 <1 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 291 0 1 5 0 28 7 <1 8 7 0 0 0 0 0  3 1480 0 0 15 1 11 833 1 4 0 2 0 0 <1 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 38 0 234 0 0 <1 <1 0 <1 S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Schl 

PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 0 0 35 0 61 0 0 0 0  2 53 <1 6 0 364 0 0 0 0  3 218 0 310 <1 0 44 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 5 116 <1 145 
331

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 

 Status BLM DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City TNC Private 

 1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 0 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 <1 0  3 14 <1 0 6 <1 <1 0 0 <1 0  4 0 <1 0 <1 0 <1 0 <1 0 21 S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

Private 

 1 0 0 0 0  2 0 17 0 0  3 <1 <1 6 0  4 0 0 0 <1 S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 

 Status USFS NPS State 

Park 

Private 

 1 5 <1 0 0  2 16 0 0 0  3 1 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 <1 S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 216 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 62 0 7 <1 198 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0  3 650 <1 0 <1 1097 0 <1 1 0 0 <1 0 0  4 0 10 0 0 0 0 <1 0 104 0 0 191 146 S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 

 Status BLM BOR DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

County TNC Private 

 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 8 0 0 35 0 0 0 7 0 0 0  3 12 7 <1 28 <1 2 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 <1 0 9 S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 24 0 312 11 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 751 0 261 96 20 68 0 0 <1 <1 5 0 0 9 <1  3 841 10 0 223 85 87 <1 173 22 <1 0 0 0 1 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 2 0 0 15 0 171 0 <1 <1 0 0 
332

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv P

 1 1 0 4 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 36 0 <1 <1 0 34 0 0 0 <1 0 0 1 <1 0  3 119 5 0 1 14 18 4 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 <1 <1 0 0 <1 S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC 

B

 1 17 0 62 <1 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 11 0 96 4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0  3 254 <1 0 5 311 <1 <1 <1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 15 0 <1 <1 <1 0 S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Aud Land 

Trust 

 1 15 0 21 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 254 0 3 3 0 41 0 0 <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1  3 129 <1 0 10 182 48 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 2  4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 <1 <1 0 0 S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 

 Status BLM FWS USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 8 0 611 181 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0  2 88 0 1484 15 0 0 1 2 0 <1 0 0  3 48 <1 1165 0 2 16 <1 0 0 7 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 <1 0 4 211 S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 

 Status BLM FWS USFS NPS State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 1 0 115 48 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 12 0 294 3 0 <1 <1 0 0 0  3 15 <1 236 0 3 <1 <1 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 32 S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

City County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 3 <1 187 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 118 3 350 0 10 0 0 1 40 0 0 0 <1 0 0  3 452 <1 960 7 5 157 3 3 <1 <1 0 0 6 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 76 0 0 <1 <1 0 6 472 
333

S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 

 Status BLM BOR USFS DOD/DO

E 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  3 43 <1 36 9 3 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 24 S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC PrivBioDiv P

 1 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 2 0 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0  3 16 <1 <1 13 3 0 0 <1 6 0 0 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 <1 <1 <1 0 <1 EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

City County TNC PrivBioDiv P

 1 163 0 0 287 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0  2 8632 0 21 981 0 464 406 0 51 591 0 0 0 3 0  3 20453 <1 <1 14987 46 172 21704 101 95 <1 <1 0 0 54 0  4 0 1 0 0 <1 0 2240 0 6505 4 0 <1 2 0 135 S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 18 0 359 116 0 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 7620 0 14 1486 0 <1 24 0 10 32 38 0 0 0 0  3 25326 <1 <1 8657 1064 0 0 261 22 0 <1 1 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 330 0 0 26 0 773 0 <1 1 <1 2 S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC Private 

 1 <1 16 93 0 47 0 0 0 0  2 71 0 203 0 0 0 <1 <1 0  3 50 0 167 3 0 9 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 S051 Madrean Encinal 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Aud Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 7 2 3 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 3  2 244 6 196 0 6 0 0 3 <1 1 0 0 0 147 14  3 372 0 1651 33 2 4 101 2 6 0 0 0 0 14 12  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 644 <1 4 <1 0 0 0 
334

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City Aud Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 76 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 33 <1 826 0 <1 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 3 <1 0 0  3 49 0 2467 7 0 1773 <1 0 <1 0 0 <1 <1 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 123 0 <1 0 0 0 <1 354 S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Aud L

T

 1 8 0 4 89 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 368 0 50 1898 0 5 0 0 <1 <1 6 0 0 0 0  3 1107 0 0 7248 581 <1 4 4591 1 <1 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 1800 <1 1 <1 <1 0 S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Schl 

Land 

Trust 

Private 

 1 0 3 0 9 0 0 0 0  2 2 143 0 <1 0 0 5 0  3 1 420 4 0 167 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 <1 3 0 37 S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

 Status USFS State 

Park 

Reg. Gov County Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 0 0 0 0  3 <1 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 <1 <1 <1 S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM USFS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

County TNC Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 <1 122 0 18 6 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 2 0 37 S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 

 Status USFS State 

Park 

Other 

State 

Reg. Gov County Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 24 0 0 0 0 0  3 59 15 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 <1 <1 7 
335

S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 

 Status BLM USFS State 

Park 

Other 

State 

Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0  2 0 25 0 0 0  3 <1 16 <1 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 1 S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Aud L

T

 1 1 43 234 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 244 <1 1247 0 19 <1 <1 <1 13 94 0 0 0 0 <1  3 541 <1 4111 2 4 0 311 13 18 <1 <1 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 154 0 0 <1 7 5 0 S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 

 Status BLM USFS State 

Park 

State Schl State 

Wldlf 

Private 

 1 0 <1 0 0 0 0  2 0 0 0 <1 <1 0  3 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 5 S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 0 0 187 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 24 <1 1153 0 2 0 0 9 27 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 276 3 5630 <1 <1 22 124 27 <1 2 0 0 <1 <1 7  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 8 1 14 0 0 S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Aud L

T

 1 3 25 233 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 208 <1 787 0 13 <1 <1 2 16 109 0 0 0 0 <1  3 550 0 3176 3 10 0 184 14 27 <1 <1 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 70 0 0 <1 17 21 0 S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 <1 0 0 1227 0 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 120 0 1 3286 0 15 0 0 11 34 0 0 0 0 0  3 254 <1 2 8285 10 <1 128 65 12 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 32 0 0 <1 <1 <1 0 
336

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 <1 0 0 938 0 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 126 0 <1 2078 0 14 0 0 6 31 0 0 0 0 0  3 232 <1 3 5686 6 <1 95 32 15 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 23 0 0 <1 <1 1 0 S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 0 13 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 10 158 0 4 0 0 4 17 0 <1 0 0  3 23 344 <1 0 26 <1 7 0 <1 <1 0 5  4 0 0 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 19 155 S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

State 

Park 

County Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 4 0 0 0 0  3 <1 14 <1 1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 <1 1 S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Aud Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 <1 0 3 10 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 435 0 57 307 0 29 <1 <1 30 78 0 0 <1 <1 11  3 1663 <1 0 2455 239 <1 251 39 196 2 0 0 0 <1 40  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 571 0 894 0 3 2 0 0 0 S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Aud L

T

 1 1 2 982 0 508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 518 4 3276 0 25 0 7 5 33 317 0 0 0 0 <1  3 863 1 25155 115 4 0 6163 78 139 2 <1 0 0 1 0  4 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 625 0 632 <1 0 3 50 86 0 DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 <1 27 395 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 200 1 1754 0 30 <1 0 53 180 0 0 0 0 <1 1  3 854 <1 10902 5 2 428 63 90 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1 36  4 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 198 0 0 <1 <1 <1 0 0 
337

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County TNC Private 

 1 0 33 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 40 0 <1 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0  3 9 237 <1 0 <1 3 0 <1 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 <1 0 0 0 10 0 <1 <1 0 524 MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 61 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 49 <1 227 14 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  3 147 0 2179 <1 26 1 6 <1 0 0 0 <1 16 0 3  4 0 0 0 0 8 0 38 0 <1 <1 <1 0 0 11 611 SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Aud L

T

 1 23 0 43 23 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1  2 561 0 239 644 <1 8 0 0 10 8 45 0 0 0 0  3 6754 31 1 3153 357 <1 338 2351 19 31 <1 0 0 <1 0  4 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 62 0 7872 <1 1 10 9 0 S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Aud Land 

Trust 

 1 33 0 56 <1 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  2 960 0 142 24 0 3 0 0 2 2 54 0 0 0 12  3 10349 71 <1 322 1944 <1 124 407 64 15 0 0 0 0 43  4 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 <1 0 6265 <1 2 4 0 0 S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Aud Land 

Trust 

 1 21 0 2 1 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 93 0 28 52 0 <1 0 0 2 <1 20 0 0 0 2  3 1180 <1 <1 349 528 <1 7 270 3 7 0 0 0 0 5  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 852 <1 4 1 0 0 S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 <1 0 <1 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 51 0 1 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 0 <1 6  3 2188 3 0 1 1968 0 7 6 1 <1 0 0 0 1 <1  4 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 700 0 <1 <1 0 0 
338

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv P

 1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 5 0 <1 2 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 0  3 55 <1 0 12 3 <1 <1 12 <1 1 0 0 <1 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 52 <1 <1 0 0 <1 S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 

 Status BLM USFS NPS State Schl Private 

 1 <1 <1 27 0 0  2 6 5 1 0 0  3 10 35 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 6 3 S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

County TNC Private 

 1 28 0 15 0 608 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 1849 0 <1 0 32 124 <1 7 3 0 0 3 0  3 3777 0 10 <1 1147 4626 5 <1 <1 3 0 <1 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 44 0 735 0 0 <1 0 281 S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 120 <1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 <1 35 0 0 0  3 900 0 20 <1 0 246 6 <1 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 322 0 0 <1 729 S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

TNC Private 

 1 96 0 0 6 287 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 3584 0 2 14 132 <1 <1 <1 53 0 4 0  3 4475 0 <1 139 289 726 18 2 0 <1 3 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 50 0 747 0 0 0 905 S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

County Private 

 1 0 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  3 9 68 <1 0 1 4 1 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 21 
339

S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 3 0 617 2 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 3058 0 151 95 0 <1 45 0 <1 0 7 0 0 0 0  3 24707 <1 5 1912 1052 0 0 216 9 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 10 0 296 0 <1 <1 <1 1 S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 34 0 815 36 0 412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 5279 <1 219 68 0 89 4 66 10 72 443 <1 0 0 0  3 64977 20 143 2940 1827 104 0 4485 62 521 2 <1 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 307 0 0 400 0 2291 <1 2 6 2 13 S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

TNC Private 

 1 4 0 0 <1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 237 0 <1 <1 0 15 0 <1 <1 2 0 0 0  3 2878 0 0 7 5 79 27 2 26 <1 6 <1 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 6 0 389 0 0 0 432 S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 330 0 56 3 0 205 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0  2 3579 87 59 4 0 41 79 51 1 20 73 0 0 0 0  3 47694 124 21 725 4745 150 0 7927 80 58 <1 6 0 0 4  4 0 <1 0 0 40 0 0 765 0 2332 0 <1 <1 <1 2 S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

County TNC Private 

 1 4 60 14 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 280 0 297 0 0 <1 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0  3 752 0 847 <1 0 0 16 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 <1 <1 0 191 S057 Mogollon Chaparral 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Aud L

T

 1 3 0 2 134 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 467 0 23 1343 0 3 0 0 <1 <1 3 0 0 0 0  3 1747 0 0 3747 136 <1 2 1017 11 <1 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1322 <1 <1 <1 2 0 
340

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

County TNC Private 

 1 23 0 1329 60 0 1291 0 0 0 0 0 3 0  2 3143 0 962 394 0 4 0 0 11 <1 0 0 0  3 5608 <1 0 16 1368 10 589 14 0 <1 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 0 249 0 72 0 280 <1 <1 0 1336 S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 

 Status USFS Nativ 

Amer 

State Schl Private 

 1 13 0 0 0  2 75 0 0 0  3 21 <1 0 0  4 0 0 <1 <1 S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 5 0 <1 84 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 388 0 3 293 0 29 7 18 43 428 0 0 0 0 3  3 2205 <1 <1 5132 69 21 460 82 104 <1 0 0 0 <1 38  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 185 0 335 <1 <1 6 12 0 0 S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC 

B

 1 <1 0 <1 3 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 71 0 <1 13 0 1 0 <1 <1 7 63 0 0 0 4  3 696 <1 <1 212 3 2 0 24 6 55 <1 0 0 <1 8  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 <1 4 0 69 0 2 15 35 0 S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 165 0 3922 <1 0 1513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 7584 0 1183 7 796 887 0 0 0 63 64 0 0 0 0  3 16213 101 0 56 7714 1400 4 3901 252 0 4 0 0 0 <1  4 0 205 0 0 185 0 0 1076 0 4284 <1 <1 53 12 12 S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC Private 

 1 13 0 141 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0  2 77 0 246 1 <1 <1 0 0 <1 1 0 0 0 0 0  3 626 <1 0 <1 294 2 117 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 38 0 277 0 115 0 <1 <1 <1 0 574 
341

S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 

 Status BLM FWS USFS State Schl Private 

 1 0 5 25 0 0  2 8 0 47 0 0  3 3 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 <1 1 S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS FWS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 1 0 2 0 14 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1031 0 166 <1 <1 2 0 0 0 1 <1 0 0 0 <1  3 1424 0 367 6 <1 0 5 302 2 0 2 0 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 985 0 5 <1 17 0 S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 15 0 2621 7 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 3807 0 248 644 224 <1 0 0 <1 172 21 0 0 0 1  3 9850 0 0 2056 1944 0 93 6717 101 6 9 0 0 1 <1  4 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 691 0 5544 <1 390 106 135 0 S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 

 Status BLM USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

County TNC Private 

 1 <1 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 157 <1 1 9 0 20 <1 0 0 <1 0  3 339 1 16 5918 6 0 0 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 31 0 170 <1 0 <1 0 295 S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 <1 2 <1 0 0  3 5 0 0 3 <1 3 <1 0 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 218 0 0 <1 1562 S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC Private 

 1 2 0 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0  2 16 0 <1 12 0 <1 <1 69 105 0 0 0 146 0  3 1622 <1 <1 166 15 9 11 903 <1 0 0 0 <1 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 20 0 0 1111 0 <1 <1 <1 0 9659 
342

S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 

Status BLM USFS NPS State Schl State 

Wldlf 

Private 

 1 0 0 4 0 0 0  2 9 0 0 0 <1 0  3 28 <1 <1 3 0 0  4 0 0 0 1 0 3 GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City County Aud Land 

Trust 

 1 85 0 64 2 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0  2 1291 0 754 115 0 18 0 0 11 11 11 0 0 0 631  3 11795 9 <1 2122 2962 <1 44 931 36 33 0 0 0 0 232  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 1 0 9245 <1 5 3 0 0 S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 

 Status USFS State 

Park 

State Schl State 

Wldlf 

TNC Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 0 <1 3 <1 0  3 0 5 11 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 100 S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 <1 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0  2 2 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  3 58 <1 0 <1 529 0 <1 0 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 9 28 S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 18 0 <1 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 8 <1 0 0  3 237 <1 0 7 140 <1 23 1 1 0 0 2 <1 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 186 0 0 0 94 248 S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 

 Status State 

Schl 

Private 

 1 0 0  2 0 0  3 0 0  4 <1 <1 
343

S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

County TNC Private 

 1 <1 10 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 27 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0  3 891 <1 19 <1 0 23 2 0 3 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 29 0 <1 0 775 S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 <1 <1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 91 22 <1 0 2 0 0 14 5 0 0 0 0  3 548 0 141 1 <1 1500 1 19 0 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 128 0 1045 <1 <1 0 4 2051 S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 5 0 414 101 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1360 0 26 1240 0 13 <1 0 <1 99 494 0 0 0 0  3 11757 <1 0 10447 62 23 0 849 56 263 2 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 51 0 1065 0 <1 <1 <1 1 S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 13 0 70 1 0 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 861 <1 103 36 0 64 3 21 15 54 46 0 0 0 0  3 4528 12 <1 956 123 18 0 9417 15 28 0 3 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 2218 0 3848 0 <1 <1 <1 3 S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County L

T

 1 20 0 122 8 0 494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1849 0 478 29 0 94 46 51 3 47 51 0 0 0 0  3 13113 <1 <1 1093 1268 54 1 11419 12 151 <1 <1 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 131 0 0 834 0 4803 <1 0 <1 <1 2 S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 <1 0 0 <1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 26 0 2 18 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 1  3 198 <1 0 214 9 <1 <1 56 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 128 0 <1 <1 <1 0 
344

S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 

 Status BLM USFS DOD/DO

E 

State 

Park 

Other 

State 

TNC Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 3 0 0 0 <1 0  3 2 19 <1 <1 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 

 Status BLM FWS USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 4 0 341 100 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 76 0 910 11 0 0 1 3 <1 0 0  3 65 <1 1076 0 <1 9 <1 0 10 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 8 160 S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 66 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 12 <1 292 0 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 <1 0 0  3 30 <1 1208 <1 <1 11 4 15 <1 0 0 <1 2 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 13 0 <1 <1 0 0 6 492 S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

City TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 0 0 5 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 93 0 24 19 0 11 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0  3 474 <1 0 490 211 0 5 7 166 0 0 13 0 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 703 0 1268 0 <1 0 9 8425 S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County L

T

 1 <1 0 <1 71 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 238 0 <1 548 0 8 1 <1 1 90 187 0 0 0 0  3 980 <1 0 2906 4 <1 0 217 45 375 2 <1 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 70 0 0 <1 <1 2 S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC 

B

 1 0 0 <1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 9 1 7 0 <1 <1 0 0 1 37 31 0 0 0 25  3 59 10 155 97 0 0 0 1 14 192 <1 0 0 0 19  4 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 16 0 41 0 4 37 23 0 
345

S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 

 Status State 

Schl 

Private 

 1 0 0  2 0 0  3 1 0  4 0 17 S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 25 0 <1 10 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 16 0 31 64 0 7 51 0 0 7 299 142 0 0 0  3 2994 16 <1 2645 1050 29 0 0 8 44 4963 <1 0 0 0  4 0 4 0 0 90 0 0 <1 <1 0 10056 0 1 6 5 S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 

 Status State 

Park 

State Schl State 

Wldlf 

Private 

 1 0 0 0 0  2 0 0 <1 0  3 <1 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 <1 WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC P

 1 <1 0 6 <1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 42 0 3 11 0 <1 0 2 0 32 0 0 0 0 1  3 209 6 <1 176 6 0 43 7 0 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 12 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County L

T

 1 425 0 113 <1 0 49 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0  2 538 142 65 <1 0 20 8 19 7 7 144 <1 0 0 0  3 10609 243 36 16 832 43 0 2796 19 138 <1 9 0 0 4  4 0 <1 0 0 15 0 0 104 0 888 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 <1 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1  2 23 0 <1 28 0 2 0 0 <1 8 0 0 0 6 1  3 41 <1 0 74 4 0 32 2 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 <1  4 0 0 0 0 <1 0 3 0 41 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 
346

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 3 0 10 <1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 21 0 13 8 <1 4 0 0 <1 <1 9 0 0 0 <1  3 58 <1 0 30 2 0 1 359 2 1 <1 0 0 <1 <1  4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 91 <1 <1 <1 3 0 S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 <1 0 22 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 17 0 <1 16 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1 13 0 0 0 <1  3 64 <1 <1 31 8 3 <1 16 3 <1 <1 0 0 <1 <1  4 0 4 0 0 <1 0 0 41 0 38 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 <1 0 8 <1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 67 0 3 <1 0 3 0 0 <1 <1 2 0 0 0 <1  3 221 16 <1 11 13 3 <1 46 4 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 6 0 55 0 <1 <1 <1 0 S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

City County Aud TNC 

B

 1 7 0 1 3 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1  2 82 0 13 24 0 6 13 <1 1 40 0 0 0 <1 5  3 167 <1 <1 230 10 9 232 20 3 <1 <1 0 0 0 5  4 0 <1 0 0 0 0 94 0 49 <1 0 <1 2 0 0 S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 1 4 274 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1  2 27 2 718 0 6 0 0 6 24 0 0 0 0 0 <1  3 78 1 1310 <1 <1 20 19 13 <1 1 0 0 0 <1 8  4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 1 <1 1 0 0 S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC 

B

 1 <1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 5 <1 35 0 <1 0 <1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 <1  3 23 0 97 <1 0 2 5 3 <1 1 0 0 0 <1 3  4 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 0 <1 <1 <1 0 0 
347

S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 

Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC Private 

 1 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 0 0 0 0 <1 <1 <1 5 25 0 0 0 <1 0  3 <1 <1 <1 7 <1 0 5 17 <1 0 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 6 3 0 757 S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 14 0 44 6 0 <1 <1 0 0 <1 6 65 0 0 0  3 29 30 3 18 16 <1 0 0 <1 16 8 <1 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 1 0 0 <1 187 0 44 0 1 16 7 EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 

 Status BLM USFS Private 

 1 0 0 0  2 0 1 0  3 <1 1 0  4 0 0 <1 S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County L

T

 1 <1 0 57 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 11 15 44 3 0 <1 0 0 10 <1 104 2 0 0 0  3 81 31 <1 6 20 <1 <1 14 3 <1 <1 8 0 0 0  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 0 2 0 23 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 

 Status BLM FWS USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 17 164 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  2 15 3 389 8 0 <1 3 17 0 0 0 0 3 0 0  3 36 <1 632 <1 33 3 11 <1 0 0 0 <1 4 0 <1  4 0 0 0 0 4 0 14 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 21 565 S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 

 Status BLM USFS State 

Park 

Private 

 1 0 0 0 0  2 0 <1 0 0  3 <1 <1 <1 0  4 0 0 0 1 
348

S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 

 Status BLM FWS State 

Park 

State Schl Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 <1 0 0 0  3 8 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 4 8 ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 

 Status BLM NPS State 

Park 

State 

Wldlf 

Private 

 1 0 <1 0 0 0  2 1 0 0 5 0  3 2 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 84 D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 

 Status BLM USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC Private 

 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0  3 5 1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 <1 0  4 0 0 0 <1 0 3 0 0 35 D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County L

T

 1 <1 0 7 <1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 44 2 3 2 0 3 3 2 1 <1 3 <1 0 0 0  3 1145 2 <1 42 27 5 0 53 <1 34 <1 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 72 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 2 0 2 <1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 187 <1 7 1 0 3 <1 <1 42 1 11 0 0 0 0  3 4541 7 <1 57 208 8 0 117 4 11 <1 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 40 0 186 0 <1 <1 <1 2 D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 

 Status FWS State 

Park 

State Schl Private 

 1 <1 0 0 0  2 0 0 0 0  3 0 <1 <1 0  4 0 0 0 <1 
349

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 0 <1 3 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 6 <1 4 0 <1 8 0 0 1 5 21 0 0 0 0  3 259 32 55 12 <1 0 0 37 11 31 <1 <1 0 0 0  4 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 <1 0 26 0 0 4 31 18 D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County Land 

Trust 

 1 2 0 39 <1 0 62 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0  2 85 12 6 <1 <1 8 4 <1 1 43 0 0 0 0 <1  3 212 7 0 11 4 37 219 13 12 <1 <1 0 0 0 0  4 0 5 0 0 <1 0 81 0 41 0 0 <1 <1 <1 0 D02 Recently Burned 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

City Land 

Trust 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 0 0 12 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 46 22 68 0 0 24 0 1 <1 0 0 18 <1 0 0  3 545 0 392 63 <1 20 <1 4 0 <1 0 2 <1 0 1  4 0 0 0 <1 0 19 0 148 0 0 <1 0 0 13 519 D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 

Status BLM USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 <1 <1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 54 1 <1 0 0 0 12 <1 0 0  3 324 129 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 1 0 71 0 0 <1 95 D10 Recently Logged Areas 

 Status BLM FWS USFS NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 0 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 1 <1 26 <1 0 0 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0  3 19 0 706 <1 2 6 1 0 <1 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 <1 46 D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 

 Status BLM FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

City County TNC PrivBioDiv Private 

 1 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 3 <1 1 0 0 <1 0 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1 0 0  3 242 <1 18 3 0 162 <1 4 0 51 0 0 <1 0 0  4 0 0 0 <1 0 <1 0 9 0 0 <1 <1 0 <1 723 
350

DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City C

 1 <1 0 46 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 153 1 47 26 0 2 8 0 <1 <1 47 241 <1 0 0  3 427 11 32 499 61 15 0 0 588 53 879 2 3 0 0  4 0 29 0 0 9 0 0 <1 926 0 836 <1 2 10 44 N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County 

 1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 2 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0  2 24 <1 2 3 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1 6 0 0 0 0  3 143 <1 3 71 141 <1 <1 44 8 12 <1 <1 0 0 0  4 0 4 0 0 33 0 0 49 <1 105 <1 <1 5 55 11 N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Dept. 

of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City C

 1 <1 0 <1 <1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 2 0 <1 1 0 4 <1 0 0 <1 <1 8 0 0 0  3 73 1 <1 23 189 4 <1 0 46 11 4 <1 15 0 0  4 0 4 0 0 82 0 0 <1 45 0 82 <1 <1 5 56 OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County TNC P

 1 <1 0 10 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2 35 1 <1 <1 6 <1 <1 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0  3 220 1 <1 3 49 <1 791 4 <1 <1 0 0 0 <1 <1  4 0 <1 0 0 <1 0 11 0 50 0 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 N11 Open Water 

 Status BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DO

E 

NPS ARS Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wldlf 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County L

T

 1 <1 0 16 10 0 75 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0  2 29 7 33 25 0 6 <1 2 <1 3 109 1 0 0 0  3 168 123 1 114 26 46 0 139 139 14 <1 235 0 0 0  4 0 2 0 0 <1 0 0 36 0 41 <1 <1 28 6 3 
351

Appendix 5-4. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the 

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

AZ 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. Gov City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 

6,973 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 72.7% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 352 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 85.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 730 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 70.3% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder 

Land 

573 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 38.0% 0.0% 10.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% 16.1

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 82.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S018 North American Warm Desert Active and 

Stabilized Dune 

1,017 0.1% 1.0% 20.5% 0.0% 76.6

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 34 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 

761 25.2% 0.0% 5.3% 24.4% 9.8% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 0.1% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 45 15.8% 0.0% 0.5% 2.4% 0.1% 40.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 48 52.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 205 36.7% 4.0% 11.0% 6.5% 0.1% 23.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 11.3

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive 

Bedrock 

92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 82.9% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 32,495 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 18.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 45.3% 0.0% 9.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 3,414 82.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S051 Madrean Encinal 3,008 8.3% 0.0% 0.3% 51.8% 0.9% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 3.4% 0.2% 16.8

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 

S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 4,008 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 64.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 28.4% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 13,163 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 48.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 30.6% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 

123 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 87.9% 3.0% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

1,030 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 67.7% 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 18.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

439 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 71.5% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 25.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

223 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.9% 0.0% 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 29.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

120 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.6% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 52.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 
352

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

AZ 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. Gov City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

1 40.6% 0.0% 0.0% 30.7% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

16,240 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 64.7% 0.3% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 443 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 39.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 16,547 13.4% 0.0% 1.2% 22.8% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 14.3% 0.1% 27.9

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 

S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 6,319 19.7% 0.0% 0.3% 3.9% 1.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 6.4% 0.1% 43.5

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,816 32.5% 0.0% 0.3% 14.1% 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 9.6% 0.1% 25.1

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 

S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand 

Flat Scrub 

187 37.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 38.7

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 109 25.3% 0.0% 0.3% 12.1% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 34.5

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 

S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea 

Shrubland 

4,036 14.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 74.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 489 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 32.8

%

0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 353 48.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 40.9% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 5,200 32.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 46.7% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 75 90.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 7,005 19.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 56.2% 0.1% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S057 Mogollon Chaparral 9,637 15.5% 0.0% 0.0% 48.8% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.1% 13.0

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 5,416 41.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 20.9% 0.0% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 

128 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 51.5% 0.0% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 29.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage 

Desert Scrub 

38,922 29.9% 0.5% 8.1% 0.1% 19.1

%

5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 0.2% 10.8

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,011 6.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 38.8% 0.2% 11.2

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,391 45.5% 0.0% 0.4% 9.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 18.3

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 39,791 34.4% 0.4% 7.2% 6.8% 5.4% 2.5% 0.2% 0.0% 18.6% 0.3% 14.4

%

0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.3% 

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 6,073 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 89.3% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland 

and Steppe 

11,354 7.7% 0.0% 1.3% 10.6% 1.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 7.5% 0.1% 30.2

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 
353

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

AZ 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. Gov City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 16 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 17.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 23.3

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 4,002 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 22.3

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 1 49.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 48.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 11,250 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 39.0% 0.1% 21.3

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 15,474 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 49.4% 0.0% 15.7

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 336 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 41.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 0.0% 18.1

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 

587 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.6% 0.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

WOODY WETLAND S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 1,237 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 86.3% 0.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

180 7.4% 0.0% 0.1% 41.3% 0.2% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 0.3% 6.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 

801 8.5% 0.3% 2.6% 4.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 49.3% 0.3% 11.5

%

1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 

283 14.1% 1.5% 7.9% 15.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 0.6% 8.6% 3.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 153 19.6% 0.2% 0.6% 5.6% 0.8% 7.5% 0.2% 0.0% 8.8% 0.2% 12.5

%

1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

24 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 66.6% 0.0% 2.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 32 13.0% 0.0% 20.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 10.1

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 74.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ALTERED or DISTURBED D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 127 23.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 36.6% 0.0% 15.1

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 72 47.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 26.2% 0.0% 11.2

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 13 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

483 16.3% 0.8% 7.8% 2.1% 0.2% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.2% 0.7% 4.8% 2.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 

D02 Recently Burned 168 2.5% 0.0% 13.1% 65.2% 0.0% 12.3% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 470 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 5,634 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.2% 0.1% 8.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 4,048 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 1.3% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.1% 
354

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

AZ 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. Gov City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,711 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 4.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,119 9.6% 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.9% 0.3% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N11 Open Water 701 1.2% 0.2% 0.8% 2.3% 0.0% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.4% 0.8% 1.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.1% 

TOTAL 295,347 17.0% 0.1% 2.3% 15.3% 3.8% 3.2% 0.1% 0.0% 27.5% 0.1% 12.6

%

0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 

 * For Land Stewardship headings: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, BOR = Bureau of Reclamation, FWS= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, DOD/DOE = Dept. of Defense/Dept. of En

Agricultural Research Service, Dept. of Com. = Dept. of Commerce, Nativ Amer = Native American Lands, Reg. Gov. = Regional Government, Aud = Audubon, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, Priv-BioDiv = Priv
355

Appendix 5-5. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within th

GAP Management Status in the state of Arizona. 

Area in AZ Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 6,965 761 10.9% 698 10.0% 5,275 75.7% S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 350 0 0.0% 19 5.6% 324 92.5% S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 83.2% S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 729 28 3.9% 13 1.8% 561 77.0% S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 573 93 16.2% 6 1.0% 282 49.3% S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 4 0 0.0% 1 14.9% 3 84.4% S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 1,017 203 19.9% 204 20.0% 582 57.2% S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 34 0 1.1% 4 11.4% 29 85.4% S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 760 68 9.0% 233 30.6% 345 45.4% S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 45 1 1.1% 5 11.0% 21 47.5% S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 48 0 0.0% 0 0.3% 25 51.9% S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 205 23 11.3% 9 4.2% 130 63.4% S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 5 0 0.0% 5 95.9% 0 4.1% S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 91 1 0.7% 4 4.4% 84 91.7% EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 32,482 1,218 3.7% 1,506 4.6% 21,563 66.4% S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 3,414 363 10.6% 2,051 60.1% 862 25.2% S051 Madrean Encinal 3,008 64 2.1% 293 9.7% 1,680 55.8% S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 4,008 81 2.0% 715 17.8% 2,999 74.8% S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 13,161 113 0.9% 1,730 13.1% 9,218 70.0% S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 

123 9 7.6% 87 70.7% 26 21.2% 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 1,029 153 14.9% 72 7.0% 803 78.0% 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 439 27 6.0% 47 10.7% 364 82.9% 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 223 33 14.9% 22 10.1% 167 74.9% 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 120 13 11.0% 10 8.3% 97 80.7% 
356

Area in AZ Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 2 0 3.0% 1 73.2% 0 23.8% 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 1 0 0.0% 0 4.3% 1 68.8% S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 16,233 422 2.6% 907 5.6% 14,018 86.4% DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 442 21 4.8% 72 16.3% 345 78.1% SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 16,539 63 0.4% 1,306 7.9% 7,463 45.1% S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 6,318 26 0.4% 189 3.0% 1,861 29.5% S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,814 39 1.4% 114 4.0% 1,497 53.2% S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 

187 0 0.0% 2 0.9% 76 40.3% 

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 109 2 2.1% 4 3.7% 51 46.4% S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 4,033 208 5.2% 375 9.3% 3,236 80.3% S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 489 0 0.1% 5 1.0% 52 10.7% S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 353 6 1.7% 17 4.7% 310 87.8% S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 0 0 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 5,199 213 4.1% 355 6.8% 4,017 77.3% S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 75 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 70 93.8% S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 6,995 84 1.2% 85 1.2% 5,286 75.6% S057 Mogollon Chaparral 9,636 195 2.0% 1,488 15.4% 5,619 58.3% S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 5,416 1,178 21.7% 1,001 18.5% 1,829 33.8% S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 128 20 15.8% 10 7.8% 95 74.1% S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 

38,909 3,913 10.1% 4,022 10.3% 20,416 52.5% 1

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,011 12 1.2% 19 1.9% 187 18.5% S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 5,390 38 0.7% 1,201 22.3% 2,109 39.1% S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 39,773 3,656 9.2% 5,122 12.9% 20,783 52.3% 1S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 6,073 49 0.8% 139 2.3% 5,473 90.1% GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 

11,346 44 0.4% 552 4.9% 2,915 25.7% 

S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 16 0 0.2% 0 2.5% 3 22.2% S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 3,998 11 0.3% 46 1.2% 1,434 35.9% 
357

Area in AZ Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 1 0 0.0% 0 26.9% 1 71.4% S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 11,245 198 1.8% 101 0.9% 5,075 45.1% S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 15,465 264 1.7% 296 1.9% 8,814 57.0% S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 336 1 0.3% 22 6.5% 220 65.5% S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 563 11 2.0% 11 1.9% 482 85.6% WOODY WETLAND S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 1,235 3 0.2% 10 0.8% 1,115 90.3% S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 180 4 2.0% 29 16.2% 82 45.4% 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 795 14 1.8% 54 6.8% 443 55.8% S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 269 25 9.2% 37 13.9% 76 28.3% 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 152 9 6.1% 22 14.3% 35 23.3% S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 24 0 0.4% 0 1.6% 18 76.4% 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 24 6 25.1% 2 6.5% 3 13.8% S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 96.8% ALTERED or DISTURBED D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 127 5 4.0% 5 3.6% 73 57.6% D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 72 0 0.3% 1 1.4% 53 73.7% D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 13 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 94.5% D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 473 60 12.7% 20 4.2% 195 41.2% D02 Recently Burned 168 21 12.4% 71 42.1% 75 44.9% D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 467 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 121 26.0% DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 5,629 8 0.1% 14 0.2% 99 1.8% N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 4,046 1 0.0% 11 0.3% 180 4.4% N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,710 1 0.0% 3 0.2% 127 7.4% OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 1,118 8 0.7% 41 3.7% 870 77.8% 
358

Area in AZ Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

N11 Open Water 220 44 20.0% 10 4.7% 71 32.4% 

TOTAL 284,218 14,135 5.0% 25,524 9.0% 162,831 57.3% 9
359

Appendix 5-6. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the Code Land Cover Type Area in 

CO 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DOE NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County A

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 

675 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 20.8% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized 

Dune 

130 4.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 70.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 4 65.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 46 1.4% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 258 63.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.8% 0.0% 26.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S018 North American Warm Desert Active and 

Stabilized Dune 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff 

and Outcrop 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 2,888 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 81.8% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 584 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 80.3% 0.0% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive 

Bedrock 

989 21.3% 0.0% 0.0% 52.3% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 88 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 15,136 61.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 0.1% 0.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

3,152 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 55.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 1.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland 

6 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 6,940 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 76.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

3,603 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 50.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 1.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic 

Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

10,189 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 88.4% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

8,151 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 86.4% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 369 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 64.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

4,836 23.5% 0.0% 0.1% 9.0% 2.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 4.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

10,792 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 39.2% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.5% 1.6% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0
360

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

CO 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DOE NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County A

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 11,436 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 64.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

1,951 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

SHRUB/SCRUB S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 9 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea 

Shrubland 

97 51.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 41.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

66 54.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.2% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 1,765 81.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

13,383 49.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 4.3% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush 

Shrubland 

1,019 75.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 2.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 

Scrub 

2,324 48.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.8% 0.3% 2.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland 

1 86.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 

10,229 17.8% 0.0% 0.0% 23.3% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.4% 1.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

2,305 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 2.7% 2.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 1.5% 0

S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 13 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and 

Shrubland 

10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 8,682 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 11.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 43 79.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 120 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 9.6% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and 

Steppe 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 281 74.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe 

8,504 25.3% 0.0% 0.3% 18.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 4.3% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 863 38.7% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppe 3,354 25.9% 0.0% 0.5% 1.1% 0.6% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 4.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,447 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 82.4% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 1,507 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 72.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
361

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

CO 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DOE NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County A

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland 

and Savanna 

2,149 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 7.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 

7,252 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 28.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 6.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont 

Grassland 

4,365 1.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 5.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0

S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 45,651 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 2.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 11.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.1% 0.9% 27.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0WOODY WETLAND S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,281 19.8% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.1% 6.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

569 9.9% 0.0% 0.6% 4.4% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.7% 0.7% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 

2,820 3.3% 0.0% 0.3% 74.5% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 

215 10.7% 0.0% 0.0% 38.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0

S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 836 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 2.7% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

859 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.6% 6.1% 0.0% 0.1% 1.9% 0.8% 0

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 45 1.5% 0.0% 35.9% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 1.6% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet 

Meadow 

1,331 2.1% 0.0% 1.5% 63.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 2 99.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D14 Disturbed, Oil Well <1 34.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 634 7.4% 0.0% 0.6% 6.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 5.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 372 31.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 3.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 0.0% 0.0% 31.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,083 1.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 1.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 0.8% 0D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

493 4.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9% 2.7% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0

D02 Recently Burned 313 24.0% 0.0% 0.1% 10.0% 19.2% 28.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.1% 1.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 231 64.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D10 Recently Logged Areas 541 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 89.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 89 12.3% 0.0% 0.1% 6.2% 2.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 5.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 52,899 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 1.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,074 1.4% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 2,013 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.2% 0OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 11 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.3% 6.6% 17.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
362

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

CO 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/DOE NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City County A

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

N11 Open Water 1,316 2.8% 0.0% 0.6% 4.9% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 5.4% 1.3% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0

TOTAL 269,735 12.5% 0.0% 0.1% 21.7% 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 4.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0

 * For Land Stewardship headings: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, BOR = Bureau of Reclamation, FWS= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, DOD/DOE = Dept. of Defense/Dept. of Ene

ARS = Agricultural Research Service, Dept. of Com. = Dept. of Commerce, Nativ Amer = Native American Lands, Reg. Gov. = Regional Government, Aud = Audubon, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, Priv-BioDiv = 
363

Appendix 5-7. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within th

GAP Management Status in the state of Colorado. 

Area in CO Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % k

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 674 52 7.7% 202 29.9% 229 34.0% S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 129 93 71.5% 18 14.0% 4 3.3% S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 4 0 0.0% 0 8.5% 4 90.5% S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 44 3 5.8% 5 10.5% 21 48.2% S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 258 3 1.2% 30 11.7% 144 55.9% S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 20 0 0.0% 1 3.9% 1 7.3% S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 2 1 29.6% 1 49.1% 0 10.0% S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 33.2% S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 2,878 668 23.2% 1,066 37.0% 958 33.3% S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 584 140 24.0% 214 36.7% 198 33.9% S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 981 123 12.6% 174 17.8% 455 46.4% S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 88 0 0.0% 1 0.6% 19 22.2% EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 15,134 561 3.7% 2,452 16.2% 8,237 54.4% S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 12.7% S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 3,150 101 3.2% 323 10.3% 1,866 59.2% 

S125 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland 6 0 2.0% 0 1.4% 1 8.7% S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 6,939 376 5.4% 926 13.3% 4,709 67.9% S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 3,603 99 2.8% 376 10.4% 2,011 55.8% 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 10,179 1,264 12.4% 2,298 22.6% 6,083 59.8% 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

8,150 1,036 12.7% 1,753 21.5% 4,834 59.3% 
364

Area in CO Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % k

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 369 8 2.3% 48 12.9% 228 61.7% 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 4,834 28 0.6% 358 7.4% 1,652 34.2% S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 10,790 132 1.2% 697 6.5% 4,705 43.6% DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 11,432 258 2.3% 1,079 9.4% 7,003 61.3% MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

1,951 57 2.9% 167 8.5% 1,312 67.3% 

SHRUB/SCRUB S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 9 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 2 16.5% S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 97 0 0.2% 36 36.8% 17 17.2% S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 66 0 0.0% 8 11.5% 32 49.0% S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 1,764 39 2.2% 510 28.9% 937 53.1% S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 13,378 136 1.0% 888 6.6% 6,806 50.9% S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 1,019 2 0.2% 70 6.9% 727 71.4% S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 2,324 5 0.2% 264 11.4% 1,066 45.9% S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrubland 1 0 10.6% 0 13.8% 1 72.9% 

S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 10,226 67 0.7% 551 5.4% 4,105 40.1% S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 2,303 35 1.5% 141 6.1% 808 35.1% S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 13 0 0.0% 0 2.3% 0 0.0% S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 10 0 0.0% 0 2.8% 1 13.5% S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 8,679 0 0.0% 258 3.0% 1,128 13.0% S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 43 3 8.0% 8 18.4% 30 69.0% GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S087 Central Mixedgrass Prairie 120 0 0.0% 3 2.7% 16 13.5% S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 281 0 0.0% 7 2.3% 226 80.2% S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 8,498 48 0.6% 625 7.4% 3,701 43.6% S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 862 6 0.7% 63 7.3% 333 38.6% S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 3,350 171 5.1% 369 11.0% 915 27.3% S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 13.7% S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 2,446 418 17.1% 910 37.2% 968 39.6% 
365

Area in CO Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % k

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 1,504 57 3.8% 194 12.9% 911 60.5% S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 

2,149 0 0.0% 6 0.3% 396 18.4% 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 7,245 80 1.1% 607 8.4% 3,130 43.2% S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 4,362 0 0.0% 102 2.3% 405 9.3% S089 Western Great Plains Sand Prairie 18 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.3% S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 45,615 10 0.0% 625 1.4% 8,185 17.9% 3S132 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie 1 0 0.0% 0 27.7% 0 15.1% WOODY WETLAND S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,276 44 1.9% 294 12.9% 526 23.1% S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 1 0 0.0% 0 0.7% 0 14.9% S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 566 5 1.0% 48 8.5% 78 13.7% 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 2,812 335 11.9% 738 26.3% 1,252 44.5% S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 215 3 1.3% 22 10.1% 95 44.4% S120 Western Great Plains Floodplain 828 0 0.0% 31 3.8% 31 3.7% S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 849 0 0.0% 61 7.2% 40 4.7% EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 44 10 21.7% 10 22.8% 1 2.5% S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 1,327 160 12.1% 328 24.7% 445 33.5% ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 2 0 0.5% 1 49.9% 1 49.2% D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 0 0 0.0% 0 14.8% 0 19.2% D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 633 6 1.0% 14 2.1% 122 19.3% D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 372 6 1.6% 15 4.1% 127 34.1% D07 Invasive Perennial Forbland 1 0 31.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.6% D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 2,079 1 0.1% 24 1.1% 134 6.5% D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 486 1 0.3% 25 5.2% 38 7.8% D02 Recently Burned 313 89 28.4% 50 16.1% 147 47.0% D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 231 1 0.4% 18 7.9% 165 71.5% D10 Recently Logged Areas 540 26 4.8% 26 4.9% 458 84.8% D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 87 1 0.7% 3 4.0% 20 22.9% DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 52,820 40 0.1% 478 0.9% 1,700 3.2% 5
366

Area in CO Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % k

N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,068 1 0.1% 8 0.7% 53 5.0% N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 2,010 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 22 1.1% OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 10 0 0.0% 2 21.5% 2 20.7% N11 Open Water 607 24 4.0% 58 9.6% 164 27.0% 

TOTAL 268,761 6,837 2.5% 20,692 7.7% 85,144 31.7% 15
367

Appendix 5-8. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the Mexico. 

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

NM 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 

2,466 20.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 59.5% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 735 8.4% 0.0% 11.5% 2.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 2 31.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 481 42.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 38.3% 0.0% 6.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder 

Land 

470 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 77.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 3 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 79.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S018 North American Warm Desert Active and 

Stabilized Dune 

1,695 41.2% 0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 30.4% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 

838 32.9% 0.0% 0.2% 12.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 11.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 180 53.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 4.6% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 535 8.9% 0.1% 0.5% 1.6% 43.5% 30.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 700 42.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 25.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive 

Bedrock 

417 26.7% 0.0% 0.7% 30.6% 1.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% 4.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 221 8.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 27,864 20.4% 0.0% 0.1% 19.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 0.2% 7.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S051 Madrean Encinal 1,350 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% 21.5% 0.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 1,725 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 45.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.8% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 8,754 10.5% 0.0% 0.6% 32.9% 6.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 

672 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 68.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

2,864 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 77.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.1% 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

1,610 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 73.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 0.1% 0.4% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

982 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 59.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

640 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 68.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 376 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 61.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 0.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
368

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

NM 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

10,468 9.2% 0.0% 0.5% 22.3% 1.1% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 0.2% 8.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

21,163 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 62.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.1% 1.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 1,483 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 68.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine 

Woodland 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.8% 0.0% 32.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

182 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 61.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 0.0% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 15,137 33.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 2.0% 0.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 21.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 21,080 47.9% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 8.9% 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 16.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,597 23.8% 0.0% 1.4% 0.3% 32.2% 3.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 9.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand 

Flat Scrub 

5,538 39.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.5% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 78 43.3% 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 2.3% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 19.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 93 16.9% 0.0% 0.0% 43.1% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea 

Shrubland 

141 13.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 65.9% 0.0% 2.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 329 33.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 19.8% 0.0% 7.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 3,934 23.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 26.4% 0.4% 6.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3,791 12.2% 0.0% 0.5% 1.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 51.8% 0.0% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S057 Mogollon Chaparral 870 14.9% 0.0% 2.6% 32.1% 14.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 6.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 

1,888 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 19.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 15.4% 0.6% 5.4% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

266 9.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 15.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage 

Desert Scrub 

<1 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 2 47.2% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub <1 68.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 79 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 84.4% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and 

Shrubland 

1,787 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 12.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 5,212 30.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland 

and Steppe 

34,357 35.8% 0.0% 1.9% 3.0% 8.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 17.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
369

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

NM 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 804 7.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 65.8% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 970 26.3% 0.1% 0.8% 0.5% 14.4% 1.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and 

Swale Grassland 

<1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 1,298 20.4% 0.0% 1.7% 4.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 0.0% 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 283 14.1% 0.0% 0.7% 14.7% 4.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3% 0.0% 4.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 16,400 12.7% 0.0% 0.6% 3.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 42.8% 0.0% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 14,486 22.4% 0.0% 0.2% 3.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 29.3% 0.0% 10.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 657 25.7% 0.0% 0.3% 14.2% 1.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.1% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 147 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 

9,808 5.7% 0.0% 0.2% 4.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 0.1% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 

1,859 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 47.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.4% 0.3% 1.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont 

Grassland 

701 2.2% 0.0% 0.2% 17.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.5% 5.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 67,510 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0WOODY WETLAND S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,269 10.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 60.5% 0.0% 7.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

194 18.4% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.1% 14.6% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 

3 19.3% 0.0% 0.4% 1.7% 14.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 

125 32.2% 0.7% 0.5% 2.7% 5.0% 8.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 11.5% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 199 22.3% 0.7% 1.7% 1.3% 5.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 17.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

787 7.5% 0.0% 0.5% 15.3% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 0.4% 3.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 

103 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 21.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 16.6% 0.0% 5.9% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 

5 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.9% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

855 5.0% 3.6% 5.2% 2.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 21.8% 0.1% 5.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 86 20.5% 1.4% 0.6% 5.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 6.5% 0.4% 19.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 136 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 22.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 0.0% 1.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 41 19.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
370

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

NM 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/D

OE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

Cit

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

ALTERED or DISTURBED D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 48 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 4.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 30 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 83.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

27 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

D02 Recently Burned 806 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 26.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 17.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas <1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D10 Recently Logged Areas 8 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 70.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 182 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 6,025 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 3.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,108 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 977 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 4.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 54 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 86.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0N11 Open Water 792 4.9% 14.0% 1.3% 0.8% 2.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 2.3% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

TOTAL 314,870 17.3% 0.1% 0.5% 12.0% 3.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 10.4% 0.1% 11.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

 * For Land Stewardship headings: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, BOR = Bureau of Reclamation, FWS= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, DOD/DOE = Dept. of Defense/Dept. of E

Research Service, Dept. of Com. = Dept. of Commerce, Nativ Amer = Native American Lands, Reg. Gov. = Regional Government, Aud = Audubon, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, Priv-BioDiv = Private Lands M
371

Appendix 5-9. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within th

GAP Management Status in the state of New Mexico. 

Area in 

NM Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 2,465 11 0.4% 214 8.7% 1,694 6S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 735 0 0.0% 89 12.1% 80 S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 481 1 0.2% 78 16.3% 322 6S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 470 0 0.0% 414 88.1% 17 S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 3 0 0.0% 0 1.1% 2 8S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 1,695 54 3.2% 59 3.5% 1,160 6S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 838 3 0.4% 58 6.9% 469 5S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 173 16 9.1% 16 9.1% 90 5S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 515 162 31.4% 9 1.8% 284 5S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 700 14 2.0% 250 35.7% 235 3S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 417 13 3.1% 64 15.4% 199 4S008 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 221 0 0.0% 2 1.0% 22 EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 27,849 156 0.6% 2,195 7.9% 14,896 5S051 Madrean Encinal 1,350 15 1.1% 324 24.0% 516 3S035 Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 1,725 15 0.9% 148 8.6% 1,297 7S112 Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 8,754 52 0.6% 653 7.5% 4,346 4S111 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland 

672 3 0.5% 63 9.4% 566 8

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

2,864 65 2.3% 902 31.5% 1,365 4

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 7 0 0.0% 1 8.2% 2 2S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

1,610 90 5.6% 424 26.4% 780 4
372

Area in 

NM Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

982 5 0.5% 354 36.1% 330 3

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

640 18 2.9% 257 40.2% 207 3

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland 

376 0 0.0% 129 34.4% 152 4

S038 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 10,465 62 0.6% 592 5.7% 3,273 3S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 21,160 869 4.1% 2,428 11.5% 12,520 5DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 1,483 99 6.7% 422 28.5% 618 4S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 0 0 32.2% 0 30.4% 0 3MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

182 1 0.3% 32 17.8% 91 5

SHRUB/SCRUB S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 15,120 51 0.3% 251 1.7% 5,608 3S062 Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 21,066 115 0.5% 1,029 4.9% 11,491 5S116 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,590 60 3.8% 93 5.8% 856 5S068 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 

5,537 80 1.4% 57 1.0% 4,101 7

S061 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub 78 2 2.4% 5 6.0% 33 4S117 Coahuilan Chaparral 93 27 28.4% 12 13.3% 45 4S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 141 0 0.1% 5 3.7% 106 7S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 329 0 0.0% 42 12.7% 118 3S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 3,929 1 0.0% 116 3.0% 2,027 5S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3,777 1 0.0% 160 4.2% 1,957 5S057 Mogollon Chaparral 870 18 2.1% 132 15.1% 454 5S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 1,888 12 0.7% 135 7.1% 615 3S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 266 0 0.0% 4 1.6% 27 S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 

0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 

S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub 2 0 0.0% 0 10.7% 1 4S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub 0 0 0.0% 0 66.3% 0 S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 79 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 67 8S138 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland 1,787 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 12 
373

Area in 

NM Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 

S048 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland 5,208 21 0.4% 88 1.7% 1,600 3GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S077 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 

34,343 258 0.8% 2,436 7.1% 15,331 4

S080 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 803 150 18.7% 3 0.4% 588 7S113 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 969 17 1.7% 27 2.8% 409 4S109 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland 

0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 1,297 0 0.0% 82 6.3% 543 4S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 282 1 0.5% 23 8.1% 75 2S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 16,390 11 0.1% 652 4.0% 7,154 4S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 14,466 8 0.1% 566 3.9% 6,822 4S115 Madrean Juniper Savanna 657 5 0.8% 26 4.0% 259 3S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 19 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 147 0 0.0% 27 18.3% 51 3S074 Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna 

9,803 23 0.2% 150 1.5% 971 

S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 1,855 5 0.2% 426 22.9% 689 3S086 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 701 7 1.0% 12 1.6% 146 2S088 Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 67,399 38 0.1% 102 0.2% 3,830 WOODY WETLAND S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 2,264 5 0.2% 91 4.0% 1,494 6S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 191 1 0.6% 29 15.5% 60 3S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 3 0 0.0% 1 20.9% 1 3S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 122 11 8.9% 10 8.0% 46 3S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 197 3 1.3% 8 3.8% 55 2S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 783 3 0.3% 41 5.2% 288 3S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 103 0 0.0% 15 14.9% 38 3S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 5 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 S095 Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 851 2 0.2% 77 9.0% 81 EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 85 0 0.4% 3 3.4% 27 3S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 136 0 0.0% 11 7.8% 43 3S108 Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland 20 0 0.0% 0 1.0% 8 3
374

Area in 

NM Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 

ALTERED or DISTURBED D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 48 0 0.0% 3 6.5% 5 D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 29 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 27 9D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 27 0 0.0% 1 3.4% 17 6D02 Recently Burned 806 13 1.6% 32 4.0% 211 2D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 D10 Recently Logged Areas 8 0 0.0% 0 2.6% 5 7D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 177 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 74 4DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 6,026 0 0.0% 25 0.4% 343 N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,107 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 61 N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 975 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 59 OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 54 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 48 8N11 Open Water 438 2 0.4% 34 7.9% 211 4

TOTAL 314,189 2,678 0.9% 17,230 5.5% 114,723 3
375

Appendix 5-10. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the 

Code Land Cover Type Area in NV BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 

2 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 79 46.1% 3.2% 0.6% 0.2% 18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,487 70.0% 0.0% 1.7% 15.6% 2.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 6,234 75.5% 2.4% 2.6% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 18 79.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and 

Scree 

23 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 74.0% 24.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S018 North American Warm Desert Active and 

Stabilized Dune 

16 73.9% 0.0% 17.5% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 78 20.0% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 48.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 2.9% 0.0% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 

1,842 57.6% 0.5% 28.8% 1.5% 1.6% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 168 32.3% 3.0% 2.7% 0.0% 3.2% 22.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 527 39.6% 0.0% 29.5% 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 78 30.9% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 4.5% 62.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 148 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 84.0% 0.0% 12.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 123 37.1% 0.0% 0.0% 32.7% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1EVERGREEN FOREST S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 36,376 63.7% 0.0% 1.0% 24.6% 3.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 635 15.7% 0.0% 2.5% 72.9% 0.4% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine 

Forest and Woodland 

209 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 69.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and 

Woodland 

105 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 78.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0

S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 42 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 96.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

196 15.6% 0.0% 21.7% 56.6% 0.2% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

216 19.5% 0.0% 11.6% 58.5% 0.1% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

190 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 82.8% 3.2% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

175 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 81.4% 3.3% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 14 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 88.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest 

and Woodland 

20 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 85.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
376

Code Land Cover Type Area in NV BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

7 91.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 1,289 19.4% 0.0% 2.1% 62.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine 

Woodland 

1 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

84 21.8% 0.0% 0.0% 54.9% 0.0% 21.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

SHRUB/SCRUB S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea 

Shrubland 

4 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 162 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 76.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 31,798 78.6% 0.0% 2.4% 6.2% 3.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 66,018 76.1% 0.0% 1.7% 2.8% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 50,646 76.0% 0.4% 0.2% 1.2% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland 

1,924 45.6% 0.0% 3.1% 44.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 425 98.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 10,520 56.6% 0.0% 21.8% 3.9% 15.4% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 

108 97.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage 

Desert Scrub 

19,031 62.6% 0.5% 10.2% 0.0% 6.5% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,528 42.3% 0.0% 24.9% 0.1% 20.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 86 9.2% 0.0% 6.2% 83.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,275 61.3% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 1 58.8% 0.0% 32.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 17,816 49.6% 0.0% 2.3% 30.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 3,113 42.8% 0.4% 2.2% 5.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 5,974 63.8% 0.0% 9.2% 1.6% 21.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 27 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 80.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 20 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 89.5% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 24 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 87.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 

2 90.5% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

1,068 17.6% 0.6% 0.8% 13.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.6% 0.0% 1.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 10,673 66.3% 3.6% 1.6% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

32 20.3% 0.0% 8.6% 6.6% 4.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 

25 53.6% 0.5% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 17.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1
377

Code Land Cover Type Area in NV BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 

5 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9% 0.0% 0.0% 66.3% 0.7% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 288 72.5% 5.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.4% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 

3 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 88.7% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 

68 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 76.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 98.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 409 10.6% 10.9% 9.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.6% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 10 49.4% 0.0% 7.1% 22.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet 

Meadow 

2 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

ALTERED or DISTURBED D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 1,134 65.1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 4,611 67.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 187 75.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

149 12.8% 13.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 0.6% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

D02 Recently Burned 574 81.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 322 56.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 2,223 3.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 210 18.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 726 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.0OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 195 57.9% 1.3% 1.6% 1.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0N11 Open Water 1,481 0.7% 1.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

TOTAL 286,281 67.2% 0.4% 3.3% 8.2% 4.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

 * For Land Stewardship headings: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, BOR = Bureau of Reclamation, FWS= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, DOD/DOE = Dept. of Defense/Dept. of En

Research Service, Dept. of Com. = Dept. of Commerce, Nativ Amer = Native American Lands, Reg. Gov. = Regional Government, Aud = Audubon, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, Priv-BioDiv = Private Lands Ma
378

Appendix 5-11. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within t

GAP Management Status in the state of Nevada. 

Area in NV Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 2 0 0.0% 2 96.1% 0 1.8% 0 S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 79 1 0.6% 3 3.5% 61 77.1% 15 S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 2,486 41 1.7% 601 24.2% 1,638 65.9% 207 S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 6,082 589 9.7% 886 14.6% 4,079 67.1% 528 S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 18 0 0.0% 1 3.4% 14 79.4% 3 S003 Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree 23 0 0.0% 17 71.3% 7 28.2% 0 S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune 16 3 17.5% 5 27.9% 8 49.5% 1 S017 North American Warm Desert Badland 78 3 3.5% 46 58.6% 21 27.3% 8 S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 1,842 364 19.8% 869 47.2% 573 31.1% 36 S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement 168 10 5.8% 52 31.2% 51 30.2% 55 3S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 526 79 14.9% 102 19.3% 267 50.8% 78 S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 78 8 9.7% 44 56.3% 27 34.0% 0 S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 148 41 28.0% 56 37.8% 49 32.9% 2 S007 Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon 123 0 0.0% 6 4.9% 92 75.0% 25 2EVERGREEN FOREST S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 36,374 620 1.7% 5,869 16.1% 27,350 75.2% 2,535 S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 635 156 24.5% 254 40.0% 218 34.4% 7 

S033 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 2 0 0.0% 1 32.7% 1 63.8% 0 

S123 Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest 

and Woodland 209 0 0.0% 24 11.4% 146 69.9% 39 

S121 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland 106 0 0.0% 24 22.4% 74 70.3% 8 S029 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Parkland 42 0 0.0% 25 59.0% 16 37.5% 1 S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 196 88 45.0% 52 26.7% 49 25.1% 6 

S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest 

and Woodland 216 63 29.3% 64 29.6% 84 38.9% 5 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest 

and Woodland 190 20 10.6% 77 40.4% 90 47.5% 3 
379

Area in NV Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 175 13 7.7% 58 33.0% 98 56.3% 5 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone 

Pine Woodland 14 1 4.3% 6 39.0% 7 52.2% 1 

S122 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and 

Woodland 20 0 0.0% 4 19.5% 15 74.0% 1 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 7 0 3.6% 6 93.3% 0 3.1% 0 DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 1,289 38 3.0% 326 25.3% 764 59.3% 161 S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 1 0 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 9.9% 0 MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 84 19 22.2% 25 30.3% 39 46.1% 1 

SHRUB/SCRUB S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 4 0 0.0% 3 89.6% 0 10.4% 0 S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 162 0 0.2% 56 34.6% 84 52.0% 21 S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 31,792 672 2.1% 3,052 9.6% 25,283 79.5% 2,785 S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 65,988 842 1.3% 3,324 5.0% 51,509 78.1% 10,314 S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 50,604 373 0.7% 2,717 5.4% 42,401 83.8% 5,113 S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland 

and Shrubland 1,924 124 6.4% 502 26.1% 1,221 63.4% 77 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 425 0 0.0% 133 31.3% 291 68.4% 2 S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 10,521 1,524 14.5% 3,428 32.6% 5,254 49.9% 315 S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 108 0 0.1% 38 35.6% 68 62.8% 2 S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert 

Scrub 19,013 1,691 8.9% 6,346 33.4% 9,003 47.4% 1,974 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 1,528 160 10.5% 307 20.1% 856 56.0% 205 S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 86 30 35.2% 55 63.6% 0 0.1% 1 GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 1,274 10 0.8% 26 2.1% 789 61.9% 448 3S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 1 0 32.0% 0 3.4% 1 55.4% 0 S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 17,813 466 2.6% 1,877 10.5% 12,509 70.2% 2,960 S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 3,101 68 2.2% 127 4.1% 1,457 47.0% 1,449 4S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 5,973 167 2.8% 863 14.5% 4,660 78.0% 283 S134 North Pacific Montane Grassland 27 0 0.0% 4 13.3% 22 80.0% 2 
380

Area in NV Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 20 7 34.4% 7 35.7% 5 27.6% 0 S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 24 2 8.0% 12 51.2% 8 33.0% 2 S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 2 0 0.0% 0 6.7% 2 93.3% 0 WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 1,059 8 0.7% 64 6.1% 345 32.6% 642 6

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 10,550 500 4.7% 511 4.8% 7,043 66.8% 2,496 2S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 30 4 13.0% 4 13.9% 6 20.4% 16 5

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 25 3 10.5% 7 27.2% 11 43.3% 5 S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 5 0 0.0% 1 18.1% 0 1.7% 4 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 288 7 2.4% 46 15.9% 221 76.5% 15 S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 3 0 0.0% 1 30.2% 2 65.4% 0 S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 67 2 3.2% 23 34.1% 36 53.8% 6 EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S105 Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen 2 0 0.0% 1 47.4% 1 52.5% 0 S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 311 30 9.7% 42 13.5% 85 27.2% 154 4S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 10 2 21.0% 3 26.9% 3 34.4% 2 S103 Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow 2 0 0.0% 0 2.4% 1 57.6% 1 4ALTERED or DISTURBED D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 1,131 4 0.4% 23 2.1% 744 65.8% 359 3D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 4,610 3 0.1% 115 2.5% 3,096 67.2% 1,396 3D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 187 0 0.0% 3 1.5% 142 75.7% 43 2D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 126 2 1.3% 36 28.3% 26 20.5% 63 5D02 Recently Burned 574 2 0.4% 26 4.6% 457 79.7% 88 D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 319 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 184 57.8% 134 4DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 2,222 8 0.4% 24 1.1% 145 6.5% 2,044 9N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 210 0 0.0% 5 2.5% 41 19.3% 164 7N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 724 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 2.1% 709 9OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 186 2 1.2% 11 5.8% 111 59.7% 62 3N11 Open Water 129 5 3.9% 19 14.8% 74 57.3% 31 2
381

Area in NV Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % km2 

TOTAL 284,387 8,876 3.1% 33,342 11.7% 204,049 71.8% 38,120 
382

Appendix 5-12. Percent distribution of each land cover type among 22 land stewards in the 

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

UT 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and 

Tableland 

14,197 56.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 23.9% 0.0% 0.0% 10.2% 0.1% 5.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 1,808 53.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 0.1% 6.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 382 66.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 1.3% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 11,284 34.6% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 41.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 0.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 1,828 74.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.1% 9.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder 

Land 

317 46.5% 0.0% 0.0% 40.8% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and 

Outcrop 

127 68.7% 0.0% 0.0% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 4.2% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 6 13.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 3.8% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 8 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 815 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 94.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 177 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive 

Bedrock 

1,467 17.1% 0.0% 0.0% 57.2% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 0.1% 3.8% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 22,362 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 0.1% 6.6% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 10,982 63.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 6.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 32 66.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 

1,710 19.2% 0.0% 0.0% 48.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 7.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 1,816 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 93.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

1,427 15.6% 0.0% 0.0% 52.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.1% 4.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

3,230 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 90.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir 

Forest and Woodland 

1,273 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 79.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 1.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane LimberBristlecone Pine Woodland 39 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

2,019 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 74.8% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 2.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 6,334 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.4% 3.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
383

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

UT 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine 

Woodland 

887 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer 

Forest and Woodland 

1,222 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 77.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

SHRUB/SCRUB S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea 

Shrubland 

9,033 55.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 17.1% 0.0% 0.0% 18.5% 0.0% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 1,517 56.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 10.7% 0.4% 9.1% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 9,418 69.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 0.2% 7.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral <1 74.2% 0.0% 0.0% 21.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 3,634 76.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 19,939 53.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.1% 8.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 3,037 75.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.1% 12.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 15,526 65.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 3.7% 1.9% 0.5% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 9.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany 

Woodland and Shrubland 

626 25.3% 0.0% 0.0% 49.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 2.8% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 583 29.8% 0.0% 0.0% 42.5% 0.0% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 826 70.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 1.4% 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane 

Shrubland 

6,597 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.7% 3.5% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

252 40.7% 0.0% 0.0% 23.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.3% 0.0% 11.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage 

Desert Scrub 

809 53.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 10 35.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 3 91.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 856 36.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 53.0% 0.5% 6.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 4 49.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 523 26.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 5.5% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 9 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 14,048 14.9% 0.0% 0.0% 34.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.2% 7.5% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 2,014 53.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 3.3% 2.8% 0.1% 0.0% 7.8% 0.8% 6.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 8,330 74.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 3.6% 0.1% 10.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 293 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0
384

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

UT 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 499 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 76.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 2.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine 

Grassland 

594 21.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 1.8% 0.2% 4.8% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

292 21.8% 0.0% 0.0% 14.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.6% 4.1% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 7,310 51.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 9.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 3.5% 0.1% 9.3% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane 

Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

20 41.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 3.2% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite 

Bosque 

3 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 

10 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 10 50.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.1% 19.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian 

Woodland and Shrubland 

847 16.2% 0.0% 0.9% 13.1% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 1.7% 2.4% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Shrubland 

298 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 58.7% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.1% 1.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian 

Woodland 

4 36.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 41.8% 0.0% 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 482 5.6% 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.1% 0.8% 19.2% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 479 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 65.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.2% 2.4% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 90 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 46 12.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 5.9% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 695 53.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 7.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 3,236 45.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 6.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 1.3% 5.5% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 526 19.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 4.8% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 

456 39.2% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 0.0% 0.0% 21.2% 0.0% 3.8% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

D02 Recently Burned 172 19.2% 0.0% 0.0% 59.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 458 50.2% 0.0% 0.0% 22.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 15.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D10 Recently Logged Areas 287 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 92.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 177 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 28.9% 0.0% 0.0DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 9,196 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.1% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,099 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 5.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,997 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 6.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 1.7% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 42 77.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.0% 1.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0N11 Open Water 6,733 1.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0

TOTAL 219,826 41.9% 0.0% 0.1% 14.9% 3.3% 3.6% 0.1% 0.0% 4.5% 0.2% 6.4% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0
385

Code Land Cover Type Area in 

UT 

BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD/

DOE 

NPS ARS Dept. of 

Com. 

Nativ 

Amer 

State 

Park 

State 

Schl 

State 

Wildl 

Other 

State 

Reg. 

Gov 

City 

km2 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 

 * For Land Stewardship headings: BLM = Bureau of Land Management, BOR = Bureau of Reclamation, FWS= U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFS = U.S. Forest Service, DOD/DOE = Dept. of Defense/Dept. of En

Research Service, Dept. of Com. = Dept. of Commerce, Nativ Amer = Native American Lands, Reg. Gov. = Regional Government, Aud = Audubon, TNC = The Nature Conservancy, Priv-BioDiv = Private Lands Ma
386

Appendix 5-13. Area and percent distribution of each land cover type represented within t

GAP Management Status in the state of Utah. 

Area in UT Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

BARREN LANDS S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland 14,164 1,063 7.5% 4,413 31.2% 7,637 53.9% S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune 1,804 7 0.4% 153 8.5% 1,469 81.4% S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon 382 7 1.7% 110 28.9% 179 46.8% S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa 10,998 33 0.3% 376 3.4% 8,653 78.7% S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland 1,827 9 0.5% 226 12.3% 1,319 72.2% S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land 316 4 1.2% 3 0.9% 274 86.6% S014 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 92.3% S001 North American Alpine Ice Field 21 5 22.8% 15 71.4% 1 5.8% S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop 127 0 0.0% 50 39.8% 56 44.5% S022 North American Warm Desert Playa 6 0 1.2% 0 5.1% 1 12.7% S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland 8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 18.9% S002 Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree 813 92 11.3% 464 57.1% 231 28.5% S004 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field 177 24 13.5% 96 54.2% 57 32.2% S006 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock 1,466 115 7.9% 280 19.1% 858 58.5% EVERGREEN FOREST S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 22,356 534 2.4% 4,995 22.3% 12,921 57.8% S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 10,986 144 1.3% 1,305 11.9% 7,120 64.8% S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 32 0 0.2% 21 65.2% 10 32.2% 

S032 Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 1,710 46 2.7% 270 15.8% 972 56.8% 

S031 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest 1,815 58 3.2% 288 15.9% 1,379 76.0% S034 Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and 

Woodland 1,427 47 3.3% 225 15.8% 798 55.9% 

S028 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and 

Woodland 3,224 150 4.7% 716 22.2% 2,128 66.0% 

S030 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

1,273 39 3.0% 178 14.0% 860 67.6% 
387

Area in UT Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

S025 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine 

Woodland 39 4 10.8% 9 24.3% 18 46.9% 

S036 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 2,019 71 3.5% 150 7.4% 1,598 79.1% DECIDUOUS FOREST S023 Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland 6,334 38 0.6% 320 5.1% 3,665 57.9% S024 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland 887 33 3.8% 69 7.8% 250 28.2% MIXED FOREST S042 Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 

1,222 6 0.5% 84 6.9% 936 76.6% 

SHRUB/SCRUB S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland 9,021 443 4.9% 1,600 17.7% 6,207 68.8% S056 Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland 1,517 2 0.1% 102 6.7% 971 64.0% S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland 9,414 344 3.7% 3,263 34.7% 4,404 46.8% S053 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 95.5% S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland 3,635 0 0.0% 305 8.4% 2,619 72.0% S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland 19,935 104 0.5% 1,574 7.9% 10,744 53.9% S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland 3,036 15 0.5% 184 6.1% 2,234 73.6% S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 15,499 132 0.8% 770 5.0% 10,891 70.3% S050 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and 

Shrubland 626 15 2.4% 85 13.5% 395 63.1% 

S057 Mogollon Chaparral 583 71 12.1% 117 20.0% 300 51.5% S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub 826 3 0.3% 85 10.3% 525 63.6% S043 Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland 109 13 11.8% 75 68.5% 21 19.3% S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 6,596 90 1.4% 478 7.2% 3,258 49.4% S047 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 252 3 1.2% 15 6.1% 170 67.6% S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub 

808 3 0.4% 218 27.0% 235 29.1% 

S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 10 0 0.1% 0 2.6% 3 33.5% S114 Sonora-Mojave Semi-Desert Chaparral 3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 91.9% S136 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland 855 6 0.7% 49 5.7% 740 86.6% S128 Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland 4 0 5.4% 1 28.6% 1 21.0% GRASSLAND/HERBACEOUS S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe 522 0 0.0% 8 1.6% 151 28.8% 
388

Area in UT Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna 9 0 0.0% 0 0.9% 9 98.2% S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 14,046 77 0.5% 713 5.1% 7,218 51.4% S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland 2,011 29 1.5% 265 13.2% 1,102 54.8% S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe 8,329 37 0.4% 711 8.5% 6,037 72.5% S081 Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra 293 21 7.0% 84 28.8% 188 64.0% S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow 499 13 2.6% 88 17.6% 301 60.3% S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 593 9 1.4% 34 5.7% 262 44.3% WOODY WETLAND S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 283 0 0.1% 26 9.4% 102 36.1% 

S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat 7,280 46 0.6% 224 3.1% 4,576 62.9% S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland 

and Shrubland 20 0 0.0% 4 19.3% 6 27.6% 

S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque 3 0 0.0% 0 0.7% 0 1.5% S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 

8 0 5.7% 0 0.2% 3 37.4% 

S020 North American Warm Desert Wash 10 0 0.0% 1 8.1% 5 43.3% S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and 

Shrubland 837 30 3.6% 95 11.3% 296 35.4% 

S091 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 298 6 2.0% 29 9.7% 157 52.8% S092 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland 4 0 0.1% 1 28.5% 2 55.1% EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLAND S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh 409 13 3.2% 133 32.5% 55 13.4% S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 472 21 4.4% 98 20.7% 228 48.3% ALTERED or DISTURBED D01 Disturbed, Non-specific 90 0 0.0% 5 5.3% 1 0.7% D14 Disturbed, Oil Well 46 0 0.0% 1 1.8% 7 16.2% D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland 695 1 0.2% 24 3.5% 367 52.9% D08 Invasive Annual Grassland 3,231 11 0.4% 123 3.8% 1,682 52.1% D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland 526 3 0.5% 19 3.7% 124 23.5% D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 450 43 9.6% 79 17.6% 243 54.0% D02 Recently Burned 172 0 0.0% 0 0.2% 138 80.1% D11 Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas 458 0 0.0% 49 10.7% 289 63.1% D10 Recently Logged Areas 287 0 0.1% 2 0.7% 271 94.3% 
389

Area in UT Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 

Code Land Cover Type 

km2 km2 % km2 % km2 % 

D03 Recently Mined or Quarried 171 0 0.0% 2 1.1% 82 47.7% DEVELOPED and AGRICULTURE N80 Agriculture 9,183 2 0.0% 40 0.4% 318 3.5% N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity 1,098 0 0.0% 9 0.8% 89 8.1% N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity 1,978 1 0.1% 8 0.4% 143 7.2% OTHER COVER TYPES N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific 42 0 0.0% 0 0.1% 40 94.2% N11 Open Water 904 27 3.0% 98 10.8% 483 53.5% 

TOTAL 213,417 4,165 2.0% 26,709 12.5% 122,089 57.2% 6
SWReGAP 

 

390 

Appendix 5-14A. Percent distribution of each modeled species within 22 Land 

Stewardship categories by state and region. 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_5-14A.pdf

Appendix 5-14B. Area distribution of each modeled species within 22 Land 

Stewardship categories by state and region. 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_5-14B.pdf

Map and Analysis Range Coding for use with Appendix 5-14A and 5-14B. 

Value Code Description 

17 k12 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, wintering 

18 k13 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering 

19 k14 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, winter and summering 

21 k21 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory 

22 k22 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, wintering 

23 k23 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, summering 

24 k24 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, winter and summer 

29 k34 Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer 

38 p13 Potential occurrence, breeding, summering 

41 p21 Potential occurrence, non-breeding, migratory 

42 p22 Potential occurrence, non-breeding, wintering 

49 p34 Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer 

61 x21 Extirpated, non-breeding, migratory 

62 x22 Extirpated, non-breeding, wintering 

69 x34 Extirpated, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer 
SWReGAP 

 

391 

Appendix 5-15. Area and percent distribution of each modeled species 

represented within the four levels of GAP Management Status by state and 

region. 

http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/report/Appendix_5-15.pdf

Map and Analysis Range Coding for use with Appendix 5-15. 

Map 

Number 

Code Description 

17 k12 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, wintering 

18 k13 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering 

19 k14 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, winter and summering 

21 k21 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory 

22 k22 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, wintering 

23 k23 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, summering 

24 k24 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, winter and summer 

29 k34 Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer 

38 p13 Potential occurrence, breeding, summering 

41 p21 Potential occurrence, non-breeding, migratory 

42 p22 Potential occurrence, non-breeding, wintering 

49 p34 Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer 

61 x21 Extirpated, non-breeding, migratory 

62 x22 Extirpated, non-breeding, wintering 

69 x34 Extirpated, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer 
SWReGAP 

 

392 

Appendix 7-1. 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 New Mexico Natural Heritage Program is using the SWReGAP stewardship layer for 

New Mexico to update and add detail to their Managed Areas Database. 

• Sustainable Energy Solutions at Northern Arizona University used SWReGAP land cover 

data to perform an analysis of land suitable for wind energy development on the Navajo 

Nation. 

• The Nature Conservancy in Arizona aggregated 98 land cover types from SWReGAP data 

into 21 potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs). The PNVTs were then assigned a fire 

return interval (FRI) and a map of historic FRIs for Arizona and New Mexico was prepared. 

Stewardship data was used to conduct analyses of FRIs by land tenure. 

• The Nevada Natural Heritage Program used 17,000 plots of SWReGAP ground data to map 

invasive annual grasses across Nevada. 

• The Grand Canyon Wildlands Council used SWReGAP land cover data to analyze the 

distribution of more than 70 ecosystems that provide habitat for 2,577 species in the Grand 

Canyon ecoregion. 

• Researchers with the Craighead Environmental Research Institute and the Wildlands Project 

used Montana GAP vertebrate data to determine the best routes for grizzly bear, elk and 

cougar, moving across the core protected areas of the Northern Rockies -- the SalmonSelway, Northern Continental Divide, and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystems. Potential 

movement corridors were analyzed to find those with habitat most suitable for a wide variety 

of species. The analysis helped to identify high priority conservation areas. 

• Researcher at the University of Georgia with the Georgia Land Use Trends (GLUT) program, 

have used GAP data to help identify threats to biodiversity at the landscape scale. GLUT has 

mapped land cover change in Georgia from 1974 to the present. Currently, the project has 

mapped land cover for 1974, 1985, 1992, and 1998. These land use change data are being 

integrated with GAP data to develop an assessment of threats to areas of high species 

richness, land stewardship areas, and key natural communities. Georgia GAP land cover data 

show significant natural communities. Georgia GAP stewardship data shows which areas are 

protected. GLUT researchers used GAP and GLUT data to assess land use change within 

species richness hexagons and various buffer distances around conservation lands and key 

community types. 

• Researchers at Cornell used Gap state data, along with satellite imagery, GIS, and Breeding 

Bird Atlas data to develop landscape-level habitat models for the Interior Low Plateaus. 

Their goals were to identify areas of species richness, identify and prioritize areas for 

potential acquisition or partnerships, identify areas with high restoration potential, identify 

areas where nesting bird management is a priority, and identify areas that require more 

intensive inventories. 

• 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. 

• Weyerhaeuser Corp. is using the Arkansas GAP data in managing their lands in Arkansas. 
SWReGAP 

 

393 

• Researchers at Michigan's Land Policy Institute used GAP data in the development of a 

framework for prioritizing the extent farmland at risk of conversion to development in the 

state. 

County and City Planning: 

Some other examples of the use of GAP by local governments are: 

• In Nevada, the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan identified 37 species 

that were previously modeled by SWReGAP. Existing SWReGAP models for these species 

were revised based on additional research and included finer scale datasets that were not 

available at a regional scale. Revised models were then reanalyzed by intersection with 

stewardship data. 

• The California Coastal Conservancy used a modified Gap Analysis approach, supplemented 

with groundtruthing and additional data, to select a suite of priority communities in the San 

Francisco Bay area for management plans to focus on. The results were used to educate the 

regional conservation community about the successes and limitations of the current 

conservation reserve system. The Coastal Conservancy encouraged the development of a 

comprehensive regional conservation planning process, which would build upon the results 

of this gap analysis to improve the conservation of ecoregional diversity in the San Francisco 

Bay Area. 

• Pierce County planners used GAP and other data to designate a Biodiversity Management 

Network within their open space maps. Pierce County adopted this revised open space map 

into their Comprehensive Plan and is currently using the Biodiversity Network information in 

the community planning process (Dvornich et al. 2005). GAP predicted species lists, 

augmented by Natural Heritage locations and other data (such as fish and butterfly data) were 

instrumental in the identification of the BMAs. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• The City of Bainbridge Island, Washington, used GAP data to assist them in development of 

a watershed planning project. 

 
SWReGAP 

 

394 

State Uses: 

The following are some examples of uses of GAP data by state agencies. 

• The Nevada Department of Wildlife used SWReGAP data in the development of their State 

Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). Specifically, land cover and stewardship data were used to 

analyze patterns of biodiversity and land use to identify species of conservation priority and 

their key habitats. Ecological systems from SWReGAP land cover were organized into 27 

key habitat types. 

• The Nevada Department of Wildlife used SWReGAP stewardship data to plan 

implementation of the Nevada SWAP by summarizing land ownership and management for 

each key habitat and identifying primary partners for conservation in each habitat. 

• The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands chose to employ SWReGAP data in 

their Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Spatial Analysis Project. The data was used to help 

identify privately owned forested lands with the greatest potential to benefit from FSP 

practices. 

• The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish used SWReGAP data in the development of 

their SWAP. Specific uses include: 1) species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) were 

associated with land cover types to provide a method to identify key habitats; 2) the 

stewardship data layer provided an assessment of conservation prioritization. 

• The Colorado Division of Wildlife used SWReGAP wildlife habitat relationship models to 

identify key habitats for SGCN. 

• The Utah Fire Assessment Project used GAP land cover data to help identify general hazard 

areas at a state-wide level for fire management. The assessment defined, and then ranked 

risks, values, and hazards and assigned a final analysis rating based on a combination of 

these factors. Risk, defined as the potential for fire occurrence, was based upon historical fire 

occurrence, fire size, and ignition source. Values, also called "social concerns" were based on 

features to be protected. Hazard was defined as areas with the potential for extreme fire 

behavior based upon present vegetation. The vegetation map was produced from modified 

Utah GAP Analysis data. 

• The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN-DNR) assembled species richness 

maps of priority bird species by compiling the GAP range extent maps of all priority bird 

species into a statewide hypercoverage for all priority birds by bird habitat groups (open, 

water, and forest). They discovered that Sherburne Wildlife Refuge lies within an Ecological 

Classification System with the highest species richness levels, thus managing the refuge for 

bird conservation would make an important contribution to conservation efforts in the state. 

The area in which Sherburne lies is rich for bird species that have Oak Savannah as their 

priority habitat type. They then used GAP land cover classes to identify potential oak 

savanna within the private lands work area of Sherburne NWR. 

• GAP products are incorporated into the Michigan Department of Natural Resources' 

Integrated Forest Monitoring and Prescription (IFMAP) project. The IFMAP GIS-based 

decision-support system brings GAP products to the desktop of DNR land managers 

throughout Michigan. IFMAP addresses all lands in Michigan, so that decisions that once 

were made only within the context of State land can now be made in concert with other land 

management agencies and the public. This tool supports sound decision making on timber

sales, so that the State of Michigan forest remains a renewable resource. 

• GAP land cover imagery was used by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) 

for locating particular habitat types. Information on the locations of these habitat types is 
SWReGAP 

 

395 

provided by TWRA to the public for a wide variety of public service functions, from 

education to cooperative resource management. 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. 

• The Wyoming Department of Fish and Game 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 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. 

State Wildlife Action Plans: 

Each state in the U.S. was mandated to submit a State Wildlife Action Plan to the federal 

government by October 2005. Each plan included information on species of greatest 

conservation need (SGCN), SGCN habitats, threats to species and habitat, research needs, 

necessary plan actions, and conservation priorities. GAP land cover, species and habitat 

distribution models, and maps were an important component of this planning process. Twentytwo states used GAP land cover data extensively. The vegetation classifications, predicted 

vertebrate distribution maps, aquatic, stewardship, ownership and species richness data, species 

lists, and habitat descriptions were also often used in plan development. 
SWReGAP 

 

396 

Federal Agency Applications: 

Some examples of applications of GAP data by federal agencies follow: 

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using SWReGAP data to formulate conservation 

objectives in the Lower Colorado River watershed. The conservation objectives include: 1) 

coarse-filter objectives based on prioritized ecological systems and 2) objectives based on 

habitat requirements of priority species. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used SWReGAP land cover data to 

modify drafts and final versions of Level 3 and 4 ecoregions in Colorado. In New Mexico, 

SWReGAP data were examined in developing the initial draft of New Mexico ecoregions, 

mapped at 1:250,000 scale. The EPA plans to use the data for ecoregion mapping in Arizona 

also. 

• The Bureau of Land Management state fire management officers in Utah and Nevada used 

SWReGAP land cover data to categorize vegetation layers into fire regimes and condition 

classes (FRCCs). The resulting analysis will assist in fire management planning and with 

establishing hazardous fuels project priorities. 

• The LANDFIRE project maps existing vegetation and structure and used SWReGAP field 

data to train decision-tree models for the project. 

• The USDA-Agricultural Research Service, U.S. EPA, and University of Arizona developed 

the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) tool to facilitate modeling runoff 

at different spatial and temporal scales. SWReGAP land cover data were used in the AGWA 

tool for watershed assessment. 

• The Sagebrush Vegetation Mapping Project, an effort of USGS and Oregon State University, 

used SWReGAP land cover data as one source of data in their mapping of sagebrush and 

steppe vegetation in the Western U.S. 

• 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. 

• 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. 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 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. 
SWReGAP 

 

397 

• 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 U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in New Mexico is using GAP 

clustered imagery as a base for their land cover mapping activities. 

• The Department of Defense developed an electronic environmental information system for 

the Mojave ecoregion, which used GAP data as a foundation or base layer of information. 

The system will link 29 DOD installations to a common source of environmental 

information.
-3 ARIZONA MYOTIS Myotis occultus, 

-2 GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE Centrocercus minimus, 

-1 TRIPLOID CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neotesselatus, 

173429, COUCH'S SPADEFOOT Scaphiopus couchii, 

173438 GREEN FROG Rana clamitans, 

173440 WOOD FROG Rana sylvatica, 

173441 BULLFROG Rana catesbeiana, 

173443 NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG Rana pipiens, 

173446 RED-LEGGED FROG Rana aurora, 

173447 RIO GRANDE LEOPARD FROG Rana berlandieri, 

173448 PLAINS LEOPARD FROG Rana blairi, 

173451 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG Rana chiricahuensis, 

173454 MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG Rana muscosa, 

173457 RELICT LEOPARD FROG Rana onca, 

173458 SPOTTED FROG Rana pretiosa, 

173461 TARAHUMARA FROG Rana tarahumarae, 

173462 YAVAPAI LEOPARD FROG Rana yavapaiensis, 

173468 GREAT PLAINS NARROWMOUTH TOAD Gastrophryne olivacea, 

173476 WOODHOUSE'S TOAD Bufo woodhousii, 

173481 COLORADO RIVER TOAD Bufo alvarius, 

173482 WESTERN TOAD Bufo boreas, 

173484 GREAT PLAINS TOAD Bufo cognatus, 

173485 GREEN TOAD Bufo debilis, 

173490 SOUTHWESTERN TOAD Bufo microscaphus, 

173491 RED-SPOTTED TOAD Bufo punctatus, 

173492 SONORAN GREEN TOAD Bufo retiformis, 

173493 TEXAS TOAD Bufo speciosus, 

173510 CANYON TREEFROG Hyla arenicolor, 

173513 MOUNTAIN TREEFROG Hyla eximia, 

173520 NORTHERN CRICKET FROG Acris crepitans, 

173525 WESTERN CHORUS FROG Pseudacris triseriata, 

173534 LOWLAND BURROWING TREEFROG Pternohyla fodiens, 

173549 AFRICAN CLAWED FROG Xenopus laevis, 

173592 TIGER SALAMANDER Ambystoma tigrinum, 

173663 JEMEZ MOUNTAINS SALAMANDER Plethodon neomexicanus, 

173702 SACRAMENTO MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER Aneides hardii, 

173752 SNAPPING TURTLE Chelydra serpentina, 

173766 YELLOW MUD TURTLE Kinosternon flavescens, 

173768 SONORAN MUD TURTLE Kinosternon sonoriense, 

173774 WESTERN POND TURTLE Clemmys marmorata, 

173778 ORNATE BOX TURTLE Terrapene ornata, 

173783 PAINTED TURTLE Chrysemys picta, 

173819 COMMON SLIDER Trachemys scripta, 

173856 DESERT TORTOISE Gopherus agassizii, 

173865 EASTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus undulatus, 

173868 CLARK'S SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus clarkii, 

173870 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD Sceloporus graciosus, 
173872 YARROW'S SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus jarrovii, 

173873 DESERT SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus magister, 

173875 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD Sceloporus occidentalis, 

173878 CREVICE SPINY LIZARD Sceloporus poinsettii, 

173879 BUNCH GRASS LIZARD Sceloporus scalaris, 

173881 STRIPED PLATEAU LIZARD Sceloporus virgatus, 

173906 ZEBRA-TAILED LIZARD Callisaurus draconoides, 

173910 GREATER EARLESS LIZARD Cophosaurus texanus, 

173912 COLLARED LIZARD Crotaphytus collaris, 

173921 DESERT IGUANA Dipsosaurus dorsalis, 

173924 LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD Gambelia wislizenii, 

173927 LESSER EARLESS LIZARD Holbrookia maculata, 

173938 TEXAS HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma cornutum, 

173941 FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma mcallii, 

173942 ROUND-TAILED HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma modestum, 

173943 DESERT HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma platyrhinos, 

173944 REGAL HORNED LIZARD Phrynosoma solare, 

173949 COLORADO DESERT FRINGE-TOED LIZARD Uma notata, 

173950 MOJAVE FRINGE-TOED LIZARD Uma scoparia, 

173952 LONG-TAILED BRUSH LIZARD Urosaurus graciosus, 

173954 TREE LIZARD Urosaurus ornatus, 

173956 SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD Uta stansburiana, 

173964 MOUNTAIN SKINK Eumeces callicephalus, 

173966 GILBERT'S SKINK Eumeces gilberti, 

173967 MANY-LINED SKINK Eumeces multivirgatus, 

173968 GREAT PLAINS SKINK Eumeces obsoletus, 

173970 WESTERN SKINK Eumeces skiltonianus, 

173971 FOUR-LINED SKINK Eumeces tetragrammus, 

174014 SIX-LINED RACERUNNER Cnemidophorus sexlineatus, 

174015 CANYON SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus burti, 

174016 GRAY-CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus dixoni, 

174017 CHIHUAHUAN SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus exsanguis, 

174018 GILA SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus flagellicaudus, 

174019 TEXAS SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus gularis, 

174021 LITTLE STRIPED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus inornatus, 

174024 NEW MEXICO WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus neomexicanus, 

174025 SONORAN SPOTTED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus sonorae, 

174026 CHECKERED WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tesselatus, 

174038 TEXAS BANDED GECKO Coleonyx brevis, 

174041 WESTERN BANDED GECKO Coleonyx variegatus, 

174092 DESERT NIGHT LIZARD Xantusia vigilis, 

174113 GILA MONSTER Heloderma suspectum, 

174136 COMMON GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis sirtalis, 

174140 WESTERN AQUATIC GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis couchii, 

174141 BLACK-NECKED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis cyrtopsis, 

174142 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis elegans, 

174143 MEXICAN GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis eques, 
174144 CHECKERED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis marcianus, 

174146 WESTERN RIBBON SNAKE Thamnophis proximus, 

174147 PLAINS GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis radix, 

174148 NARROW-HEADED GARTER SNAKE Thamnophis rufipunctatus, 

174155 WESTERN HOG-NOSED SNAKE Heterodon nasicus, 

174158 RING-NECKED SNAKE Diadophis punctatus, 

174169 RACER Coluber constrictor, 

174175 CORN SNAKE Elaphe guttata, 

174187 MILK SNAKE Lampropeltis triangulum, 

174192 SONORAN MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis pyromelana, 

174202 GLOSSY SNAKE Arizona elegans, 

174210 BANDED SAND SNAKE Chilomeniscus cinctus, 

174212 WESTERN SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE Chionactis occipitalis, 

174213 SONORAN SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE Chionactis palarostris, 

174230 WESTERN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE Gyalopion canum, 

174233 NIGHT SNAKE Hypsiglena torquata, 

174237 SONORAN WHIPSNAKE Masticophis bilineatus, 

174238 COACHWHIP Masticophis flagellum, 

174240 STRIPED WHIPSNAKE Masticophis taeniatus, 

174244 PLAIN-BELLIED WATER SNAKE Nerodia erythrogaster, 

174251 NORTHERN WATER SNAKE Nerodia sipedon, 

174258 BROWN VINE SNAKE Oxybelis aeneus, 

174260 SADDLED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE Phyllorhynchus browni, 

174261 SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE Phyllorhynchus decurtatus, 

174267 LONG-NOSED SNAKE Rhinocheilus lecontei, 

174269 BIG BEND PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora deserticola, 

174270 MOUNTAIN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora grahamiae, 

174271 WESTERN PATCH-NOSED SNAKE Salvadora hexalepis, 

174275 GROUND SNAKE Sonora semiannulata, 

174282 SOUTHWESTERN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla hobartsmithi, 

174283 PLAINS BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla nigriceps, 

174288 CHIHUAHUAN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla wilcoxi, 

174289 YAQUI BLACK-HEADED SNAKE Tantilla yaquia, 

174291 WESTERN LYRE SNAKE Trimorphodon biscutatus, 

174293 LINED SNAKE Tropidoclonion lineatum, 

174304 MASSASAUGA Sistrurus catenatus, 

174310 WESTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKE Crotalus atrox, 

174311 SIDEWINDER Crotalus cerastes, 

174312 ROCK RATTLESNAKE Crotalus lepidus, 

174313 SPECKLED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus mitchellii, 

174314 BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus molossus, 

174315 TWIN-SPOTTED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus pricei, 

174317 MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE Crotalus scutulatus, 

174318 TIGER RATTLESNAKE Crotalus tigris, 

174319 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE Crotalus viridis, 

174320 RIDGE-NOSED RATTLESNAKE Crotalus willardi, 

174326 RUBBER BOA Charina bottae, 
174336 TEXAS BLIND SNAKE Leptotyphlops dulcis, 

174337 WESTERN BLIND SNAKE Leptotyphlops humilis, 

174352 WESTERN CORAL SNAKE Micruroides euryxanthus, 

174469 COMMON LOON Gavia immer, 

174470 YELLOW-BILLED LOON Gavia adamsii, 

174474 RED-THROATED LOON Gavia stellata, 

174475 PACIFIC LOON Gavia pacifica, 

174479 RED-NECKED GREBE Podiceps grisegena, 

174482 HORNED GREBE Podiceps auritus, 

174485 EARED GREBE Podiceps nigricollis, 

174503 WESTERN GREBE Aechmophorus occidentalis, 

174505 PIED-BILLED GREBE Podilymbus podiceps, 

174684 AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, 

174717 DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT Phalacrocorax auritus, 

174773 GREAT BLUE HERON Ardea herodias, 

174793 GREEN HERON Butorides virescens, 

174803 CATTLE EGRET Bubulcus ibis, 

174813 SNOWY EGRET Egretta thula, 

174827 LITTLE BLUE HERON Egretta caerulea, 

174832 BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nycticorax nycticorax, 

174842 YELLOW-CROWNED NIGHT-HERON Nyctanassa violacea, 

174846 LEAST BITTERN Ixobrychus exilis, 

174856 AMERICAN BITTERN Botaurus lentiginosus, 

174926 WHITE-FACED IBIS Plegadis chihi, 

174987 TUNDRA SWAN Cygnus columbianus, 

174992 TRUMPETER SWAN Cygnus buccinator, 

174999 CANADA GOOSE Branta canadensis, 

175011 BRANT Branta bernicla, 

175020 GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser albifrons, 

175038 SNOW GOOSE Chen caerulescens, 

175041 ROSS'S GOOSE Chen rossii, 

175044 BLACK-BELLIED WHISTLING-DUCK Dendrocygna autumnalis, 

175063 MALLARD Anas platyrhynchos, 

175068 AMERICAN BLACK DUCK Anas rubripes, 

175073 GADWALL Anas strepera, 

175074 NORTHERN PINTAIL Anas acuta, 

175081 GREEN-WINGED TEAL Anas crecca, 

175086 BLUE-WINGED TEAL Anas discors, 

175089 CINNAMON TEAL Anas cyanoptera, 

175092 EURASIAN WIGEON Anas penelope, 

175094 AMERICAN WIGEON Anas americana, 

175096 NORTHERN SHOVELER Anas clypeata, 

175122 WOOD DUCK Aix sponsa, 

175125 REDHEAD Aythya americana, 

175128 RING-NECKED DUCK Aythya collaris, 

175129 CANVASBACK Aythya valisineria, 

175130 GREATER SCAUP Aythya marila, 
175134 LESSER SCAUP Aythya affinis, 

175141 COMMON GOLDENEYE Bucephala clangula, 

175144 BARROW'S GOLDENEYE Bucephala islandica, 

175145 BUFFLEHEAD Bucephala albeola, 

175147 LONG-TAILED DUCK Clangula hyemalis, 

175149 HARLEQUIN DUCK Histrionicus histrionicus, 

175163 WHITE-WINGED SCOTER Melanitta fusca, 

175170 SURF SCOTER Melanitta perspicillata, 

175175 RUDDY DUCK Oxyura jamaicensis, 

175183 HOODED MERGANSER Lophodytes cucullatus, 

175185 COMMON MERGANSER Mergus merganser, 

175187 RED-BREASTED MERGANSER Mergus serrator, 

175265 TURKEY VULTURE Cathartes aura, 

175272 BLACK VULTURE Coragyps atratus, 

175274 CALIFORNIA CONDOR Gymnogyps californianus, 

175282 WHITE-TAILED KITE Elanus leucurus, 

175300 NORTHERN GOSHAWK Accipiter gentilis, 

175304 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK Accipiter striatus, 

175309 COOPER'S HAWK Accipiter cooperii, 

175350 RED-TAILED HAWK Buteo jamaicensis, 

175365 BROAD-WINGED HAWK Buteo platypterus, 

175367 SWAINSON'S HAWK Buteo swainsoni, 

175368 ZONE-TAILED HAWK Buteo albonotatus, 

175373 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK Buteo lagopus, 

175377 FERRUGINOUS HAWK Buteo regalis, 

175397 HARRIS'S HAWK Parabuteo unicinctus, 

175402 COMMON BLACK-HAWK Buteogallus anthracinus, 

175407 GOLDEN EAGLE Aquila chrysaetos, 

175420 BALD EAGLE Haliaeetus leucocephalus, 

175430 NORTHERN HARRIER Circus cyaneus, 

175590 OSPREY Pandion haliaetus, 

175599 GYRFALCON Falco rusticolus, 

175603 PRAIRIE FALCON Falco mexicanus, 

175604 PEREGRINE FALCON Falco peregrinus, 

175610 APLOMADO FALCON Falco femoralis, 

175613 MERLIN Falco columbarius, 

175622 AMERICAN KESTREL Falco sparverius, 

175790 RUFFED GROUSE Bonasa umbellus, 

175827 WHITE-TAILED PTARMIGAN Lagopus leucurus, 

175834 GREATER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus cupido, 

175838 LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN Tympanuchus pallidicinctus, 

175841 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE Tympanuchus phasianellus, 

175848 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE-COLUMBIAN Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus, 

175852 SHARP-TAILED GROUSE-PLAINS Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesi, 

175855 GREATER SAGE-GROUSE Centrocercus urophasianus, 

175860 BLUE GROUSE Dendragapus obscurus, 

175863 NORTHERN BOBWHITE Colinus virginianus, 
175872 SCALED QUAIL Callipepla squamata, 

175876 CALIFORNIA QUAIL Callipepla californica, 

175877 GAMBEL'S QUAIL Callipepla gambelii, 

175893 MOUNTAIN QUAIL Oreortyx pictus, 

175900 MONTEZUMA QUAIL Cyrtonyx montezumae, 

175905 RING-NECKED PHEASANT Phasianus colchicus, 

175908 CHUKAR Alectoris chukar, 

175915 GRAY PARTRIDGE Perdix perdix, 

176136 WILD TURKEY Meleagris gallopavo, 

176176 WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana, 

176177 SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis, 

176177 SANDHILL CRANE Grus canadensis, 

176209 CLAPPER RAIL Rallus longirostris, 

176221 VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicola, 

176221 VIRGINIA RAIL Rallus limicola, 

176242 SORA Porzana carolina, 

176263 BLACK RAIL Laterallus jamaicensis, 

176284 COMMON MOORHEN Gallinula chloropus, 

176292 AMERICAN COOT Fulica americana, 

176506 SEMIPALMATED PLOVER Charadrius semipalmatus, 

176507 PIPING PLOVER Charadrius melodus, 

176510 SNOWY PLOVER Charadrius alexandrinus, 

176520 KILLDEER Charadrius vociferus, 

176522 MOUNTAIN PLOVER Charadrius montanus, 

176564 AMERICAN GOLDEN-PLOVER Pluvialis dominica, 

176567 BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER Pluvialis squatarola, 

176571 RUDDY TURNSTONE Arenaria interpres, 

176580 AMERICAN WOODCOCK Scolopax minor, 

176593 LONG-BILLED CURLEW Numenius americanus, 

176599 WHIMBREL Numenius phaeopus, 

176610 UPLAND SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda, 

176612 SPOTTED SANDPIPER Actitis macularia, 

176615 SOLITARY SANDPIPER Tringa solitaria, 

176619 GREATER YELLOWLEGS Tringa melanoleuca, 

176620 LESSER YELLOWLEGS Tringa flavipes, 

176638 WILLET Catoptrophorus semipalmatus, 

176642 RED KNOT Calidris canutus, 

176653 PECTORAL SANDPIPER Calidris melanotos, 

176654 WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER Calidris fuscicollis, 

176655 BAIRD'S SANDPIPER Calidris bairdii, 

176656 LEAST SANDPIPER Calidris minutilla, 

176661 DUNLIN Calidris alpina, 

176667 SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER Calidris pusilla, 

176668 WESTERN SANDPIPER Calidris mauri, 

176669 SANDERLING Calidris alba, 

176675 SHORT-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus griseus, 

176679 LONG-BILLED DOWITCHER Limnodromus scolopaceus, 
176684 BUFF-BREASTED SANDPIPER Tryngites subruficollis, 

176686 MARBLED GODWIT Limosa fedoa, 

176700 COMMON SNIPE Gallinago gallinago, 

176721 AMERICAN AVOCET Recurvirostra americana, 

176726 BLACK-NECKED STILT Himantopus mexicanus, 

176735 RED-NECKED PHALAROPE Phalaropus lobatus, 

176736 WILSON'S PHALAROPE Phalaropus tricolor, 

176808 GLAUCOUS GULL Larus hyperboreus, 

176824 HERRING GULL Larus argentatus, 

176828 THAYER'S GULL Larus thayeri, 

176829 CALIFORNIA GULL Larus californicus, 

176830 RING-BILLED GULL Larus delawarensis, 

176838 FRANKLIN'S GULL Larus pipixcan, 

176839 BONAPARTE'S GULL Larus philadelphia, 

176866 SABINE'S GULL Xema sabini, 

176887 FORSTER'S TERN Sterna forsteri, 

176888 COMMON TERN Sterna hirundo, 

176923 LEAST TERN Sterna antillarum, 

176924 CASPIAN TERN Sterna caspia, 

176959 BLACK TERN Chlidonias niger, 

177065 BAND-TAILED PIGEON Columba fasciata, 

177071 ROCK DOVE Columba livia, 

177121 WHITE-WINGED DOVE Zenaida asiatica, 

177125 MOURNING DOVE Zenaida macroura, 

177134 SPOTTED DOVE Streptopelia chinensis, 

177152 COMMON GROUND-DOVE Columbina passerina, 

177162 INCA DOVE Columbina inca, 

177831 YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus americanus, 

177834 BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO Coccyzus erythropthalmus, 

177836 GREATER ROADRUNNER Geococcyx californianus, 

177851 COMMON BARN-OWL Tyto alba, 

177856 EASTERN SCREECH-OWL Otus asio, 

177875 WHISKERED SCREECH-OWL Otus trichopsis, 

177878 FLAMMULATED OWL Otus flammeolus, 

177884 GREAT HORNED OWL Bubo virginianus, 

177896 SNOWY OWL Nyctea scandiaca, 

177902 NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium gnoma, 

177908 FERRUGINOUS PYGMY-OWL Glaucidium brasilianum, 

177912 ELF OWL Micrathene whitneyi, 

177925 SPOTTED OWL Strix occidentalis, 

177932 LONG-EARED OWL Asio otus, 

177935 SHORT-EARED OWL Asio flammeus, 

177938 BOREAL OWL Aegolius funereus, 

177942 NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL Aegolius acadicus, 

177946 BURROWING OWL Athene cunicularia, 

177961 WHIP-POOR-WILL Caprimulgus vociferus, 

177966 BUFF-COLLARED NIGHTJAR Caprimulgus ridgwayi, 
177979 COMMON NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles minor, 

177988 LESSER NIGHTHAWK Chordeiles acutipennis, 

177997 BLACK SWIFT Cypseloides niger, 

178001 CHIMNEY SWIFT Chaetura pelagica, 

178002 VAUX'S SWIFT Chaetura vauxi, 

178014 WHITE-THROATED SWIFT Aeronautes saxatalis, 

178030 LUCIFER HUMMINGBIRD Calothorax lucifer, 

178033 BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD Archilochus alexandri, 

178035 COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte costae, 

178036 ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD Calypte anna, 

178038 BROAD-TAILED HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus platycercus, 

178040 RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus rufus, 

178041 ALLEN'S HUMMINGBIRD Selasphorus sasin, 

178048 CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD Stellula calliope, 

178050 MAGNIFICENT HUMMINGBIRD Eugenes fulgens, 

178054 BLUE-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD Lampornis clemenciae, 

178065 BERYLLINE HUMMINGBIRD Amazilia beryllina, 

178066 VIOLET-CROWNED HUMMINGBIRD Amazilia violiceps, 

178069 WHITE-EARED HUMMINGBIRD Hylocharis leucotis, 

178073 BROAD-BILLED HUMMINGBIRD Cynanthus latirostris, 

178096 ELEGANT TROGON Trogon elegans, 

178101 EARED TROGON Euptilotis neoxenus, 

178112 GREEN KINGFISHER Chloroceryle americana, 

178119 BELTED KINGFISHER Ceryle alcyon, 

178154 NORTHERN FLICKER Colaptes auratus, 

178164 GILDED FLICKER Colaptes chrysoides, 

178186 RED-HEADED WOODPECKER Melanerpes erythrocephalus, 

178189 ACORN WOODPECKER Melanerpes formicivorus, 

178195 RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER Melanerpes carolinus, 

178196 LEWIS'S WOODPECKER Melanerpes lewis, 

178198 GILA WOODPECKER Melanerpes uropygialis, 

178208 WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus thyroideus, 

178211 RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus nuchalis, 

178212 RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER Sphyrapicus ruber, 

178251 THREE-TOED WOODPECKER Picoides tridactylus, 

178256 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER Picoides albolarvatus, 

178259 DOWNY WOODPECKER Picoides pubescens, 

178260 LADDER-BACKED WOODPECKER Picoides scalaris, 

178261 STRICKLAND'S WOODPECKER Picoides stricklandi, 

178262 HAIRY WOODPECKER Picoides villosus, 

178279 EASTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus tyrannus, 

178282 TROPICAL KINGBIRD Tyrannus melancholicus, 

178287 WESTERN KINGBIRD Tyrannus verticalis, 

178288 CASSIN'S KINGBIRD Tyrannus vociferans, 

178292 THICK-BILLED KINGBIRD Tyrannus crassirostris, 

178293 SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER Tyrannus forficatus, 

178305 SULPHUR-BELLIED FLYCATCHER Myiodynastes luteiventris, 
178309 GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus crinitus, 

178312 BROWN-CRESTED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus tyrannulus, 

178316 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus cinerascens, 

178319 DUSKY-CAPPED FLYCATCHER Myiarchus tuberculifer, 

178329 EASTERN PHOEBE Sayornis phoebe, 

178330 BLACK PHOEBE Sayornis nigricans, 

178333 SAY'S PHOEBE Sayornis saya, 

178340 ALDER FLYCATCHER Empidonax alnorum, 

178341 WILLOW FLYCATCHER Empidonax traillii, 

178346 DUSKY FLYCATCHER Empidonax oberholseri, 

178347 GRAY FLYCATCHER Empidonax wrightii, 

178348 PACIFIC-SLOPE FLYCATCHER Empidonax difficilis, 

178352 BUFF-BREASTED FLYCATCHER Empidonax fulvifrons, 

178356 GREATER PEWEE Contopus pertinax, 

178360 WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE Contopus sordidulus, 

178371 VERMILION FLYCATCHER Pyrocephalus rubinus, 

178376 NORTHERN BEARDLESS-TYRANNULET Camptostoma imberbe, 

178384 ROSE-THROATED BECARD Pachyramphus aglaiae, 

178427 VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW Tachycineta thalassina, 

178431 TREE SWALLOW Tachycineta bicolor, 

178436 BANK SWALLOW Riparia riparia, 

178443 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW Stelgidopteryx serripennis, 

178448 BARN SWALLOW Hirundo rustica, 

178455 CLIFF SWALLOW Petrochelidon pyrrhonota, 

178460 CAVE SWALLOW Petrochelidon fulva, 

178464 PURPLE MARTIN Progne subis, 

178499 SPRAGUE'S PIPIT Anthus spragueii, 

178511 NORTHERN SHRIKE Lanius excubitor, 

178515 LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE Lanius ludovicianus, 

178529 BOHEMIAN WAXWING Bombycilla garrulus, 

178532 CEDAR WAXWING Bombycilla cedrorum, 

178536 AMERICAN DIPPER Cinclus mexicanus, 

178541 HOUSE WREN Troglodytes aedon, 

178547 WINTER WREN Troglodytes troglodytes, 

178562 BEWICK'S WREN Thryomanes bewickii, 

178581 CAROLINA WREN Thryothorus ludovicianus, 

178587 CACTUS WREN Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus, 

178605 SEDGE WREN Cistothorus platensis, 

178608 MARSH WREN Cistothorus palustris, 

178610 CANYON WREN Catherpes mexicanus, 

178614 ROCK WREN Salpinctes obsoletus, 

178620 NORTHERN MOCKINGBIRD Mimus polyglottos, 

178625 GRAY CATBIRD Dumetella carolinensis, 

178627 BROWN THRASHER Toxostoma rufum, 

178636 BENDIRE'S THRASHER Toxostoma bendirei, 

178637 CURVE-BILLED THRASHER Toxostoma curvirostre, 

178645 LE CONTE'S THRASHER Toxostoma lecontei, 
178652 CRISSAL THRASHER Toxostoma crissale, 

178654 SAGE THRASHER Oreoscoptes montanus, 

178759 VERDIN Auriparus flaviceps, 

178764 BUSHTIT Psaltriparus minimus, 

178775 WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta carolinensis, 

178784 RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH Sitta canadensis, 

178788 PYGMY NUTHATCH Sitta pygmaea, 

178803 BROWN CREEPER Certhia americana, 

178841 RUFOUS-CAPPED WARBLER Basileuterus rufifrons, 

178844 BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER Mniotilta varia, 

178855 TENNESSEE WARBLER Vermivora peregrina, 

178856 ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER Vermivora celata, 

178861 NASHVILLE WARBLER Vermivora ruficapilla, 

178864 VIRGINIA'S WARBLER Vermivora virginiae, 

178866 LUCY'S WARBLER Vermivora luciae, 

178874 OLIVE WARBLER Peucedramus taeniatus, 

178878 YELLOW WARBLER Dendroica petechia, 

178891 YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER Dendroica coronata, 

178896 BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER Dendroica nigrescens, 

178897 TOWNSEND'S WARBLER Dendroica townsendi, 

178902 HERMIT WARBLER Dendroica occidentalis, 

178909 GRACE'S WARBLER Dendroica graciae, 

178913 BLACKPOLL WARBLER Dendroica striata, 

178918 PRAIRIE WARBLER Dendroica discolor, 

178921 PALM WARBLER Dendroica palmarum, 

178927 OVENBIRD Seiurus aurocapillus, 

178931 NORTHERN WATERTHRUSH Seiurus noveboracensis, 

178940 MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER Oporornis tolmiei, 

178944 COMMON YELLOWTHROAT Geothlypis trichas, 

178964 YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT Icteria virens, 

178970 RED-FACED WARBLER Cardellina rubrifrons, 

178973 WILSON'S WARBLER Wilsonia pusilla, 

178979 AMERICAN REDSTART Setophaga ruticilla, 

178986 PAINTED REDSTART Myioborus pictus, 

178997 HUTTON'S VIREO Vireo huttoni, 

179003 BELL'S VIREO Vireo bellii, 

179008 GRAY VIREO Vireo vicinior, 

179021 RED-EYED VIREO Vireo olivaceus, 

179023 WARBLING VIREO Vireo gilvus, 

179032 BOBOLINK Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 

179034 EASTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella magna, 

179039 WESTERN MEADOWLARK Sturnella neglecta, 

179043 YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus, 

179045 RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD Agelaius phoeniceus, 

179060 TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD Agelaius tricolor, 

179064 ORCHARD ORIOLE Icterus spurius, 

179070 HOODED ORIOLE Icterus cucullatus, 
179079 STREAK-BACKED ORIOLE Icterus pustulatus, 

179082 SCOTT'S ORIOLE Icterus parisorum, 

179083 BALTIMORE ORIOLE Icterus galbula, 

179094 BREWER'S BLACKBIRD Euphagus cyanocephalus, 

179104 COMMON GRACKLE Quiscalus quiscula, 

179109 GREAT-TAILED GRACKLE Quiscalus mexicanus, 

179112 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD Molothrus ater, 

179116 BRONZED COWBIRD Molothrus aeneus, 

179124 NORTHERN CARDINAL Cardinalis cardinalis, 

179132 PYRRHULOXIA Cardinalis sinuatus, 

179139 ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK Pheucticus ludovicianus, 

179140 BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK Pheucticus melanocephalus, 

179145 BLUE GROSBEAK Guiraca caerulea, 

179150 INDIGO BUNTING Passerina cyanea, 

179151 LAZULI BUNTING Passerina amoena, 

179152 VARIED BUNTING Passerina versicolor, 

179156 PAINTED BUNTING Passerina ciris, 

179165 DICKCISSEL Spiza americana, 

179173 EVENING GROSBEAK Coccothraustes vespertinus, 

179186 PURPLE FINCH Carpodacus purpureus, 

179190 CASSIN'S FINCH Carpodacus cassinii, 

179191 HOUSE FINCH Carpodacus mexicanus, 

179205 PINE GROSBEAK Pinicola enucleator, 

179215 GRAY-CROWNED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte tephrocotis, 

179222 BLACK ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte atrata, 

179222 BLACK ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte atrata, 

179223 BROWN-CAPPED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte australis, 

179223 BROWN-CAPPED ROSY-FINCH Leucosticte australis, 

179230 COMMON REDPOLL Carduelis flammea, 

179232 LAWRENCE'S GOLDFINCH Carduelis lawrencei, 

179233 PINE SISKIN Carduelis pinus, 

179234 LESSER GOLDFINCH Carduelis psaltria, 

179236 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH Carduelis tristis, 

179259 RED CROSSBILL Loxia curvirostra, 

179268 WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL Loxia leucoptera, 

179293 CANYON TOWHEE Pipilo fuscus, 

179307 ABERT'S TOWHEE Pipilo aberti, 

179310 GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE Pipilo chlorurus, 

179312 LARK BUNTING Calamospiza melanocorys, 

179314 SAVANNAH SPARROW Passerculus sandwichensis, 

179333 GRASSHOPPER SPARROW Ammodramus savannarum, 

179339 BAIRD'S SPARROW Ammodramus bairdii, 

179345 LE CONTE'S SPARROW Ammodramus leconteii, 

179366 VESPER SPARROW Pooecetes gramineus, 

179371 LARK SPARROW Chondestes grammacus, 

179375 RUFOUS-WINGED SPARROW Aimophila carpalis, 

179377 RUFOUS-CROWNED SPARROW Aimophila ruficeps, 
179390 BOTTERI'S SPARROW Aimophila botterii, 

179393 CASSIN'S SPARROW Aimophila cassinii, 

179395 BLACK-THROATED SPARROW Amphispiza bilineata, 

179402 SAGE SPARROW Amphispiza belli, 

179410 DARK-EYED JUNCO Junco hyemalis, 

179427 YELLOW-EYED JUNCO Junco phaeonotus, 

179432 AMERICAN TREE SPARROW Spizella arborea, 

179435 CHIPPING SPARROW Spizella passerina, 

179439 CLAY-COLORED SPARROW Spizella pallida, 

179440 BREWER'S SPARROW Spizella breweri, 

179443 FIELD SPARROW Spizella pusilla, 

179448 BLACK-CHINNED SPARROW Spizella atrogularis, 

179454 HARRIS'S SPARROW Zonotrichia querula, 

179455 WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia leucophrys, 

179461 GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW Zonotrichia atricapilla, 

179462 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW Zonotrichia albicollis, 

179464 FOX SPARROW Passerella iliaca, 

179484 LINCOLN'S SPARROW Melospiza lincolnii, 

179488 SWAMP SPARROW Melospiza georgiana, 

179492 SONG SPARROW Melospiza melodia, 

179525 MCCOWN'S LONGSPUR Calcarius mccownii, 

179526 LAPLAND LONGSPUR Calcarius lapponicus, 

179530 CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR Calcarius ornatus, 

179532 SNOW BUNTING Plectrophenax nivalis, 

179628 HOUSE SPARROW Passer domesticus, 

179637 EUROPEAN STARLING Sturnus vulgaris, 

179667 GRAY JAY Perisoreus canadensis, 

179680 BLUE JAY Cyanocitta cristata, 

179685 STELLER'S JAY Cyanocitta stelleri, 

179707 MEXICAN JAY Aphelocoma ultramarina, 

179720 BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE Pica hudsonia, 

179725 COMMON RAVEN Corvus corax, 

179730 CHIHUAHUAN RAVEN Corvus cryptoleucus, 

179731 AMERICAN CROW Corvus brachyrhynchos, 

179748 PINYON JAY Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus, 

179750 CLARK'S NUTCRACKER Nucifraga columbiana, 

179759 AMERICAN ROBIN Turdus migratorius, 

179773 VARIED THRUSH Ixoreus naevius, 

179777 WOOD THRUSH Hylocichla mustelina, 

179779 HERMIT THRUSH Catharus guttatus, 

179788 SWAINSON'S THRUSH Catharus ustulatus, 

179793 GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH Catharus minimus, 

179796 VEERY Catharus fuscescens, 

179801 EASTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia sialis, 

179806 WESTERN BLUEBIRD Sialia mexicana, 

179811 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD Sialia currucoides, 

179824 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE Myadestes townsendi, 
179853 BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER Polioptila caerulea, 

179857 BLACK-TAILED GNATCATCHER Polioptila melanura, 

179863 BLACK-CAPPED GNATCATCHER Polioptila nigriceps, 

179865 GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus satrapa, 

179870 RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET Regulus calendula, 

179877 PHAINOPEPLA Phainopepla nitens, 

179882 WESTERN TANAGER Piranga ludoviciana, 

179884 HEPATIC TANAGER Piranga flava, 

179888 SUMMER TANAGER Piranga rubra, 

179891 FLAME-COLORED TANAGER Piranga bidentata, 

179921 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM Didelphis virginiana, 

179929 MASKED SHREW Sorex cinereus, 

179932 VAGRANT SHREW Sorex vagrans, 

179933 NORTHERN WATER SHREW Sorex palustris, 

179939 ARIZONA SHREW Sorex arizonae, 

179946 PYGMY SHREW Sorex hoyi, 

179949 MERRIAM'S SHREW Sorex merriami, 

179950 MONTANE SHREW Sorex monticolus, 

179951 DWARF SHREW Sorex nanus, 

179954 PREBLE'S SHREW Sorex preblei, 

179955 INYO SHREW Sorex tenellus, 

179956 TROWBRIDGE'S SHREW Sorex trowbridgii, 

179969 ELLIOT'S SHORT-TAILED SHREW Blarina hylophaga, 

179971 LEAST SHREW Cryptotis parva, 

179973 DESERT SHREW Notiosorex crawfordi, 

179979 EASTERN MOLE Scalopus aquaticus, 

179981 BROAD-FOOTED MOLE Scapanus latimanus, 

179988 LITTLE BROWN BAT Myotis lucifugus, 

179990 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS Myotis volans, 

179991 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS Myotis californicus, 

179992 SOUTHWESTERN MYOTIS Myotis auriculus, 

179995 LONG-EARED MYOTIS Myotis evotis, 

179999 WESTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS Myotis leibii, 

180002 FRINGED MYOTIS Myotis thysanodes, 

180003 CAVE MYOTIS Myotis velifer, 

180004 YUMA MYOTIS Myotis yumanensis, 

180006 PALLID BAT Antrozous pallidus, 

180008 BIG BROWN BAT Eptesicus fuscus, 

180010 SPOTTED BAT Euderma maculatum, 

180012 ALLEN'S BIG-EARED BAT Idionycteris phyllotis, 

180014 SILVER-HAIRED BAT Lasionycteris noctivagans, 

180016 WESTERN RED BAT Lasiurus blossevillii, 

180017 HOARY BAT Lasiurus cinereus, 

180018 SOUTHERN YELLOW BAT Lasiurus ega, 

180024 WESTERN PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus hesperus, 

180062 MEXICAN LONG-TONGUED BAT Choeronycteris mexicana, 

180068 MEXICAN LONG-NOSED BAT Leptonycteris nivalis, 
180071 CALIFORNIA LEAF-NOSED BAT Macrotus californicus, 

180080 WESTERN MASTIFF BAT Eumops perotis, 

180081 UNDERWOOD'S MASTIFF BAT Eumops underwoodi, 

180085 POCKETED FREE-TAILED BAT Nyctinomops femorosaccus, 

180086 BIG FREE-TAILED BAT Nyctinomops macrotis, 

180088 BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT Tadarida brasiliensis, 

180103 NINE-BANDED ARMADILLO Dasypus novemcinctus, 

180109 AMERICAN PIKA Ochotona princeps, 

180112 SNOWSHOE HARE Lepus americanus, 

180114 ANTELOPE JACK RABBIT Lepus alleni, 

180115 BLACK-TAILED JACK RABBIT Lepus californicus, 

180116 WHITE-SIDED JACK RABBIT Lepus callotis, 

180118 WHITE-TAILED JACK RABBIT Lepus townsendii, 

180122 DESERT COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus audubonii, 

180124 EASTERN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus floridanus, 

180126 MOUNTAIN COTTONTAIL Sylvilagus nuttallii, 

180133 MOUNTAIN BEAVER Aplodontia rufa, 

180140 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT Marmota flaviventris, 

180147 UINTA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus armatus, 

180148 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beecheyi, 

180149 BELDING'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus beldingi, 

180152 WYOMING GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus elegans, 

180154 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus lateralis, 

180155 MEXICAN GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus mexicanus, 

180159 SPOTTED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus spilosoma, 

180160 ROUND-TAILED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tereticaudus, 

180161 TOWNSEND'S GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus townsendii, 

180162 THIRTEEN-LINED GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus tridecemlineatus, 

180163 ROCK SQUIRREL Spermophilus variegatus, 

180166 RED SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, 

180167 DOUGLAS' SQUIRREL Tamiasciurus douglasii, 

180169 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL Glaucomys sabrinus, 

180172 FOX SQUIRREL Sciurus niger, 

180173 ABERT'S SQUIRREL Sciurus aberti, 

180174 ARIZONA GRAY SQUIRREL Sciurus arizonensis, 

180176 WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL Sciurus griseus, 

180177 NAYARIT SQUIRREL Sciurus nayaritensis, 

180179 HARRIS' ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus harrisii, 

180180 TEXAS ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus interpres, 

180181 WHITE-TAILED ANTELOPE SQUIRREL Ammospermophilus leucurus, 

180184 GUNNISON'S PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys gunnisoni, 

180185 WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys leucurus, 

180186 BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys ludovicianus, 

180187 UTAH PRAIRIE DOG Cynomys parvidens, 

180190 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK Tamias amoenus, 

180191 GRAY-FOOTED CHIPMUNK Tamias canipes, 

180192 GRAY-COLLARED CHIPMUNK Tamias cinereicollis, 
180193 CLIFF CHIPMUNK Tamias dorsalis, 

180195 LEAST CHIPMUNK Tamias minimus, 

180198 PALMER'S CHIPMUNK Tamias palmeri, 

180199 PANAMINT CHIPMUNK Tamias panamintinus, 

180200 LONG-EARED CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrimaculatus, 

180201 COLORADO CHIPMUNK Tamias quadrivittatus, 

180203 ALLEN'S CHIPMUNK Tamias senex,, 

180206 LODGEPOLE CHIPMUNK Tamias speciosus, 

180208 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK Tamias townsendii,, 

180209 UINTA CHIPMUNK Tamias umbrinus,, 

180212 BEAVER Castor canadensis, 

180215 DESERT POCKET GOPHER Geomys arenarius, 

180216 PLAINS POCKET GOPHER Geomys bursarius, 

180220 YELLOW-FACED POCKET GOPHER Pappogeomys castanops, 

180222 BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER Thomomys bottae, 

180225 IDAHO POCKET GOPHER Thomomys idahoensis, 

180227 MOUNTAIN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys monticola, 

180228 NORTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys talpoides, 

180229 TOWNSEND'S POCKET GOPHER Thomomys townsendii, 

180230 SOUTHERN POCKET GOPHER Thomomys umbrinus, 

180236 DESERT KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys deserti, 

180241 MERRIAM'S KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys merriami, 

180242 CHISEL-TOOTHED KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys microps, 

180244 ORD'S KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys ordii, 

180245 PANAMINT KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys panamintinus, 

180246 BANNER-TAILED KANGAROO RAT Dipodomys spectabilis, 

180252 DARK KANGAROO MOUSE Microdipodops megacephalus, 

180253 PALE KANGAROO MOUSE Microdipodops pallidus, 

180256 ARIZONA POCKET MOUSE Perognathus amplus, 

180260 OLIVE-BACKED POCKET MOUSE Perognathus fasciatus, 

180261 PLAINS POCKET MOUSE Perognathus flavescens, 

180262 SILKY POCKET MOUSE Perognathus flavus, 

180267 LITTLE POCKET MOUSE Perognathus longimembris, 

180269 GREAT BASIN POCKET MOUSE Perognathus parvus, 

180276 DEER MOUSE Peromyscus maniculatus, 

180278 WHITE-FOOTED MOUSE Peromyscus leucopus, 

180282 BRUSH MOUSE Peromyscus boylii, 

180284 CANYON MOUSE Peromyscus crinitus, 

180286 CACTUS MOUSE Peromyscus eremicus, 

180287 BLACK-EARED MOUSE Peromyscus melanotis, 

180288 MERRIAM'S MOUSE Peromyscus merriami, 

180289 WHITE-ANKLED MOUSE Peromyscus pectoralis, 

180291 PINON MOUSE Peromyscus truei, 

180294 SOUTHERN RED-BACKED VOLE Clethrionomys gapperi, 

180297 MEADOW VOLE Microtus pennsylvanicus, 

180299 LONG-TAILED VOLE Microtus longicaudus, 

180310 MONTANE VOLE Microtus montanus, 
180312 PRAIRIE VOLE Microtus ochrogaster, 

180315 WATER VOLE Microtus richardsoni, 

180318 MUSKRAT Ondatra zibethicus, 

180341 FULVOUS HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys fulvescens, 

180343 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys megalotis, 

180344 PLAINS HARVEST MOUSE Reithrodontomys montanus, 

180347 ARIZONA COTTON RAT Sigmodon arizonae, 

180348 TAWNY-BELLIED COTTON RAT Sigmodon fulviventer, 

180349 HISPID COTTON RAT Sigmodon hispidus, 

180350 YELLOW-NOSED COTTON RAT Sigmodon ochrognathus, 

180359 HEATHER VOLE Phenacomys intermedius, 

180366 HOUSE MOUSE Mus musculus, 

180368 NORTHERN PYGMY MOUSE Baiomys taylori, 

180370 WHITE-THROATED WOODRAT Neotoma albigula, 

180371 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT Neotoma cinerea, 

180372 EASTERN WOODRAT Neotoma floridana, 

180374 DESERT WOODRAT Neotoma lepida, 

180375 MEXICAN WOODRAT Neotoma mexicana, 

180376 SOUTHERN PLAINS WOODRAT Neotoma micropus, 

180377 STEPHENS' WOODRAT Neotoma stephensi, 

180381 MEARNS' GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys arenicola, 

180382 NORTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys leucogaster, 

180383 SOUTHERN GRASSHOPPER MOUSE Onychomys torridus, 

180386 MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE Zapus hudsonius, 

180387 WESTERN JUMPING MOUSE Zapus princeps, 

180393 PORCUPINE Erethizon dorsatum, 

180543 BROWN BEAR Ursus arctos, 

180544 AMERICAN BLACK BEAR Ursus americanus, 

180549 RIVER OTTER Lontra canadensis, 

180551 WOLVERINE Gulo gulo, 

180553 MINK Mustela vison, 

180555 ERMINE Mustela erminea, 

180556 LONG-TAILED WEASEL Mustela frenata, 

180557 BLACK-FOOTED FERRET Mustela nigripes, 

180559 MARTEN Martes americana, 

180560 FISHER Martes pennanti, 

180562 STRIPED SKUNK Mephitis mephitis, 

180563 HOODED SKUNK Mephitis macroura, 

180565 BADGER Taxidea taxus, 

180568 HOG-NOSED SKUNK Conepatus mesoleucus, 

180570 EASTERN SPOTTED SKUNK Spilogale putorius, 

180575 RACCOON Procyon lotor, 

180577 RINGTAIL Bassariscus astutus, 

180582 BOBCAT Lynx rufus, 

180585 LYNX Lynx canadensis, 

180593 JAGUAR Panthera onca, 

180596 GRAY WOLF Canis lupus, 
180599 COYOTE Canis latrans, 

180604 RED FOX Vulpes vulpes, 

180606 KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis, 

180607 SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox, 

180609 GRAY FOX Urocyon cinereoargenteus, 

180695 WAPITI Cervus elaphus, 

180698 MULE DEER Odocoileus hemionus, 

180699 WHITE-TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus, 

180703 MOOSE Alces alces, 

180711 BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis canadensis, 

180713 MOUNTAIN GOAT Oreamnos americanus, 

180717 PRONGHORN Antilocapra americana, 

180719 BARBARY SHEEP Ammotragus lervia 203452 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT Corynorhinus townsendii 203618 BISON Bo
B

208680 SPINY SOFTSHELL TURTLE

T

A

A

B

U

S

180599 COYOTE Canis latrans

180604 RED FOX Vulpes vulpes

180606 KIT FOX Vulpes macrotis

180607 SWIFT FOX Vulpes velox

180609 GRAY FOX Urocyon cinereoargenteus

180695 WAPITI Cervus elaphus

180698 MULE DEER Odocoileus hemionus

180699 WHITE‐TAILED DEER Odocoileus virginianus

180703 MOOSE Alces alces

180711 BIGHORN SHEEP Ovis canadensis

180717 PRONGHORN Antilocapra americana

180719 BARBARY SHEEP Ammotragus lervia

203452 TOWNSEND'S BIG‐EARED Corynorhinus townsendii

203618 BISON Bos bison

206989 PLAINS SPADEFOOT Spea bombifrons

206991 GREAT BASIN SPADEFOOT Spea intermontana

206993 NEW MEXICO SPADEFOOT Spea multiplicata

207312 BOREAL CHORUS FROG Pseudacris maculata

207313 PACIFIC CHORUS FROG Pseudacris regilla

207724 BARKING FROG Eleutherodactylus augusti

208657 BIG BEND SLIDER Trachemys gaigeae

208680 SPINY SOFTSHELL TURTLE Apalone spinifera pinifera

208791 MOJAVE BLACK‐COLLARED Crotaphytus bicinctores

208940 WESTERN WHIPTAIL Cnemidophorus tigris

208947 DESERT GRASSLAND WHIP Cnemidophorus uniparens

208948 PLATEAU STRIPED WHIPTA Cnemidophorus velox

209008 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZ Elgaria coerulea

209017 MADREAN ALLIGATOR LIZ Elgaria kingii

209247 COMMON KINGSNAKE Lampropeltis getula

209266 GRAY‐BANDED KINGSNAKELampropeltis alterna

209400 BULLSNAKE Pituophis catenifer

209455 TRANS‐PECOS RAT SNAKE Bogertophis subocularis

209458 GREEN RAT SNAKE Senticolis triaspis

550236 AMARGOSA TOAD Bufo nelsoni

550546 COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG Rana luteiventris

551766 RIO GRANDE RIVER COOTE Pseudemys gorzugi

552462 WHITE‐NOSED COATI Nasua narica

552464 SOUTHERN LONG‐NOSED Leptonycteris curasoae

552479 MOUNTAIN LION Puma concolor

552482 LONG‐TAILED POCKET MO Chaetodipus formosus

552483 HISPID POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus hispidus

552484 ROCK POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus intermedius

552486 DESERT POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus penicillatus

552488 MERRIAM'S POCKET MOU Perognathus merriami

552490 SAGEBRUSH VOLE Lemmiscus curtatus

552494 ARIZONA WOODRAT Neotoma devia
I

554256 HORNED LARK

E

N

Z

552495 OSGOOD'S MOUSE Peromyscus gratus

552496 ROCK MOUSE Peromyscus nasutus

552499 MERRIAM'S GROUND SQU Spermophilus canus

552503 HOPI CHIPMUNK Tamias rufus

552504 PIUTE GROUND SQUIRREL Spermophilus mollis

552512 EASTERN RED BAT Lasiurus borealis

552520 BAILEY'S POCKET MOUSE Chaetodipus baileyi

552521 PYGMY RABBIT Brachylagus idahoensis

552761 COLLARED PECCARY Pecari tajacu

554027 CLARK'S GREBE Aechmophorus clarkii

554030 FIVE‐STRIPED SPARROW Aimophila quinquestriata

554127 AMERICAN PIPIT Anthus rubescens

554128 WESTERN SCRUB‐JAY Aphelocoma californica

554135 GREAT EGRET Ardea alba

554137 GRAY HAWK Asturina nitida

554139 JUNIPER TITMOUSE Baeolophus ridgwayi

554141 BRIDLED TITMOUSE Baeolophus wollweberi

554145 STILT SANDPIPER Calidris himantopus

554146 CRESTED CARACARA Caracara plancus

554221 OLIVE‐SIDED FLYCATCHER Contopus cooperi

554254 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER Empidonax hammondii

554256 HORNED LARK Eremophila alpestris pestris

554267 BULLOCK'S ORIOLE Icterus bullockii

554268 MISSISSIPPI KITE Ictinia mississippiensis

554375 NEOTROPIC CORMORANT Phalacrocorax brasilianus

554376 RED PHALAROPE Phalaropus fulicaria

554380 SPOTTED TOWHEE Pipilo maculatus

554382 BLACK‐CAPPED CHICKADE Poecile atricapilla

554385 MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE Poecile gambeli

554388 MEXICAN CHICKADEE Poecile sclateri

554456 CASSIN'S VIREO Vireo cassinii

554477 PLUMBEOUS VIREO Vireo plumbeus

555388 WESTERN SCREECH‐OWL Otus kennicottii

555544 COMMON POORWILL Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

555657 New Mexico shrew Sorex neomexicanus

555658 DAVIS MOUNTAIN COTTO Sylvilagus robustus

563907 ROSY BOA Charina trivirgata

563909 THORNSCRUB HOOK‐NOSE Gyalopion quadrangulare

563910 SMOOTH GREEN SNAKE Liochlorophis vernalis

564567 PYGMY SHORT‐HORNED LI Phrynosoma douglasii

564574 Sand dune lizard Sceloporus arenicolus

564594 GREATER SHORT‐HORNED Phrynosoma hernandesi

564596 COMMON CHUCKWALLA Sauromalus ater

625180 ORYX Oryx gazella