Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion Experts Conservation Workshop

DRAFT AGENDA

Day 1: Tuesday, April 8, 1997

9:00 Welcome, Introductions, and Opening Remarks Dennis Donald 9:15 Overview of TNC Ecoregional Planning Gary Bell 9:30 Arizona/ New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion Plan Gary Bell 9:45 Function and Goals of the Experts Workshop Gary Bell 10:00 Workshop Instructions: Materials Available Site Selection Criteria Data Gaps Terminology 10:45 Break 11:00 Concurrent Experts Panel Sessions: 1. Communities & Landscapes Gary Bell 2. Birds Laura McCarthy 3. Mammals Peter Warren 4. Herptiles Dave Gori 5. Fish, Aquatic invertebrates, & aquatic habitats Jeff Baumgartner 6. Invertebrates Patrick McCarthy 7. Rare Plants John Humke 12:30 Lunch (provided) 1:30 Reconvene Morning Experts Panels 2:30 Break 2:45 Continue Concurrent Experts Panel Sessions: 4:15 Break 4:30 Continue Experts Panels 5:30 Summary Session and Outline of Tomorrow's Work (Full session) 6:30 Dinner on your own

Day 2: Wednesday, April 9, 1997

8:30 Introduction to the Day's Sessions: 9:00 Presentation of the Coarse Filter 9: 45 Regional Breakout Groups: 1. Merging Data and Creating Sites 10:30 Break 10:45 Regional Breakout Groups: 2. Filling In the Biodiversity Gaps 12:00 Lunch (provided) 1:00 Regional Breakout Groups: 3. Data Needs and Identification 3:00 Break 3:45 Regional Breakout Groups: 4. Management Needs and Other Issues 5:00 Workshop Wrap-up (full session) 6:00 Travel Home

• ▪

ARIZONA / NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION EXPERTS CONSERVATION WORKSHOP APRIL 8-9, 1997 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS

Workshop Location: Howard Johnson's Hotel, 15 Hotel Circle (at Interstate 40 and Eubank, exit 165), about 6 miles east of Interstate 25), Albuquerque, NM. The Hotel has shuttle for easy access to and from Albuquerque International Airport.

We have negotiated a block of deluxe rooms at the Howard Johnson's reserved for out-of-town participants. Rates for these room, which are $49 per night, single occupancy, and $53 per night double occupancy. Participants will need to call the hotel to book their own rooms. The hotel phone number is (505) 296-4852 or (800) 877-4852.

If you prefer, there are a number of other hotels within walking distance of Ho-Jo's; the Holiday Inn Express, 10330 Hotel Ave N.E., (505) 275-8900; Ramada Inn East, 25 Hotel Circle, (505) 271-1000; and Econo Lodge, 10331 Hotel Ave NE, (505) 275-8500.

••••I ly Rd -"•••rthi, cii .7 i ,F- !Š- Av lId Rd 6.1°' I Av i c Eldora 1 F•0 ' g'g Wm.' James x 1 i 'F! Mornktgomeryrt 1 HS a i. .F. Comanche Rd c., ril Comanche Rd . Harwood Av EE . Comanche Rd 17041 Ext • 2278 I ! Alter `=45. Mice Rd Rd aii ;5 , 4 (7; , 1 to Kin*. Av ••• :Del ill iwsnmi Rd , ' •J•• 4.4 * Sandis i Az tre;c1 ,

4,11trin Rd Candelrzaria 8 cm. a I Rd C7. g \ 2 n 0 . • 1 Emil 277A .5 • 1 _. :. Claremont Av . i . ar.‘,..7,, 1•' •Cloremot' Av 1 I ' Claremont 1 .3' Or ! , .1 > E 8 6 Su noel .e.?" Men. X i a Mennul Blvd •!2• • • Park Mennal Blvd e Coronodo ,5 Cutler Av • 0.• 4 Cent Slrezi.i.:g • 57, 7)., Erlf MO Cutler Av 1 ..., s ti •7C. , " . ° -% . s„„:1/4. . Mt EA 226 g Uptown '12 ..12 t eights' Bh.d ; RI -- , re Brent Calvary 4 mEtlio 8 " ....„ Bidi. ..i' et) .1 Indian School Rd .-`,., al IJNM a .e....; Winroek 'I A • North ; X. 1, i. flames Ai 1•• ShrinPinfl ,7.!' . - ii.. I - n Golf 0 - = 2 C' en ter '7 4.-e ,,.. 2; e . "E , x .1 3 Preshvterion Li Count. 7. .i... Pbire. ' i 4 Alltuquerrpte ie ,,-; Kimemon . • .33 i3 Constitution Av A 7. , i -..., . Iloopi:1 4,:qn. l' 11S 70 •Ierry i , iConelt40014tut.,.ionAv is. . &If 7 - Fri Cline ••....„, . ,Ft .. li i. rii 17 .5 225 ... cr :4. Park -,, L 1,.. i 1 4. '•'. 6 2 ..t. /„ ' University Morhie Av 'S.01 r•-■, 1 4.,,. /, '•ia, 6 11nopit•I I Mountain Rd •= EYI I I 4 l1 F '4 4:17ro k .4.4 • 4,0 ' ,4 4),' 181 -- 4 11 I moil Blvd 2. ---.,,14As • "." L.oman It14..1.1?•41ng New Mexico A Blvd .1r Av romp" 0 Ex 1 '94 '--..-.A. , . _ ErR 22 8 Univernity of ,e 4/ *.1 .!2 State LAM Allayif came PIN* Marisa nl cr Av End Go "...,-;',-,.., 1 8 M ue Fairground: ii.t.,:tiitlii. 41 1 Fito1:1 Copper Av :tr::: la: =.. `73 4 i Copper kr. 3 lir.,z,IgtH•^ 4' 7 0 -j 1 F. •••• Lead Av B 2✓ ' " • - J.' Exff e " 45 65 ii i= 5 $ 6 Chico RA 224A 5: a v e, t Hi hland , M Roovevelt 2 Coal Av ; g 25 H IIS EA ,;', ' 1 Skyline Rd wi Park Garfield BM 8 ' ti; gl , Av ✓ Zuni Rd Albuquerque II ' ^nIral Erg c .7.. Ay ill An 223 ,..: ; • ...1 , Linn srr!. iP 8 .67' 1 1 I di x . . .thum Santa Clnra Av ..1 , /14,1 • ,Wild. e.., -,t .E ii A J e • -- Southern Av ''" tu i Tnuriblt....v.. • i , Blvd A Ot ll III UNM Joa uin Av rill • Soy • Urns Kathryn Av q Nt o Kathryn - . ' Mansono Arena Stadium 2 Av eij irj 1 3.. 7: Anderson Av co „,t- • 11 „ 2 ,„ Memo 7! Puerio 2 .;., ".11Pa: a: I... al del Sol . , 8 '-' E 72 d Club Rd : is,,,Jf: , eke. v 2; b 4 q d 1, Phil 5' . 1,ind• m Golf qi ,i. 3 Charon 2 • ^•••"." c Bs, Park Lei Couroe 5 E 1. a' S. Park 4'. Eartern Av %. a .2 ci. •7 ts a cn 4 t win ,.,2, a g Eck ? Gibson ., 2 Gilman Blvd •.1. 222 Blvd 2 -0 3 • Lovelace Hoapitol 3 i 4 .,: • D B --E St 7, US Vet ...... C.J tinno lad 7 Carlisle

10 Randolph Av F

G St ,E inn ;Ft

LOW. IS 111 St 12 UNM ALBUQUERQUE Clark Carr Rd Os' SmithGolf INTERNATIONAL Course Terminal AIRPORT Airline Information

There are numerous flight times and fare schedules from most cities, and most airlines have 7 and/or 14 day advanced purchase deals. Southwest Airlines is currently offering Friends Fly Free, with a round-trip fare of $166 for two from Phoenix, while their fare for a single person is $98 round-trip. The advanced fare from Tucson is $224 per person on America West. Most Mesa Airline fares are around $90 one way, but they do have advanced fares from Silver City as low as $99 round-trip. And 14-day advanced fares from Flagstaff to Albuquerque on America West is about $228.

From Phoenix:

America West 800 235-9292 Southwest 800 435-9792 Delta 800 221-1212 Continental 800 523-3273

From Tucson

America West 800 235-9292 Delta 800 221-1212 Continental 800 523-3273

From Silver City, Las Cruces, or Colorado Springs:

Mesa 800 637-2247

From Flagstaff:

America West 800 235-9292

From El Paso:

Delta 800 221-1212 Southwest 800 435-9792 Frontier 800 432-1359

THE WORKSHOP: GOALS AND PROCESS

Conservation Goal The Nature Conservancy's overall conservation goal is the long-term survival of all viable native species and natural community types. We are approaching this goal by setting conservation priorities ecoregion by ecoregion to ensure that the full suite of biological diversity in each ecoregion is adequately addressed. To protect the full range of biodiversity within each ecoregion we are selecting a "portfolio" of sites which collectively contain the habitat and species diversity, and have the spatial configuration and ecological integrity, to ensure long-term survival if they are managed for ecological values. We are focusing on all viable native natural community (or habitat) types and all viable vulnerable native species within each ecoregion, searching for a suite of sites that conserves all of these elements. However, lacking sufficient data to identify all natural communities and all vulnerable species, we must rely, to some extent, on a coarse filter of representative species or natural communities as a surrogate for what we don't know. Sites in the portfolio will be selected using the best available information with the preference given to sites that capture the greatest diversity and hold the greatest promise for long-term sustainability.

Workshop Goal The primary goal of the Experts Workshop is to develop a list of sites in the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion that, if managed for conservation values, will protect the biodiversity of the ecoregion. The workshop will be conducted over the course of two days with all work to be completed by the end of the second day.

Workshop Process After convening the workshop on Tuesday and reviewing the goals and process, participants will break out into seven panels organized around taxonomic ancUor ecological areas of expertise; birds; mammals; herptiles; fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic habitats; terrestrial invertebrates; plants; and natural communities and landscape processes. Each panel will have a facilitator and a recorder. The facilitator's role is to keep the participants focused on the goals while encouraging creativity and lively discussion. The recorders will take notes on the panel discussions, site selection rationale, and issues that relate to taxa, data gaps, and conservation priorities. Each panel will develop its own portfolio of sites with high biodiversity values for their conservation targets (e.g. birds or natural communities). The natural community and landscape processes group will also work to develop a "coarse filter" which can be applied to all the sites after the workshop in order to compare diverse sites and achieve a conservation portfolio that is economical as well as a biologically robust.

On Wednesday participants will meet first as a single large group to review the results of the first day. Then we will break out into three panels based upon geographic expertise; the Mogollon and the Central Arizona highlands; the Chuskas and west-central New Mexico; and the Sacramento and Guadalupe Mountains. The goal of the second day is to work within each sub-region to find consensus on a porfolio of sites representing the biodiversity of the ecoregion. Workshop Products The primary product from the workshop will be a list of sites, including mapped locations and boundaries . We expect that many or most of these sites will be composites of sites identified during the first day's break out panels. Each panel will produce its own map of sites designed to conserve the diversity of their specific biological discipline within the ecoregion. The map-based products will have supporting documentation including Site Nomination Forms completed by the experts prior to the workshop. The recorder will also capture additional information regarding individual sites, species, and natural communities.

A second important product that we hope to leave with is a list of the critical data gaps in the biological information available for the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion. While there has been much work done in this ecoregion, there remains much that is unknown, including basic inventories in many areas. In the workshop sessions we will spend some time discussing these data gaps and assessing their importance with reference to the selection of conservation sites. This information will also be captured by the recorders.

Ecoregional Analysis, Heritage Data, and the Gap Analysis Program An obvious question that arises with respect to The Nature Conservancy's ecoregional analyses is; "isn't this a duplication of the Gap Analysis Program (GAP)"? While there is some overlap, this ecoregional analysis brings together three layers of information; (1) GAP products, which rely chiefly upon remote sensing to represent large-scale vegetation patterns and thereby predict patterns of biodiversity; (2) data from the Arizona Heritage Data Management Program and the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, which is species and natural community element occurrence-based; and (3) the knowledge and opinion of the experts who know the landscape, the species, and the natural communities and have both a data-based and a gut-hunch understanding of the conservation priorities within the ecoregion. Combining the data from these three sources will give us a far clearer picture of site-based conservation priorities than by using any single approach alone. GAP is designed to focus on the gaps in species protection across the landscape. The goal of the Ecoregional Analysis is to actually identify sites within which to protect those conservation gaps.

Why Bother and Whose Portfolio? You may be wondering what we will do with this information and what we intend to do about these sites once they have been identified. Creating a list of sites does not equate to conservation; it only acknowledges that there is a need for conservation and identifies one possible course to take to meet the need. The Nature Conservancy is creating the portfolio to inform its own planning needs, but we want to ensure that the portfolio meets the needs and expectations of our conservation partners as well. The final product of our will be made readily available and we hope it will be useful to our partners as a planning tool as well. As a corollary, this process will take into account existing conservation lands and the management objectives of our partners, and the portfolio identified will include sites and projects in which the Conservancy is neither the lead nor a player. Finally, as we mentioned in our letter of invitation, it is important to emphasize that our conservation assessment will not take place in a socio-economic "vacuum". The Conservancy is committed to respecting the needs, values, and traditions of the communities in which we work. Some of the sites identified in the workshop will ultimately end up becoming "Conservancy Projects", but that does not mean that we will exclude people from project sites nor even that we will consider conservation success to equate with land acquisition. Within this context, we ultimately will pursue many strategies which harness the power of the market to maintain or restore functioning landscapes and conserve biodiversity while allowing people and communities to prosper. These strategies will probably concentrate more on collaboration, partnership, and recognition of good stewardship, than on acquisition. WHAT TO BRING

1). List of Sites: To expedite the workshop we are asking each participant to bring their own list of sites that will form the basis for discussion within each of the workshop panels.

2). Site Nomination Forms: Each site that is being proposed for inclusion must be accompanied by a Site Nomination Form. A copy of this form is included in this packet and can be duplicated for as many sites as you wish to nominate. Site Nomination Criteria are included with the Site Nomination Form.

3). Map of Each Site: A map of each site would be useful for the workshop panels and critical to compiling the information after the workshop. The map can be of any scale, but the more detailed the better. Consider using a USGS 7.5' topographic map at 1:24,000 for a detailed site, or perhaps a 1:100,000 scale map for a larger site. Please be prepared to leave your map with the workshop facilitators as we will not have the ability to copy large format maps at the workshop. If necessary we can copy your maps and return them to you by mail.

4). References: Any references that you feel will be useful in the identification of sites or in the justification of site nomination should be brought to the workshop (citations will suffice); however, references are not required as we are relying primarily on your expertise in the identification of these important sites.

5). Interest and Ingenuity: Selecting sites that represent the biodiversity of an ecoregion as vast as the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains (30 million acres) is a tall order for a two day workshop so be prepared to work hard and be engaged in lively discussions about innovative approaches to conservation at a grand scale. Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion Expert Break Out Panels

Communities, Landscapes, and Natural Processes Arizona: Dave Brown, Carl Granfelt, Bruce Palmer, Wally Covington, Rick Miller, Sandy Nagiller, Buck Wickam, Bob Vahle, Malchus Baker, Alvin L. Medina New Mexico: Craig Allen, William Dick-Peddie, Esteban Muldavin, Cliff Crawford, Bruce Anderson, Frank Reichenbacher Regional: Will Moir, Wayne Robbie, Reggie Fletcher Facilitator: Gary Bell

Birds Arizona: John Coons, Rich Glinski, Russell Balda, Troy Corman, Susan Sferra New Mexico: Mike Fugagli, Sartor Williams, Dale Zimmerman, Dave Mehlman, Albert Peters Facilitator: Laura McCarthy

Mammals Arizona: Lendell Cockrum, Bruce Palmer, Yar Petryzn, Norris Dodd, Mike Rabe, Bill van Pelt, Constantine Slobodchikoff, Ronnie Sidner, Laura DeWald New Mexico: Scott Altenbach, Michael Bogan, Jim Findley, Bill Gannon, Gary Bateman, Bill Huey Facilitator: Peter Warren

Herptiles Arizona: Mike Sredl, Jeff Howland, James Collins, Thomas Jones, Randy Babb, Philip Rosen New Mexico: Charlie Painter, Randy Jennings Facilitator: Dave Gori

Fish, Aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic habitats Arizona: Paul Marsh, Wendell Minckley, John Rinne, Terry Myers, Kirk Young, Sally Stefferud New Mexico: Steve Platania Facilitator: Jeff Baumgartner

Invertebrates Arizona: Carl Olsen, Jerry Stefferud, Dean Blinn, Peter Price, New Mexico: Pat Mehlhop, Brian Lang, Dave Lightfoot, Artie Metcalf, Manuel Molles Facilitator: Patrick McCarthy

Rare Plants Arizona: Don Pinkava , Linda White Trifaro New Mexico: Juanita Ladyman, Charlie McDonald, Bob Sivinslci, Carl-Eric Graffeldt, Paul Knight, Tim Lowery Facilitator: John Humke In addition to the specialist experts above, it is our understanding that the following persons have broad general knowledge of the biota of the ecoregion. We have made no attempt to "pigeon- hole" these people, but expect them to assign themselves to panels based on where they feel they can make their greatest contribution.

General Bioloeists/ Arizona John Anderson Dave McKesic Patty O'Connor Mike Ross Barry Spicer

General Biologists/ New Mexico Paul Boucher David Deardorff Rick Johnson Ralph Pope Dave Richman Mark Hakkila

Information as of March 21, 1997. Not all invitees have confirmed their attendence. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States Robert G. Bailey USDA Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1391 (1995)

Mountain Provinces M313 Arizona-New Mexico Mountains Semidesert—Open Woodland—Coniferous Forest—Alpine Meadow Province

Arizona, New Mexico, 50,000 mi2 (130,000 km2)

Land-surface form. —This area consists mostly of steep foothills and mountains, but includes some deeply dissected high plateaus. Elevations range from 4,500 to 10,000 ft (1,370 to 3,000 m), with some mountain peaks reaching as high as 12,600 ft (3,840 m). In many areas, the relief is higher than 3,000 ft (900 m). Isolated volcanic peaks rise to considerable heights in the northwest.

Climate. —Climate varies considerably with altitude. Average annual temperature is about 55°F (13°C) in the lower foothills and 40°F (4°C) on the upper mountain slopes. Average annual precipitation ranges from 10 to 35 in (260 to 890 mm), increasing with rising elevation. During late spring, there is a moisture deficit until the arrival of summer rains, which appear as thunderstorms. Rains also come in early autumn and winter. In the mountains, most precipitation is snow.

Vegetation. —Vegetational zones resemble those of the Rocky Mountains, but occur at higher elevations. The foothill zone, which reaches as high as 7,000 ft (2,100 m), is characterized by mixed grasses, chaparral brush, oak- juniper woodland, and pinyon-juniper woodland. At about 7,000 ft (2,100 m), open forests of ponderosa pine are found, although pinyon and juniper occupy southfacing slopes. In Arizona, the pine forests of this zone are strongly infused with Mexican species, including Chihuahuan and Apache pine. Pine forest is replaced at about 8,000 ft (2,400 m) on northfacing slopes (a little higher elsewhere) by Douglas-fir. Aspen is common in this zone, and limber pine grows in places that are rockier and drier.

At about 9,000 ft (2,700 m), the Douglas-fir zone merges into a zone of Engelmann spruce and corkbark fir. Limber pines and bristlecone pines grow in the rockier places. An alpine belt covers relatively small areas above 11,000 ft (3,400 m).

Soils. —Detailed information about orders of soils is lacking for much of this area. The Four Corners region is composed mostly of Entisols. Alfisols and Inceptisols dominate upland areas. Stony land and rock outcrops occupy large areas on the mountains and in the foothills.

Fauna. —The most common large mammal is the mule deer. Mammalian predators include mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats. Small mammals are the deer mouse, longtail weasel, porcupine, golden-mantled ground squirrel, Colorado chipmunk, red squirrel, wood rat, pocket gopher, longtail vole, Kaibab (Abert) squirrel, and cottontail.

Some of the more common birds are the northern pygmy owl, olive warbler, red-faced warbler, hepatic tanager, mountain bluebird, pygmy nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatch, Mexican junco, Steller's jay, red-shafted flicker and the Rocky Mountain sapsucker. Goshawks and red-tailed hawks are present.

The only widely found reptile is the short-horned lizard. Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion

The Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion encompasses the highlands of eastern Arizona and western and central New Mexico. These are the oldest mountains in the southwest, containing Precambrian igneous rocks as old as 1.5 Billion years. These older volcanics are overlain with more recent sediments (including important fossil deposits from the Jurassic and Triassic) and volcanics (including volcanic flows and caulderas from as recently as 1,000 years ago). The result is an extremely diverse physiographic region with elevations ranging from about 5,000 to more than 10,000 feet above sea level. One of the most prominent features of the region is the Mogollon (Mug-ee-yawn) Rim, which stretches more than 300 miles from Silver City, NM to near Flagstaff, AZ. The rim defines the southern edge of much of the ecoregion.

Much of the land in the ecoregion is under federal ownership, especially the U.S. Forest Service. Also included with the boundaries are portions of the nations of the White Mountain Apaches, the Mescalero Apaches, the Navajos, and the Zunis.

The mountains contain the headwaters for a number of important streams and rivers including the Little Colorado, the Gila, the Mimbres, and the Verde. Ecologically, the ecoregion is an area of big trees. Natural communities are typically Ponderosa Pine and White Fir forest types above 5,500 feet and pifion pine savannas at lower elevations, although the ecoregion also includes grasslands, riparian forests, and shrublands.

The ecoregion is one of the ecological treasure-troves of the United States, containing more species of birds and mammals than any other place in the southwest. This landscape is home to more than 100 rare plants and animals, more than 25 of them listed as endangered or threatened by the federal or state governments. Of special concern are some of the most critically imperiled aquatic species in these two states, including the Gila chub, the Chihuahua chub, the Gila trout, the Apache trout, the roundtail chub, the loach minnow, the spikedace, and the Chiricahua leopard frog.

The rugged landscape is subject to the large-scale processes of fire and flood. Winter snows and summer "monsoon" rains feed the river systems. These processes are critically imperiled through long histories of fire suppression, poorly-managed livestock grazing, and stream channelization. New ANMME AZ/NM New ANMME H I Counties . Cities

• 'Raton "Tierra Amaril layton • T os • 4

OS "JViora sq ero • anta Fe 'Las Vegas ' Gallup — • Kingma - 3 gstaff alil -7--- • Tucu — 'Grants 'Alb querq e r. 'Ho brook 'Santa Rosa f Los unas" • Estan I • , FO umner Pie scot ohns • ovis arker -- ' Po ales • Soc r

' Reserve arn zo Phoenx. • sa • Roswell nse fton 'Truth Or en • Fiore • • Lo ington Lima arno or o • Silver tY • 'Gads ad ruces 'Tucs Lords urg 'Deming Las

Cm -E1 Paso 'Bisbee Nogales

ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION CONSERVATION TARGET LISTS

The following lists of conservation targets were compiled by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, Arizona Data Management Systems, and the New Mexico Field Office of The Nature Conservancy. Our goal in ecoregional planning in TNC is to protect the entire spectrum of species and natural communities within each ecoregion. In many, if not most cases, we lack sufficient information to track all species and communities and must rely upon targets or surrogates to represent the biodiversity of the region under the assumption that if we protect a representative suite of species and natural communities we will protect all native species and communities. Our targets lists focus on all viable, vulnerable, native species and all viable, native terrestrial and aquatic communities. Vulnerable species and communities are the traditional focus of "Heritage" methodology; however, in addition to these we have included some species which might be considered common and/or in no particular danger but which we consider to be; (a) endemic to the ecoregion, (b) representative of the ecoregion and its natural communities, or (c) peripheral to the ecoregion such that occurrences within the ecoregion represent important ecological and/or genetic resources. Please pay particular attention to your particular taxonomic "specialty" and make note if there are additional species or communities that you feel should be included or, alternately, if there are targets listed which should not be included.

1. Vulnerable species and natural communities. Vulnerable species and communities are those that have a Heritage global rank of 1, 2, or 3 (G1, G2, G3, Ti, T2, or T3). Regularly review and updated by experts, global ranks take into account the number and quality/condition of occurrences, population size, range of distribution, population trends, protection status, and fragility.

2. Species of special concern. Those species or communities that, although currently ranked G4 or G5, are of special concern because they are (a) declining through part or all of their range, (b) disjunct from distant ecoregions (and therefore considered to have exceptional genetic or biogeographic value), or are (c) endemic within the ecoregion.

3. Aggregations of special concern. Where species aggregate on their migrations at particular places that are critical for their conservation, and these aggregations are considered to be globally significant examples critical to the survival of these species (e.g. migratory shorebird concentrations).

4. Special biological features of concern. Special features that have important biodiversity value that may not be reflected in the G-ranking of the species involved (e.g. caves, bat roosts, prairie dog towns).

TARGET INVERTEBRATE SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION DRAFT 3/12/97

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS FED ST GLOBAL SRANK

AGATHON ARIZONICUS GI S? ANODONTA CAL1FORNIENSIS CALIFORNIA FLOATER SC WC 04 SI S2 CICINDELA OREGONA MARICOPA MARICOPA TIGER BEETLE SC G5T3 S3 HOLOSPIRA COCKERELL1 COCKERELL HOLOSPIRA E SI HOLOSPIRA MONT1VAGA VAGABOND HOLOSPIRA E G2 S2 HUMBOLT1ANA ULTIMA NORTHERN THREEBAND E 62 S2 METRICHIA VOLADA PAGE SPRING MICRO CADDISFLY SC G? S? OREOHELIX LITTORALIS SAN AUGUSTIN MOUNTAINSNAIL GI SI OREOHELIX PILSBRYI CHLORIDE MOUNTAINSNAIL E SC E2 GI SI PSEPHENUS MONTANUS WHITE MOUNTAINS WATER PENNY BEETLE SC 02? S2? PYRGULOPSIS CHUPADERAE CHUPADERA SPRING SNAIL E C E2 GI SI PYRGULOPSIS GILAE GILA SPRINGSNAIL E C E2 GI SI PYRGULOPSIS MONTEZUMENSIS MONTEZUMA WELL SPRINGSNAIL SC GI SI PYRGULOPSIS MORRISON! PAGE SPRINGSNAIL C WC GI SI PYRGULOPSIS NEOMEXICANA SOCORRO SPRING SNAIL E LE El GI SI PYRGULOPSIS THERMALIS NEW MEXICO HOT SPRING SNAIL E C E2 GI SI PYRGULOPSIS TRIVIALIS THREE FORKS SPRINGSNAIL SC WC 01 SI SPEYER1A NOKOMIS NOKOMIS NOKOMIS FRITILLARY E SC G4T2 SI THERMOSPHAEROMA THERMOPHILUM SOCORRO ISOPOD E LE El GXC SI TRYONIA ALAMOSAE ALAMOSA SPRINGSNAIL E LE E2 GI SI

STATUS: E = ENDEMIC TO ECOREGION D = DECLINING GR = GLOBALLY RARE P = PERIPHERAL TO ECOREGION PIF= PARTNERS IN FLIGHT PRIORITY BIRI) SPECIES FOR CONSERVAT I() R = REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES IN ECOREGION 1

Page 1 TARGET FISH SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION. DRAFT 3/12/97

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS FED ST GLOBAL SRANK

CATOSTOMUS (PANTOSTEUS) CLARK! DESERT SUCKER SC 64 S3S4 CATOSTOMUS DISCOBOLUS YARROW' ZUNI MOUNTAIN SUCKER E SC El 651I SI CATOSTOMUS INSIGNIS SONORA SUCKER R SC 64 S2 CATOSTOMUS LATIPINNIS FLANNELMOUTli SUCKER SC WC 6364 S2 CATOSTOMUS PLEBE1US (MIMBRES POP.) RIO GRANDE SUCKER P 64 S3SE CATOSTOMUS SP 3 LITTLE COLORADO SUCKER SC 62 S2 GILA INTERMEDIA GILA CHUB SC WC 62 S2 GILA NIGRESCENS CHIHUAHUA CHUB GR LT El GI SI GILA ROBUSTA ROUNDTA1L CHUB D SC E2 63 S2 LEP1DOMEDA VITTATA LITTLE COLORADO SPINEDACE LT WC GI62 SIS2 MEDA FULG1DA SPIKEDACE E LT E2 62 SI ONCORHYNCHUS APACHE APACHE (ARIZONA) TROUT E LT WC G3Q S3 ONCORHYNCHUS GILAE GILAE GILA TROUT E LE E2 03T1 SI RHIMCHTHYS CHRYSOGASTER LONGFIN DACE R SC 64 S3SE RHIN1CHTHYS COBITIS LOACH MINNOW E LT E2 62 S2 RHINICHTHYS OSCULUS SPECKLED DACE SC 65 S3S4

STATUS: E = ENDEMIC TO ECOREGION D = DECLINING GR = GLOBALLY RARE P = PERIPIIERAL TO ECOREGION PIE = PARTNERS IN FLIGI IT PRIORI 1 Y BIRD SPECIES FOR CONSERVATIO R = REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES IN ECOREGION TARGET AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION. DRAFT 3/12/97

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS FED ST GLOBAL SRANK

ANEIDES HARM SACRAMENTO MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER E SC E2 63 S3 BUFO M1CROSCAPHUS MICROSCAPHUS ARIZONA TOAD E SC G4T3 S2? BUFO PUNCTATUS RED-SPOTTED TOAD HYLA EXIMIA MOUNTAIN TREEFROG R 64 S2 PSEUDACRIS TR1SERIATA WESTERN CHORUS FROG G5T5 S5 RANA CHIRICAHUENSIS CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG C WC 63 S3 RANA YAVAPAIENS1S LOWLAND LEOPARD FROG OR SC El G3 Si

CNEMIDOPHORUS FLAGELLICAUDUS GILA SPOTTED WHIPTAIL R 64 SIS2 CNEMIDOPHORUS SONORAE SONORAN SPOTTED WHIPTAIL P CNEMIDOPHORUS VELOX PLATEAU STRIPED WHIPTAIL P 65 S5 COLEONYX VAR1EGATUS WESTERN BANDED GECKO P CROTALUS LEPIDUS ROCK RATTLESNAKE P CROTALUS MOLOSSUS BLACKTAIL RATTLESNAKE ELGAR1A KINGII MADREAN ALLIGATOR LIZARD R G5 S5 KINOSTERNON SONOR1ENSE SONORAN MUD TURTLE R 64 S3 LAMPROPELT1S ALTERNA GRAY-BANDED KINGSNAKE P 05 S I LAMPROPELTIS PYROMELANA SONORAN MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE R 65 S3 MICRUROIDES EURYXANTHUS ARIZONA CORAL SNAKE P 65 S2? OPHEODRYS VERNALIS SMOOTH GREEN SNAKE P G5 S4 SCELOPORUS CLARKII CLARK'S SPINY LIZARD R 65 S4 SCELOPORUS GRACIOSUS SAGEBRUSH LIZARD P SCELOPORUS POINSETTII CREVICE SPINY LIZARD R 05 S5 THAMNOPHIS EQUES MEGALOPS MEXICAN GARTER SNAKE P SC WC G4T3 S2S3 THAMNOPHIS RUFIPUNCTATUS NARROWHEAD GARTER SNAKE P SC E2 04 S2 TROPIDOCLONION LINEATUM LINED SNAKE P 65 S4

STATUS: E = ENDEMIC TO ECOREGION D = DECLINING GR = GLOBALLY RARE P = PERIPHERAL TO ECOREGION PIF = PARTNERS IN FLIGHT PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES FOR CONSERVATIO R = REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES IN ECOREGION

Page 1 TARGET BIRD SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION. DRAFT 3/12/97

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS FED ST GLOBAL SRANK

ACCIPITER GENTILIS NORTHERN GOSHAWK D SC G4 S2B,S2N APHELOCOMA ULTRAMARINA MEXICAN JAY P 05 S4B,S4N AQUILA CHRYSAETOS GOLDEN EAGLE R G5 S4 BUTEO ALBONOTATUS ZONE-TAILED HAWK R 64 S38,S3N BUTEOGALLUS ANTHRACINUS COMMON BLACK-HAWK P E2 G4G5 S2B,S3N CAPRIMULGUS VOCIFERUS WHIP-POOR-WILL PIF 65 S4B,S4N CARDELLINA RUBRIFRONS RED-FACED WARBLER PIF G5 S4B,S4N CHARADRIUS MONTANUS MOUNTAIN PLOVER P C G2 S?B,S2N CINCLUS MEXICANUS AMERICAN DIPPER R G5 S4B,S4N COCCYZUS AMERICANUS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO PIF G5T3 S4B,S4N COLUMBA FASCIATA BAND-TAILED PIGEON R G5 S4B,S4N CONTOPUS BOREALIS OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER PIF 04 S4B,S4N DENDROICA GRACIAE GRACE'S WARBLER R 65 S5B,S5N EMPIDONAX TRAILLII EXTIMUS SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER GR LE E2 65T2 S2B,S3N EMPIDONAX WRIGHTII GRAY FLYCATCHER PIF 65 S41š,S4N EUPTILOTIS NEOXENUS EARED TROGON P G3 SAB,S I N FALCO PEFtEGRINUS ANATUM AMERICAN PEREGRINE FALCON GR LE 0414 S4 MELANERPES FORMICIVORUS ACORN WOODPECKER R G5 S4B,S4N MELANERPES UROPYGIALIS GILA WOODPECKER P E2 G5 S2B,S2N MICRATHENE WHITNEY' ELF OWL PIF 65 S4B,S4N MYIOBORUS PICTUS PAINTED REDSTART P G5 S4B,S4N OPORORNIS TOLMIEI MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER PIF 65 S5B,S5N OTUS FLAMMEOLUS FLAMMULATED OWL R 64 S4B,S4N PARUS WOLLWEBERI BRIDLED TITMOUSE P 05 S4B,S4N PERISOREUS CANADENSIS GRAY JAY P 05 S4B,S4N &WORN'S NIGRICANS BLACK PHOEBE P 65 S5B,S5N SELASPHORUS PLATYCERCUS BROAD-TAILED HUMMINGBIRD R 05 S5B,S5N SPHYRAPICUS NUCHALIS RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER PIF G5 S5B,S5N SPHYRAPICUS THYROIDEUS WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER PIF 65 S5B,S5N STRIX OCCIDENTALIS LUCIDA MEXICAN SPOTTED OWL GR LT 6313 S2B,S2N TOXOSTOMA BENDIREI BEND1RE'S THRASHER R G5 S4B,S4N VERMIVORA VIRGINIAE VIRGINIA'S WARBLER PIF 05 S4B,S4N VIREO BELLII BELL'S VIREO PIF E2 G5T4 S2B,S2N VIREO VICINIOR GRAY VIREO PIF E2 05 S4B,S3N

STATUS: E = ENDEMIC TO ECOREGION D = DECLINING GR = GLOBALLY RARE P = PERIPHERAL TO ECOREGION PIF = PARTNERS IN FLIGHT PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES FOR CONSERVATIO R = REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES IN ECOREGION TARGET MAMMAL SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION. DRAFT 3/12/97

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS FED ST GLOBAL SRANK

CLETHRIONOMYS GAPPERI GAPPER'S RED-BACKED VOLE P 65 S3 CONEPATUS MESOLEUCUS HOG-NOSED SKUNK P CYNOMYS GUNNISONI GUNNISON'S PRAIRIE DOG EPTESICUS FUSCUS BIG BROWN BAT 05 S4S5 EUDERMA MACULATUM SPOTTED BAT R SC E2 64 S3 1DIONYCTERIS PHYLLOTIS ALLEN'S BIG-EARED BAT SC 65 S253 LASIONYCTER1S NOCTIVAGANS SILVER-HAIRED BAT R 05 S5 MEPHITIS MACROURA HOODED SKUNK P G5 S2 M1CROTUS MEXICANUS MEXICAN VOLE E 05 S4 MICROTUS MONTANUS ARIZONENSIS ARIZONA MONTANE VOLE E El G5T3 SI MYOTIS AURICULUS SOUTHWESTERN MYOTIS R 65 S4 MYOTIS EVOT1S LONG-EARED MYOTIS SC 65 S3S4 MYOTIS LUCIFUGUS OCCULTUS OCCULT LITTLE BROWN BAT SC G5T3T4 S3 MYOTIS THYSANODES FRINGED MYOTIS SC 65 S3S4 MYOTIS VOLANS LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS SC 65 S3S4 NEOTOMA STEPHENS1 STEPHENS' WOODRAT R G5 S4 MEARNS ONYCHOMYS ARENICOLA GRASSHOPPER MOUSE P G4G5 S3 PEROGNATHUS FLAVUS SILKY POCKET MOUSE SC G5T3 S3 PEROMYSCUS MANICULATUS DEER MOUSE R G5 S5 PLECOTUS TOWNSENDII PALLESCENS PALE TOWNSEND'S DIG-EARED BAT SC WC G4T4 S3S4 SCIURUS ABERTI ABERTS SQUIRREL R G5 S4 SC1URUS ARIZONENS1S ARIZONA GRAY SQUIRREL R 04 S2 SOREX MONTICOLUS DUSKY OR MONTANE SI IREW R 65 S4 SOREX NANUS DWARF SHREW P G4 S1S2 SOREX PALUSTRIS WATER SHREW WC 65 S 1 SPERMOPH1LUS LATERALIS GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL R G5 S4 SPERMOPH1LUS TRIDECEMLINEATUS MONT WHITE MOUNTAINS GROUND SQUIRREL G5T3 S3 NYCTINOMOPS MACROTIS BIG FREE-TAILED BAT TAMIAS CAN1PES GRAY-FOOTED CHIPMUNK E SC 03 S3 TAMIAS CINEREICOLLIS GRAY-COLLARED CHIPMUNK R G4? S3 TAMIAS MIN1MUS ATRISTRIATUS PENASCO CHIPMUNK OR El G5TX SX TAYASSU TAJACU COLLARED PECCARY P G5 S2 URSUS AMERICANUS BLACK BEAR R G5 S4 ZAPUS FIUDSONIUS LUTEUS NEW MEXICAN JUMPING MOUSE OR SC E2 G5T3 S2

STATUS: E = ENDEMIC TO ECOREGION D = DECLINING r GR = GLOBALLY RARE P = PERIPHERAL TO ECOREGION PIF = PARTNERS IN FLIGHT PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES__r FOR CONSERVATIO R = REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES IN ECOREGION I Page 1 - TARGET PLANT SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION DRAFT 3/21/97

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS FED ST GLOBAL SRANK

ABRONIA BIGELOVII GALISTEO SAND VERBENA R 6 3 S3 ___ ADENOPHYLLUM WRIGHT!' VAR. WRIGIrrii SYN=DYSODIA NEOMEXICA WRIGHT'S DOGWEED 6 P? Sc 2 R _ ADIANTUM PEDATUM AMERICAN MAIDENHAIR 6 5 S5 AGASTACHE RUPESTRIS THREAD-LEAF GIANT-HYSSOP R 6 3? S2 _ AGAVE ARIZONICA ARIZONA AGAVE LE HS GIQ S1 AGRIMONIA GRYPOSEPALA HOOK-NOSED AGRIMONY 65 S4 ALETES MACDOUGALLII MACDOUGAL'S FALSE CARROT 6304 S2 ALETES MACDOUGLII SUBSP. BREVIRADIATUS P 6304 S2 ALLIUM BIGELOVII BIGELOW ONION SR 6405 S4 ALLIUM GOODDINGII GOODDING ONION E C HS 63 S3 ALLIUM PLUMMERAE PLUMMER ONION SR 04 S3 ANGELICA PINNATA ANGEL PARSLEY G5 S2 ___ APACHERIA CHIRICAHUENSIS CLIFF BRITTLEBUSH E 0 1 , 4 2 S3 AQUILEGIA CHRYSANTHA VAR CHAPLINEI blAPLINE 'S COLUMBINE 0412 S3 AQUILEGIA DESERTORUM DESERT COLUMBINE SR 04 S4 ARGEMONE PLEICANTHA SSP PINNATISECTA SACRAMENTO PRICKLY-POPPY OR 0512 S2 - ASCLEP1AS VIRIDIFLORA GREEN FLOWER MILKWEED G5 S2? ASPLENIUM ANDREWS!! 02Q SU ASPLENIUM PLATYNEURON EBONY SPLEEN WORT 05 S I ASTRAGALUS CHUSKANUS CHUSKA MT MILKVETCH E 02? S2? ASTRAGALUS FEENSIS SANTA FE MILKVETCH E 63 S3 ASTRAGALUS KERRII KERR'S MILKVETCH E 03 S3 ASTRAGALUS KNIGHTII KNIGHT MILKVETCH E/P 02 S2 ASTRAGALUS MICROMERIS A MILKVETCH E/P 62 S2 ASTRAGALUS NATURITENSIS NATURITA MILKVETCH E 02 S2 ASTRAGALUS NEOMEXICANUS NEW MEXICO MILK-VETCH E 63 S3 ASTRAGALUS NUTRIOSENSIS NUTRIOSO MILK-VETCH SC SR CI S I ASTRAGALUS TROGLODYTUS CREEPING MILK VETCH 03 S3 BECKMANNIA SYZIGACHNE AMERICAN SLOUGHGRASS 05 S2 NORTHERN GRAPE FERN 6 BOTRYCHIUM BOREALE 5 S2 _ BOTRYCHIUM CRENULATUM CRENULATE MOON WORT SC 03? S? BOTRYCHIUM DUSENII AMPHITROPICAL GRAPE FERN 0304 S2 BOTRYCHIUM LANCEOLATUM LANCEOLATUM LANCELEAF GRAPE FERN 0514 S2 BOTRYCHIUM LUNARIA MOON WORT 05 S2 BOTRYCHIUM MULTIFIDUM INTERMEDIUM LEATHERY GRAPE FERN 05T4? S2 BRICKELLIA MODESTA OR 62 S2 CALYPSO BULBOSA FAIRY SLIPPER SR 65 S4 CAREX ELYNOIDES FALSE MARSH SEDGE 05 S I CAREX HETERONEURA DIFFERENT NERVE SEDGE 65 S I CAREX MEADII MEAD SEDGE 6405 S3S4 CAREX SCIRPOIDEA CURATORUM KAIBAB SEDGE 63T3 S I CASTILLEJA MOGOLLONICA WHITE MOUNTAINS PAINTBRUSH SC SR (ii S I

Page 1 TARGET PLANT SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION DRAFT 3/21/97

CENTAUREA AMERICANA STAR THISTLE 05 S3? CHAETOPAPPA ELEGANS SYN=IONACTIS ELEGANS SIERRA BLANCA CLIFFDAISY SC 02 S2 CHAETOPPA HERSHEY! GUADALUPE CLIFFDAISY r Sc 03 S3 CHAPTALIA SEEMANNII WOODLAND SUNBONNETS 05 S4 CHRYSOTHAMNUS MOLESTUS TUSAYAN RABBITBRUSH SC 03 S3 _ CIMICIFUGA ARIZONICA ARIZONA BUGBANE C HS 0203 S2S3 CIRSIUM PARRY! MOGOLLONICUM MOGOLLON THISTLE SC SR 0411 SI EIRSIUM VINACEUM SACRAMENTO MOUNTAINS THISTLE E SC 62 S2 CLEMATIS HIRSUTISSIMA ARIZONICA ARIZONA LEATHER FLOWER R C HS 04T2Q S I/S2 CLEMATIS PALMERI PALMER LEATHER FLOWER 03 SI , CRATAEGUS ERYTHROPODA CEFtRO HAWTHORN G5Q S2 CRATAEGUS RIVULARIS RIVER HAWTHORN G5 S2 CYPRIPEDIUM CALCEOLUS YELLOW LADY'S-SLIPPER HS 65 SI CYSTOPTERIS BULB1FERA BULBLET FERN 65 S4 DANTHONIA CALIFORNICA OAT GRASS 15 S4 DRABA STANDLEYI STANDLEY WHITLOW-GRASS Sc 03 SI? ECHINOCEREUS FENDLERI VAR. KUENZLERI KUENZLER'S HEDGEHOG CACTUS E G4G5T I SI EPILOBIUM FOL1OSUM LEAFY WILLOW HERB G5 S2 EPILOBIUM HORNEMANNII HORNEMANNII HORNEMANN WILLOW HERB 0515 S3? EPILOBIUM LACTIFLORUM MILKWEED WILLOW HERB 05 SR EPILOBIUM OREGONENSE OREGON WILLOW HERB 65 SI ERIGERON ACOMANUS ACOMA FLEABANE E Sc 6162 SIS2 ERIGERON ANCHANA MOGOLLON FLEABANE SC 02 S2 ERIGERON HESSII HESS'S FLEABANE E Sc GI SI ERIGERON RHIZOMATOUS RHIZOME FLEABANE E 02 S2 ERIGERON SAXATILIS 02 S2 ERIGERON SCOPULINUS WINN FALLS FLEABANE E 03 S3 ERIGERON SIVINSKII SIVINSKTS FLEABANE E Sc 02 S2 r EFUOGONUM ERICIFOLIUM ERICIFOLIUM HEATHLEAF WILD-BUCKWHEAT ____■ G4T3? S3? ERIOGONUM RIPLEY! RIPLEY WILD-BUCKWHEAT SC SR 02 S2 ESCOBARIA DUNCANII R GIG2 SI ESCOBARIA MISSOURIENSIS VAR. MISSOURIENSIS MISSOURI CORYCACTUS P SC 0514? SI ESCOBARIA SNEEDII VAR. LEE! LEE'S PINCUSHION CACTUS E 02 S2 ESCOBARIA VILLARDII V1LLARD'S PINCUSHION CACTUS E 62 S2 FREMONTODENDRON CALIFORNICUM FLANNEL BUSH SR 04 S4 GENTIANA BARBELLATA BEARDED GENTIAN 63? S2 GENTIANA FREMONT!, MOSS GENTIAN 04 S2 GENTIANELLA TENELLA DELICATE GENTIAN 0405 SI GOODYERA REPENS LESSER RATTLESNAKE PLANTAIN SR 05 S4 GRATIOLA NEGLECTA HEDGE HYSSOP 05 S3S4 HABENARIA HYPERBOREA BOREAL BOG ORCHID SR G5 S2S3 HABENARIA STRICTA SLENDER BOG ORCHID 65 S4 HABENARIA VIRIDIS BRACTEATA AMERICAN FROG ORCHID SR G5T5 SI HEDEOMA APICULATA MCKITTRICK PENNYROYAL E 63 03 TARGET PLANT SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION DRAFT 3/21/97

HEDEOMA DIFFUSUM FLAGSTAFF PENNYROYAL SR 03 S3 HEDEOMA PULCHERRIMA WHITE MOUNTAIN FALSE-PENNY-ROYAL E 02 S2 HEDEOMA TODSENII TODSEN'S PENNYROYAL E 02 02

HELIANTHELLA PARRYI PARRY SUNFLOWER 04 - HELIANTHUS PARADOXUS PUZZLE SUNFLOWER P Sc 02 S2 HESPEROCHIRON PUMILUS PYGMY WESTERN WATERLEAF 04 S2 HEUCHERA EASTWOODIAE EASTWOOD ALUM ROOT (13 S3 HEUCHERA PULCHELLA SANDIA MOUNTAIN ALUM-ROOT E 02 S2 HEUCHERA RUBESCENS RED ALUM ROOT 04 S3S4 HEXALECFRIS NITIDA SHINING CORALROOT GR SC 03 S I 11EXALECFRIS SP1CATA CRESTED CORALROOT P G4? S2 HIPPURIS VULGAR'S MARES TAIL G5 S3S4 HYMENOPAPPUS BIENNIS R G3 (S3) HYMENOXYS HELENIOIDES INTERMOUNTAIN BITTERWEED 03Q SU HYMENOXYS QUINQUESQUAMATA FIVE SCALE BITTERWEED 0304 S3S4 HYPERICUM ANAGALLOIDES PYGMY ST JOHNS WORT 04 S2 ISOETES BOLANDERI PYGMAEA PYGMY QUILL WORT 0414 S 1 JUNCUS ARTICULATUS JOINTED RUSH 05 S4 LESQUERELLA AUREA GOLDEN BLADDERPOD E 03 S3 LINNAEA BOREALIS TWIN FLOWER 05 S I LOMATIUM LEPTOCARPUM BISCUIT ROOT 04 S4 LOMATIUM PARRY! PARRY WILD PARSLEY 04 S2 LUPINUS SIERRAE BLANCA WHITE MOUNTAIN LUPINE E 03 S3 MENYANTHES TRIFOLIATA THREELEAF WATER GENTIAN 05 SI MONESES UN1FLORA WOODNYMPH 05 S2 NUPHAR LUTEUM POLYSEPALUM YELLOW POND LILY 0515 S I OPUNTIA VIRIDIFLORA SYN PUNTIA WHIPPLEI VAR VIRIDIFLORA SANTA FE CHOLLA E SC G 1 Q S I OSTRYA KNOWLTONII KNOWLTON HOP HORNBEAN 04 S3 OXYPOLIS FENDLERI HOG FENNEL 04 S4 PARNASSIA PARV1FLORA GRASS OF PARNASSUS 04 S2 PARTHEN1UM ALPINUM VAR ALPINUM PLAINS FEVERFEW OR G3T2 S2 PEDICULARIS ANGUSTIFOLIA OR 02 S2 PEDIOCACTUS PAPYRACANTHUS PAPER-SPINED CACTUS SC SR 0203 S2S3 PENSTEMON ALAMOSENSIS ALAMO PENSTEMON E SC 03 S3 PENSTEMON CARDINAL'S CARDINAL BEARDTONGUE E 03 S3 PENSTEMON CARDINALIS SSP REGALIS E 0312 S2 PENSTEMON CLUTEI SUNSET CRATER BEARDTONGUE SC SR 02 S2 PENSTEMON STRICTUS ROCKY MOUNTAIN BEARDTONGUE G5 S3S4 PHACEL1A NEOMEXICANA NEW MEXICO SCORPION-WEED 05 S I PHACELIA SERRATA CINDER PHACELIA E Sc G2 S2 PHYSOCARPUS MONOGYNUS MOUNTAIN NINEBAltK 04 S4 PINUS ARISTATA ROCKY MOUNTAIN BRISTLECONE PINE SR 03 S2 POA NEVADENSIS NEVADA BLUE GRASS 05 S4 POLEMONIUM V1SCOSUM SKUNKWEED G5 S I

Page 3 TARGET PLANT SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION DRAFT 3/21/97

POLYGALA RIMULICOLA VAR. MESCALORUM MESCALERO MILKWORT Sc 031I — SI POLYGALA RIMULICOLA VAR. RIMULICOLA GUADALUPE MILKWORT R 0313 S2 POLYGALA RUSBYI HUALAPAI MILKWORT G3 S3 POLYSTICHUM LONCHMS MOUNTAIN HOLLY FERN 05 S3 POLYSTICHUM SCOPULINUM WESTERN HOLLY FERN G5 S2 POTENTILLA MULTIFOLIOLATA ARIZONA CINQUEFOIL 63 S3 PSEUDOCYMOPTERUS LONGIRADIATUS TRANS PECOS FALSE MOUNTAIN-PARSLEY OR 64? S2 PTERYXIA DAVIDSON!! DAVIDSON'S CLIFF CARROT R 0364 S3 PYRRHOPAPPUS ROTHROCKII FALSE DANDELION 04 S3 RANUNCULUS ESCHSCHOLTZII ESCHSCHOLTZ BUTTERCUP 65 SI RANUNCULUS PEDATIFIDUS SUREFOOTED BUTTERCUP G5 SI S2 RHINANTHUS RIGIDUS YELLOW RATTLE 04 SIS2 RUBUS LEUCODERMIS WESTERN RASPBERRY 05 SI S2 RUMEX ORTHONEURUS CHIRICAHUA DOCK C HS 02 S2 SALIX ARIZONICA ARIZONA WILLOW HS 02 S2 SALVIA DORRII MEARNSII VERDE VALLEY SAGE SC SR G5T2 S2 SATUREJA ARKANSANA P 65 SI SAXIFRAGA ARGUTA BROOK SAXIFRAGE 04 S2 SAXIFRAGA CESPITOSA TUFTED SAXIFRAGE 05 - SIS2 SAXIFRAGA DEBILIS PYGMY SAXIFRAGE 64 S2 SAXIFRAGA FLAGELLARIS SPIDER SAXIFRAGE 65 SIS2 SELAGINELLA DENSA CLIFF SPIKE MOSS (15 S2 SELAGINELLA PILIFERA RESURRECTION PLANT SENECIO ARIZONICUS ARIZONA GROUNDSEL G4 S4 — SENECIO CARDAMINE BITTER-CRESS GROUNDSEL G3 _ S2 SENECIO CYNTHIOIDES WHITE MOUNTAIN GROUNDSEL OR 03? S3? SENECIO FRANCISCANUS SAN FRANCISCO PEAKS GROUNDSEL LT HS GI S I SENECIO QUAERENS GILA GROUNDSEL E SC SR 02 SI/S2 SHEPHERDIA CANADENSIS CANADIAN BUFFALOBERRY 05 S4 SIBARA GRISEA OR 63? 53? SILENE PLANK!! PLANK'S CATCHFLY GR 03 Si SILENE WRIGHT!! WRIGHT'S CATCHFLY GR 63 S3 SOPHOltA GYPSOPHILA VAR. QUADALUPENSIS GUADALUPE MESCALBEAN GR GIT1 SI SPIRANTHES PARASITICA PARASITE LADY'S-TRESSES SR G4 Si - STELLARIA PORSILDII PORSILD'S STARWORT E Sc GI SI STREPTANTHUS SPARSIFLORUS SPARSELY FLOWERED JEVVELFLOVVER E SC S2 02 STREPTOPUS AMPLEXIFOLIUS WHITE MANDARIN TWISTED STALK SR G5 S2S3 TALINUM GOODDINGII GOODDING FLAMEFLOWER GUQ šU TALINUM VALIDULUM TUSAYAN FLAME FLOWER SC SR 62 S2 THALICTRUM DASYCARPUM PURPLE MEADOW RUE G5 S2 TOWNSENDIA FORMOSA R 03 (S3) TOWNSENDIA GYPSOPHILA GYPSUM TOWNSEND'S ASTER E Sc (32 S2 TRAUTVETTERIA CAROUNIENSIS TRAUTVETTERIA G5 SI — TRIFOLIUM LONGIPES VAR NEUROPHYLLUM WHITE MOUNTAINS CLOVER E SC G2 S2?

P- 4 TARGET PLANT SPECIES FOR CONSERVATION IN THE ARIZONA - NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION DRAFT 3/21/97

VALERIANA TEXANA GUADALUPE VALERIAN 03 S3 VIOLA VARUM VAR. GUADELUPENSIS GUADALUPE MOUNTAIN VIOLET G5T3Q S3 ZIGADENUS VIRESCENS GREEN DEATH CAMAS SR 04 S4

STATUS: E = ENDEMIC TO ECOREGION D = DECLINING GR = GLOBALLY RARE j P = PERIPHERAL TO ECOREGION PIF = PARTNERS IN FLIGHT PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES FOR R = REPRESENTATIVE SPECIES IN ECOREGION

Page 5

Plant associations limited to, and declining associations within, the Arizona-New Mexico Ecoregion or adjacent ecoregions. [Draft 3/21/1997]

Class Level and Name

Forest II. Cold Temperate Forest III. Rocky Mountain Subalpine Forest IV. Subalpine Conifer Forest V. Picea engelmannii Alliance Picea engelmannii/Acer glabrum Picea engelmannii/Erigeron eximius Picea engelmannii/Heracleum maximum Picea engelmannii/Saxifraga bronchialis Picea engelmannii/Senecio cardamine V. Abies lasiocarpa Alliance Abies lasiocarpa/Holodiscus dumosus Abies lasiocarpa/Lathyrus arizonicus Abies lasiocarpa/Saxifraga bronchialis Abies lasiocarpa/Senecio sanguisorboides

III. Rocky Mountain Montane Forest IV. Rocky Mountain Upper Montane Conifer Forest V. Psuedotsuga menziesii Alliance Pseudotsuga menziesii-Acer grandidentatum Pseudotsuga menziesii/Festuca arizonica Pseudotsuga menziesii/Holodiscus dumosus Pseudotsuga menziesii/Muhlenbergia montana Pseudotsuga menziesii/Muhlenbergia virescens Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus monogynus V. Abies concolor Alliance Abies concolor/Jamesia americana Abies concolor/Lathyrus arizonicus Abies concolor/Muhlenbergia virescens Abies concolor-Robinia neomexicana Abies concolorNaccinium myrtillus Abies concolor-Juglans major Abies concolor-Acer grandidentatum Abies concolor/Leymus triticoides Abies concolor/Festuca arizonica V. Picea pungens Alliance Picea pungens/Festuca arizonica

IV. Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Conifer Forest V. Pinus ponderosa Alliance Pinus ponderosa/Artemisia arbuscula Pinus ponderosa/Festuca arizonica Pinus ponderosa/Muhlenbergia montana Pinus ponderosa/Muhlenbergia virescens Pinus ponderosa/Muhlenbergia virescens-Festuca arizonica Pinus ponderosa/Oryzopsis hymenoides II. Cold Temperate Riparian! Wetlands III. Rocky Mountain Montane Forested Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Populus angustifolia Alliance Populus angustifolia-Acer negundo/Poa pratensis Populus anciustifolia-Alnus oblongifolia Populus angustifolia-Juniperus scopulorum Populus angustifolia-Juniperus scopulorum/Sporobolus cryotandrus Populus angustifolia/Forestiera pubescens Populus angustifolia/Poa pratensis Populus angustifolia/Salix exigua Populus angustifolia/Salix irrorata

III. Southwest Montane Forested Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Alnus oblongifolia Alliance Alnus oblongifolia-Populus angustifolia/Brickellia californica Alnus oblongifolia-Salix gooddinzii Alnus oblongifolia/Baccharis salicifolia Alnus oblongifolia/Leersia oryzoides Alnus oblongifolia/Salix irrorata

II. Warm Temperate Riparian/Wetlands III. Southwest Lowland Forested Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Juglans major Alliance Juglans major-Acer negundo/Rhus trilobata var. trilobata Juglans major/Bouteloua curtipendula Juglans major/Celtis laevigata V. Platanus wrightii Alliance Platanus wrightii-Alnus oblongifolia Platanus wrightii-Baccharis salicifolia Platanus wrightii-Quercus emoryi Platanus wrightii/Bouteloua curtipendula Platanus wrightii/Brickellia californica Platanus vvrightii/Celtis laevigata Platanus wrightii/Sporobolus cryptandrus V. Populus deltoides Alliance Populus deltoides-Juniperus monosperma Populus deltoides/Anenopsis californica Populus deltoides/Artemisia tridentata Populus deltoides/Carex nebraskensis Populus deltoides/Chrysothamnus nauseosus Populus deltoides/Elymus pseudorepens Populus deltoides/Equisetum laevigatum Populus deltoides/Forestiera pubescens Populus deltoides/Forestiera pubescens/Distichlis spicata Populus deltoides/Poa pratensis Populus deltoides/Salix exigua Populus deltoides/Shepherdia argentea Populus deltoides/Sparse V. Populus fremontii Alliance Populus fremontii-Fraxinus velutina Populus fremontii-Platanus wrightii,Fraxinus velutina phase Populus fremontii-Platanus wrightii/Baccharis salicifolia Populus fremontii-Salix gooddingii Populus fremontii-Salix gooddingii-Baccharis salicifolia Populus fremontii-Salix gooddingii-Salix exigua Populus fremontii/Baccharis salicifolia Populus fremontii/Salix exigua Populus fremontii/Sparse

III. Southwest Arroyo Forested Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Chilopsis linearis Alliance Chilopsis linearis-Chrysothamnus nauseosus V. Celtis laevigata Alliance Celtis laevigatafRhus trilobata var. trilobata

I. Woodland II. Cold Temperate Woodland III. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Lower Montane -- Foothill Woodland IV. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Closed Conifer Woodland V. Pinus edulis Alliance Pinus edulis/Artemisia tridentata Pinus edulis/Purshia mexicana Pinus edulis/Festuca arizonica Pinus edulis/Stipa scribneri Pinus edulis-Quercus turbinella Pinus edulis/Muhlenbergia montana Pinus edulis/Stipa neomexicana Pinus edulis/Yucca baccata

IV. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Open Conifer Woodland V. Juniperus monosperma Alliance Juniperus monosperma/Artemisia bigelovii Juniperus monosperma/Artemisia confertifolia/Oryzopsis hymenoides Juniperus monosperma/Artemisia tridentata Juniperus monosperma/Krascheninnikovia lanata Juniperus monosperma/Chrysothamnus nauseosus-Fallugia paradoxa Juniperus monosperma/Stipa neomexicana Juniperus monosperma/Stipa scribneri Juniperus monosperma/Yucca baccata V. Juniperus osteosperma Alliance Juniperus osteospenna/Artemisia tridentata Juniperus osteosperma/Hilaria mutica Juniperus osteosperma/Stipa neomexicana I. Scrub/Shrub Class - Shrublands II. Cold Temperate Riparian/Wetlands III. Rocky Mountain Montane Scrub/Shrub Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Salix irrorata Alliance Salix irrorata-Salix exigua Salix irrorata-Salix lucida Salix irrorata/Carex rostrata Salix irrorata/Comus sericea Salix irrorata/Eleocharis palustris

II. Warm Temperate Riparian/Wetlands III. Southwest Lowland Scrub/Shrub Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Salix exigua Alliance Salix exigua-Baccharis salicifolia Salix exigua/Agrostis gigantea Salix exigua/Anemopsis californica Salix exigua/Carex lanuginosa Salix exigua/Carex nebraskensis Salix exigua/Chrysothamnus nauseosus Salix exigua/Eleocharis palustris Salix exiguaiEquisetum laevigatum Salix exigua/PAnicum Obtusum Salix exigua/Scirpus americanus V. Baccharis salicifolia Alliance Baccharis salicifolia-Platanus wrightii Baccharis salicifolia/Scirpus americanus Baccharis salicifolia/Sphenopholis obtusata

III. Southwest Arroyo Scrub/Shrub Wetlands IV. Broad-Leaved Deciduous Series Group V. Chrysothamnus nauseosus Alliance Chrysothamnus nauseosus/Sporobolus cryptandrus

I. Persistent-Emergent Wetland Class - Herbaceous Wetlands II. Cold Temperate Persistent Emergent Riparian/Wetlands III. Rocky Mountain Montane Persistent-Emergent Wetlands IV. Persistent-Emergent Series Group V. Scirpus americanus Alliance Scirpus americanus-Eleocharis palustris Scirpus americanus-Equisetum laevigatum V. Eleocharis palustris Alliance Eleocharis palustris-Equisetum laevigatum Eleocharis palustris/Anemopsis californica Eleocharis palustris/Leersi oryzoides V. Scirpus tabemaemontani Alliance Scirpus tabemaemontani/Typha latifolia V. Typha latifolia Alliance Typha latifolia/Leersia oryzoides Typha latifolia/Scirpus americanus V. Carex aquatilis Alliance Carex aquatilis-Equisetum laevigatum V. Juncus balticus Alliance Juncus balticus-Eleocharis palustris Juncus balticus-Equisetum laevigatum Juncus balticus-Scripus americanus V. Glyceria borealis Alliance Glyceria borealis/Eleocharis bella

II. Warm Temperate Persistent Emergent Riparian/ Wetlands III. Southwest Lowland Persistent-Emergent Wetlands IV. Persistent-Emergent Series Group V. Paspalum distichum Alliance Paspalum distichum-Eleocharis palustris

I. Grassland II. Mesophytic Grassland III. Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane Grassland IV. Rocky Mountain Montane Grassland V. Festuca arizonica Alliance Festuca arizonica-Muhlenbergia montana V. Muhlenbergia montana Alliance Muhlenbergia montana-Trisetum montanum

6 Plant associations that are potentially present but peripheral (p) to the Arizona-New Mexico Ecoregion, and more common in other ecoregions. [Draft 3/5/1997 NMNHP]

Class Level and Name

I. Tundra II. Alpine Tundra III. Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra IV. Rocky Mountain Alpine Forb Tundra V. Paronychia pulvinata Alliance Paronychia pulvinata-Silene acaulis

I. Forest II Cold Temperate Forest III. Rocky Mountain Subalpine Forest IV. Subalpine Conifer Forest V. Picea engelmannii Alliance Picea engelmannii/Leymus triticoides V. Abies lasiocarpa Alliance Abies lasiocarpa/Mertensia ciliata

III. Rocky Mountain Montane Forest IV. Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Conifer Forest V. Pinus ponderosa Alliance Pinus ponderosa/Arctostaphylos pungens Pinus ponderosa/Quercus arizonica Pinus ponderosa/Quercus emoryi Pinus ponderosa/Quercus grisea Pinus ponderosa/Ribes inerme Pinus ponderosa/Koeleria macrantha

I. Woodland II. Cold Temperate Woodland III. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Lower Montane -- Foothill Woodland IV. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Closed Conifer Woodland V. Pinus edulis Alliance Pinus edulis/Muhlenbergia pauciflora Pinus edulis/Koeleria macrantha

IV. Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Open Conifer Woodland V. Juniperus monosperma Alliance Juniperus monosperma/Koeleria macrantha

I. Shrubland II. Mesophytic Shrubland III. Rocky Mountain Montane Scrub & Interior Chaparral IV. Rocky Mountain Montane Deciduous Scrub V. Cercocarpus montanus Alliance Cercocarpus montanus-Garrya flavescens Cercocarpus montanus/Stipa neomexicana IV. Broadleaf Evergreen Interior Chaparral V. Quercus turbinella Alliance Quercus turbinella/Bouteloua eriopoda Quercus turbinella/Cercocarpus montanus Quercus turbinella/Bouteloua curtipendula Quercus turbinella/Bouteloua gracilis Quercus turbinella/Bouteloua hirsuta Quercus turbinella/Koeleria macrantha Quercus turbinella/Muhlenbergia dubia

III. Plains-Mesa-Sand Scrub IV. Plains-Mesa Microphyllous Sand-Scrub V. Artemisia filifolia Alliance Artemisia filifolia/Bouteloua eriopoda Artemisia filifolia/Sporobolus flexuosus Artemisia filifolia/Sparse Artemisia filifolia/Monotypic Artemisia filifolia/Muhlenbergia porteri Artemisia filifolia/Sporobolus cryptandrus Artemisia filifolia/Stipa neomexicana Artemisia filifolia/Bouteloua gracilis Artemisia filifolia/Hilaria jamesii Artemisia filifolia/Oryzopsis hymenoides Artemisia filifolia/Sporobolus airoides

II. Xerophytic Shrubland III. Great Basin Desert Scrub IV. Great Basin Microphyllous Desert Scrub V. Artemisia tridentata Alliance Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata/Hilaria jamesii Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata/Bouteloua gracilis-Hilaria jamesii Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata/Bouteloua gracilis- Pascopyrum smithii Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata/ Sporobolus cryptandrus-Oryopsis hymenoides V. Artemisia bigelovii Alliance Artemisia bigelovii/Bouteloua eriopoda Artemisia bigelovii/Bouteloua gracilis Artemisia bigelovii/Muhlenbergia setifolia V. Chrysothamnus nauseosus Alliance Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. bigelovii/Bouteloua gracilis- Pascopyrum smithii Chrysothamnus nauseosus/Sporobolus wrightii Psorothamnus scoparius/Sporobolus flexuosus V. Artemisia arbuscula Alliance Artemisia arbuscula/Pseudoroegneria spicata V. Atriplex canescens Alliance Atriplex canescens/Bouteloua gracilis Atriplex canescens/Hilaria jamesii Atriplex canescens/Parthenium confertum Atriplex canescens/Sporobolus airoides Atriplex canescens/Sporobolus wrightii Atriplex canescens/Hilaria mutica Atriplex canescens/Sparse Atriplex canescens/Sporobolus flexuosus Atriplex canescens/Suaeda moquinii Atriplex canescens/Muhlenbergia porteri Atriplex canescens/Scleropogon brevifolius Atriplex canescens/Sporobolus nealleyi

Grassland II. Mesophytic Grassland III. Rocky Mountain Subalpine and Montane Grassland IV. Rocky Mountain Subalpine Grassland V. Festuca thurberi Alliance Festuca thurberi subalpine grassland

III. Plains-Mesa-Foothill Grassland IV. Short Grass Steppe V. Bouteloua gracilis Alliance Bouteloua gracilis-Bouteloua curtipendula Bouteloua gracilis-Hilaria jamesii Bouteloua gracilis-Sporobolus cryptandru Bouteloua gracilis/Krascheninnikovia lanata Bouteloua gracilis-Panicum obtusum Bouteloua gracilis-Sporobolus vv-rightii Bouteloua gracilis/Monotypic Bouteloua gracilis/Artemisia bigelovii Bouteloua gracilis-Pascopyrum smithii Bouteloua gracilis-Sporobolus airoides Bouteloua hirsuta-Bouteloua curtipendula Bouteloua hirsuta-Bouteloua eriopoda Bouteloua hirsuta-Bouteloua gracilis V. Bouteloua hirsuta Alliance

IV. Mid-Grass Prairie V. Bouteloua curtipendula Alliance Bouteloua curtipendula/Monotypic Bouteloua curtipendula/Krameria lanceolata Bouteloua curtipendula-Stipa neomexicana Bouteloua curtipendula/Dalea formosa V. Stipa neomexicana Alliance Stipa neomexicana/Cercocarpus montanus Stipa neomexicana-Bouteloua curtipendula Stipa neomexicana-Bouteloua eriopoda Stipa neomexicana-Bouteloua gracilis Stipa neomexicana-Bouteloua hirsuta V. Pascopyrum smithii Alliance Pascopyrum smithii/Krascheninnikovia lanata/Bouteloua gracilis Pascopyrum smithii/Bouteloua curtipendula V. Schizachyrium scoparium Alliance Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua curtipendula V. Sporobolus cryptandrus Alliance Sporobolus cryptandrus-Bouteloua curtipendula

II. Xerophytic Grassland III. Great Basin Desert Grassland IV. Great Basin Foothill-Piedmont Grassland V. Hilaria jamesii Alliance Hilaria jamesii/Krascheninnikovia lanata Hilaria jamesii-Bouteloua gracilis Hilaria jamesii-Sporobolus airoides

IV. Great Basin Lowland/Swale Grassland V. Sporobolus airoides Alliance Sporobolus airoides-Distichlis spicata Sporobolus airoides-Muhlenbergia porteri Sporobolus airoides/Monotypic Sporobolus airoides-Panicum obtusum Sporobolus airoides-Scleropogon brevifolius

ARIZONA / NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION SITE NOMINATION CRITERIA

Through this workshop process, our goal is to identify a portfolio of sites that will ensure the long-term survival of all viable native species and representative plant communities within the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion. In nominating sites for the portfolio, please consider the following factors:

1. Review the list of conservation targets provided in this packet. Give priority to sites that will provide protection for these species and/or natural communities. The presence of additional native species is desirable, but your site nomination should focus primarily on TNC's target species.

2. Remember that a site can be of any size.

3. Give priority to sites that will simultaneously conserve multiple, unprotected species and/or natural communities. This is especially important for plant communities, because there are many community types, and the Conservancy's goal is to identify representative examples of all native communities.

4. In addition to occurrences of vulnerable native species, please identify sites you may know of that you think contain high quality examples of native plant communities, or assemblages of animals species. Representative plant communities include those which are common and well distributed throughout the ecoregion, as well as those which are common in some portion of the ecoregion but may not occur throughout.

5. If you are aware of sites that contain the only example of a species of concern you know of in the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion, that site should be identified.

6. In nominating multiple sites, give consideration to how each new site would complement existing sites (e.g., each new site added to the portfolio of sites should contribute something new to the portfolio).

7. If your area of expertise is plant ecology, please note that the list of natural communities is incomplete. Please prioritize within the list those communities you consider to be: 1) vulnerable; 2) threatened by human activities; or 3) declining. Please add any communities you feel should be on this list as well. INSTRUCTIONS: Arizona - New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion SITE NOMINATION FORM

Please complete as much of the attached site nomination form as possible BEFORE you come to the April 8-9 workshop. Attach a site map (on a 7.5' USGS topographic quad or other USGS map) to the form, if possible. We also encourage you to attach additional information in support of this site (e.g. survey forms, field notes, references). The more documentation you provide on the ecological values of the site, the easier it will be for your colleagues to evaluate its significance during the workshop.

Site Name: The name that you and/or local residents call the site, or a site name from a USGS topographic map.

Nominator's Name, Address, Phone, and E-Mail: Self-explanatory.

Site Code: Your three-letter initials and a two-digit number, e.g. GPB-01. We will use this code to map the site you nominate.

County: The county or counties within which the site is located.

Site Location: The location of the site with respect to towns or other cultural or natural features (e.g. distance along state or county highway, with road numbers). Provide road directions, if possible.

Ownership of Site: Circle all that apply. For public lands identify site managers, if known. For Other Federal or State provide the agency name. For private lands, provide name of owner(s) if known.

Nearest known managed areas (e.g. national parks, wildlife management areas): Self-explanatory.

Approximate acreage: The area, in acres, of the area of land and/or water that supports the species or natural community found at this site. Circle the appropriate range of acreages and/or provide the approximate actual acreage if you know it. For aquatic or riparian species the miles of stream may be a more appropriate or valuable additional measure.

Have you personally visited this site? Self-explanatory.

Description of conservation targets (i.e. species and/or natural communities) at this site: Estimate the percentage of the site occupied or utilized by each target species, if possible. Please attach as much supporting information relating to specific species or communities as possible (e.g. source(s) of information about this species or natural community occurrence, date last seen, and number of individuals, for each target).

Viability of conservation targets: The ability of this population to persist for many generations or, for natural communities, the likelihood of indefinite persistence. Please provide a brief explanation of how you arrived at this assessment (e.g. formal population viability analysis, seat-of-the-pants guess).

Management challenges at this site: Management that is required if the conservation target is to survive at the site. Examples are control of non-native species (tamarisk, introduced fishes, etc.), reintroduction of fire, construction of fences, and restoration of hydrologic regime. f ARIZONA / NEW MEXICO MOUNTAINS ECOREGION COARSE FILTER METHODOLOGY "Paper Tiger"

Coarse and fine filters are two contrasting approaches to protecting and managing biological diversity. In simplest terms, the fine filter approach asserts that each rare species or natural community must be tracked, targeted, and protected individually. The fine filter is the traditional approach used by the Conservancy, Natural Heritage, and other programs to identify and protect rare and endangered species and natural communities. The coarse filter, in contrast, is a holistic approach which assumes that protection and management of a large landscape or ecosystem will result in the protection of the rare species and communities within that landscape.

Ecoregional analysis by The Nature Conservancy employs both coarse and fine filter approaches to ensure that the entire suite of biodiversity of an ecoregion is considered in developing conservation strategies. Fine filter data, represented by Heritage data on the occurrences of rare species and communities, is complemented by consideration of coarse filter data, including GAP data layers and other landscape-scale representations of the diversity of the ecoregion. Both filters will be applied to the suite of sites (the preliminary "portfolio") that we will assemble during the two-day Experts Workshop.

This "Paper Tiger" is a rough attempt to outline an approach to representing the ecological pattern of the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion based on vegetation patterns. It is assumed that this document will be thoroughly torn apart and rebuilt during the first day of the Experts Workshop by the Communities, Landscapes, and Ecological Processes panel. Therefore, consider this document to be "food for thought" to provide you with ideas on how a coarse filter for this ecoregion could be constructed. INTRODUCTION

Endangered species are not necessarily good indicators of biodiversity. Endangered species data are extremely patchy. Site locality data, as reported to the Heritage programs, is dependent upon several things: (1) access to the site by a competent biologist, (2) "inclusiveness" of target taxa in the data gathering by the biologist, and (3) reporting of that data to Heritage. For all of these reasons species data may be considered suspect, especially due to errors of exclusion. Ranking the quality of species occurrences at sites is thus even more questionable.

Most endangered species have declined because of the dwindling extent of their habitats. By extension, this means that the rarest species, those that are local endemics, are not representative of the ecosystems in which they are found and are not necessarily indicative of high quality habitat or functioning natural systems. Of much greater importance may be those species that aren't rare but are declining. In addition, since highly endangered species are usually habitat- limited, it follows that ranking sites by the presence and quality of natural communities may be a better identifier for rare species than vice versa. Directing our efforts toward declining habitats and endemic and representative species forces us to focus on landscapes and thus to embrace the protection of the "biodiversity collective".

The coarse filter approach focuses on declining natural communities and landscape parameters for identifying priority sites for conservation action in the Arizona / New Mexico Mountains Ecoregion. Taking this approach assumes that;

(1) This approach will identify the most significant sites in terms of biological diversity and ecosystem integrity.

(2) Priority sites identified using this approach will capture a greater proportion of the biological diversity of the ecoregion than by exclusive use of endangered species data.

(3) A portfolio of sites identified using this approach will also capture most endangered species as well. SITE ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT OF KEY ATTRIBUTES

Preliminary Site Selection:

The coarse filter will be applied to a suite of sites identified as being important to the biodiversity of the ecoregion. These sites will be identified primarily through the Experts Workshop process, with additional localities nominated by additional expert input. During the Experts Workshop we will compile local sites, nominated by various experts to protect particular biological resources, into larger sites for analysis. Sites will be -amalgamated" based upon gross landscape and ownership considerations. For example, a number of sites nominated to protect individual populations of birds, mammals, fishes, and rare plants, together with sites nominated to protect prime examples of rare or endemic natural community types, might be amalgamated into a single, large site spanning several thousand acres encompassed by a watershed, a mesa, a single unit of land ownership, or a managed natural area. These larger compiled sites are our goal for the second day of the workshop. We expect that we will leave the workshop with a number of very large sites which represent such "amalgamation" and a number of smaller, or local, sites that are not easily or strategically amalgamated (e.g. a small site that is the only occurrence of a rare plant but which is isolated from other priority conservation resources). Once these sites are compiled we will apply both fine and coarse filters to the sites in order to compare and rank them. The coarse filter will be composed of two sets of site attributes; rare, declining, or endemic natural (or biotic) communities, and landscape "intactness".

Natural Community Attributes:

Natural community attributes are scored as follows for each site: Recorded presence of a target natural community as a secondary attribute (i.e. the community occurs on, but is not an principle feature of the site) earns a score of 0.5. If the element is a primary attribute of the site it scores a 1.0. Outstanding or best known examples of elements are given a score of 2.0.

A list of declining and representative natural (or biotic) communities to be considered in the analysis must be assembled. One such list is shown below.

Declining Natural Communities

Alpine Tundra Arroyo Riparian Scrub Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Lacustrine Wetlands Bristlecone Pine Forest Palustrine Wetlands Montane Scrub Seeps Madrean Evergreen Woodland Hot Springs Montane Riparian Forest Cold Springs Floodplain Riparian Forest Montane Grasslands Landscape Attributes

All sites are assigned a "landscape score". This rating reflects a site's quality as a complex, functioning ecosystem or landscape. We use four attributes that can be readily determined from topographic maps, aerial photographs, or satellite imagery. These are; size, integrity, context, and natural processes. Values range from 0-2 for each attribute as described below.

SIZE: Ideally, a site should be of sufficient size to: (1) embrace all successional phases of the target natural communities and, (2) to allow continuation of natural disturbance regimes such as fire and flooding. In many, if not most ecosystems, a "large" site should cover hundreds of thousands of acres. Unfortunately, this ideal is rarely achieved in the highly fragmented landscape of the United States. Therefore, we have ranked relative size based on landscape patterns. Scores have been assigned as follows: <10,000 acres = 0.0, 10,000 to 35,000 acres = 0.5, 35,000 to 100,000 acres = 1.0, >100,000 acres = 2.0. INTEGRITY: Integrity refers to the degree of habitat fragmentation within a given site. It is scored as a percentage of mapping units (defined by 20 acre units) not characterized by man- made disturbances such as roads, railroads. powerlines, incompatible landuse. etc. Scores are assigned as follows: 100% to 80% undisturbed = 2.0, 79% to 60% undisturbed = 1.0, 59% to 40% undisturbed = 0.5, below 40% undisturbed = 0.

CONTEXT: This attribute refers to the amount of natural land surrounding a site. It reflects the assumption that sites embedded in or linked to a matrix of natural lands are preferable to isolated landscapes as they are more likely to have intact biotic (dispersal, migration, gene exchange, etc.) and abiotic (natural disturbance, nutrient flow, etc.) processes. Ideally, these linkages should be large enough to provide temporary habitat for the species using them. Therefore, context is expressed as a ratio between the area of the natural land surrounding a site to the area of the site itself. Scores are assigned as follows: Site adjacent to, or surrounded by, a matrix of natural lands greater than 10 times the area of the site itself= 2.0, 5-10 times the area of the site = 1.0, 2-5 times the area of the site = 0.5, less than twice the area of the site = 0

NATURAL PROCESSES: This attribute reflects the potential of the site to be subjected to critical natural processes, such as fire, flooding, sediment deposition, wind. etc. For example, the likelihood of allowing fires to burn in sites adjacent to urbanized areas may be relatively low. Similarly, riparian forests dependent upon periodic flooding for regeneration may be impaired due to upstream flood control devices. This attribute is scored as follows: Intact natural processes = 2.0, mostly intact processes = 1.0. modified or degraded processes = 0.5, severely impaired natural processes = 0.

DATA SUMMARY AND SITE EVALUATION

Natural Community Attribute and Landscape Attribute data are combined to create a "coarse filter for comparing sites. This approach yields two classes of sites: Priority Landscape sites and Priority Local sites. Priority landscapes have a function score (a combination of natural community and landscape score) of 7 or more and a landscape score of 2.5 or more. Priority local sites have a function score of 7 or more and a landscape score less than 2.5, or a function score of greater than 5 AND a best known example of a target natural community. All other sites are considered non-priority under this filter.

In addition to a measure of the biological diversity and the landscape integrity of the site, the coarse filter should include an assessment of the relative contribution of each site towards representing the biodiversity of the ecoregion by protecting otherwise unprotected, or under- protected, natural communities. This means we should be looking not just at the occurrence of target natural communities and the biological resources of sites, but the management status of those sites as well, and using information on managed areas to focus our attention on biological resources which aren't currently protected in such areas. A traditional approach might be to simply target those sites which have the best example of an otherwise unprotected natural community or species, but this would ignore the other biological attributes of the site and therefore the viability of such projects as conservation lands. Site Ranking Matrix

Site Name: Grant Canyon Silver Slough Black Mesa Mimbres Peak Gila Bench Ruidoso Ranch Guadalupe Pass

Natural Community Attributes Alpine Tundra 2 Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine Forest 2 I i Bristlecone Pine Forest 1 2 Montane Scrub i I 0.5 1 2 Madrean Evergreen Woodland 2 I 2 Montane Riparian Forest 2 Floodplain Riparian Forest 0.5 0.5 Arroyo Riparian Scrub 1 1 Lacustrine Wetlands 2 1 Palustrine Wetlands I I 2 1 0.5 Seeps 1 I 0.5 1 1 I Hot Springs i 2 I

Cold S__prings 1 I 0.5 I Montane Grasslands 2 0.5 2 2 - Natural Community Score 9.5 6 9.5 6.5 10 6 5

Landscape Attributes _4 Size I 0.5 I 2 0.5 I 2 Integrity 2 I 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 Context 2 0 2 2 2 1 i Processes 2 1 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 Landscape Score 7 2.5 53 8 5 3 5.5 '

Total Score 16.5 8.5 15 14.5 15 9 10.5 A more objective approach might be to include the relative protected status of a biological attribute into the scoring of that attribute for each site. All existing landscape-level conservation areas (e.g. wilderness areas, nature preserves, RNAs, ACEC's) in the ecoregion are scored according to the natural community and landscape attributes. Then the total number of protected landscapes representing each target natural community is summed. This relative measure of protectedness is used to develop a "Protection Index" for each natural community. All priority communities which are represented in fewer than five landscape sites are given a Protection Index of 2.0. These are the natural communities that are poorly protected. Those natural communities protected in five to ten sites are given an index of 1.5. All sites protected in more than ten landscape sites are given a protection index of 1.0. These adjusted scores for each natural community are then plugged back into the matrix of natural community site scores.

In the attached table (Site Ranking Matrix) we have provided an example of the types of scores that might be tallied for a set of hypothetical sites. In this example, in which seven sites are ranked according to the 14 natural communities and four landscape attributes listed above, "Gila Bench" receives the highest Natural Community Score (11), but "Grant Canyon" receives a higher over-all score due to its high degree of landscape function and integrity. This does not imply that one site is necessarily "better" than any other, but it provides a means for comparing overall site rankings and prioritizing conservation action. What this example does not explore is the degree of protection of these communities. Ideally, a final portfolio of sites would consider these rankings as well as the actual communities each site would protect. For example, "Black Mesa" and "Mimbres Peak- have similar scores and also have very similar suites of natural communities. Although these two sites rank equally high in terms of their scores, if we were using this matrix to decide upon conservation priorities we might actually only target one of these and ignore the other in favor of another site with a lower score which, nevertheless, would protect another suite of natural communities.

Summary

The result of this approach is a composite site score for each recommended site based on three attributes: (1) the degree of biodiversity representative of the ecoregion represented within the site, as scored by the sum score of target natural communities, (2) the degree of intactness of the landscape of the site based on size, context, integrity, and natural processes, and (3) the degree to which the site represents biodiversity values not represented in currently protected lands. Actual selection of sites to create a final "portfolio- would be based upon these scores as well as upon fine filter information, GAP data, and a site-by-site review of overall ecoregional conservation needs. )

ENDNOTES: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY'S CONSERVATION GOAL

1 Partners Native - 1. The Nature Conservancy has a long history of 3 Native" means those species and communities that working with partners from the public and private sector. were not introduced accidentally or purposefully by Our most important partnerships have been with Heritage people but that are found naturally in an area. "Native" Programs (and Conservation Data Centers), public includes both endemic and indigenous species. "Endemic" land-management agencies, and private landowners. refers to species naturally restricted to a locality; To be successful in achieving our mission, we will need "indigenous" refers to species naturally occurring in a to redouble our efforts to establish, support, and maintain given area and elsewhere. Native communities are critical partnerships. (For more on the importance of those characterized by native species and maintained by partnerships, see the description and discussion natural processes. of "Partnership and Leadership" in the Strategic Themes section.) , Communities 4 Biological diversity exists at several levels of organi- Viable zation (e.g., genes, populations, species, communities, L. The term "viable" refers to the ability of a species to and ecosystems). Our conservation goal focuses our persist for many generations. Although it is not typically conservation efforts on species and communities. used in connection with communities, this term also can A community type is defined as an assemblage of species describe the ability of a community to persist over time. that re-occurs under similar habitat conditions and The abundance and distribution of many species and disturbance regimes as defined in a classification system. communities have been reduced to the point that maintaining them may be either technically impossible There are two reasons to focus conservation action on or extremely expensive. By referring to a species' or communities. First, communities have unique ecological community's viability, we are highlighting the need to attributes—suites of biological interactions that have assess whether place-based conservation is feasible for a conservation value in and of themselves. Second, species or community type. For example. captive breeding protecting communities provides an efficient strategy might be the best conservation strategy for a particular for conserving all species. This strategy is especially species, but not one for the Conservancy's efforts. important for protecting common species and species we know little or nothing about. This second reason is often The decision not to work on the conservation of a species referred to as the "coarse-filter" approach to conservation. or community type should not be made lightly Such decisions require that we make informed judgments Most community classification systems are based on a based on the best available knowledge. A rigorous viability set of biological and environmental characters that analysis requires a structured, systematic, and comprehen- represent each type. For nearly 20 years, the Conservancy sive examination of the interacting factors (demographic, has developed classification systems with the Heritage environmental, genetic, threats-based) that place a species Network and has completed a detailed hierarchical at risk of extinction. Similarly a viability analysis as community classification of terrestrial vegetation applied to a community requires a review of the interact- to focus conservation action across the United States. ing factors (biological components, species interactions, The Conservancy is continuing to work with the compositional heterogeneity and variability, successional Heritage Network to expand the geographic coverage of and temporal dynamics, and the ecological processes the terrestrial standard and to implement parallel and environmental conditions) that place a community approaches to help guide our conservation efforts in at risk of -extinction." freshwater and marine systems. In many international settings we do not have adequate data to define Viability assessments often focus on the minimum number and classify communities at a detailed scale. In these cases, of individuals and populations (species) or minimum area we use the best available surrogate (e.g., plant alliances, and number of occurrences (communities) necessary for cover types, or animal alliances) to describe the broad persistence. In evaluating whether to work on a species or environmental and structural formations of the community community, this minimum viability assessment is critical. Ultimately scientists will develop classification systems Whenever possible, however, our conservation goals for that integrate the biological and environmental parameters, a species or community should not be restricted to the allowing classification of ecosystems types. minimum necessary; rather, our goals should extend to the size and number of populations that will sustain the ability of a species to interact in ecologically significant ways with other species (e.g.. as a predator, competitor, etc.), and the size, distribution and number of occurrences necessary for a community to support its full complement of native species interacting in ecologically significant ways. Vulnerable Ecoregions defined by roughly the same type of ecological We use the term "vulnerable" to describe those criteria at about the same scale will eventually be adopted species most likely to become extinct without conservation by the Conservancy for use outside the United States. We action. Three different, but closely related, factors or are working collaboratively with partners to develop or variables are included in this term. In rough order of reconcile the best classification systems for other regions. conservation priority vulnerable species include those for which there is: 1) evidence of current or historic decline: 2) threat, or likelihood, that human action will result in 7 Where we work future decline; and 3) rarity Each of these variables is See footnote. complex and has multiple sub-definitions. Species rarity for example, includes species that are locally common in a narrowly restricted geographic range and species Q Portfolio that are locally uncommon over a large range. The term 0 We use the term "portfolio" to refer to the suite of "vulnerable" can also be applied to communities. sites within an ecoregion that would collectively conserve In addition to the three attributes that characterize the native species and communities of the ecoregion. vulnerable species, communities for which high-quality By designing a conservation portfolio for each ecoregion examples are rare are also considered vulnerable. rather than planning conservation only site by site and state by state, we expect to be more effective at select- It is important to note that this definition of vulnerable ing sites and developing conservation strategies. The species places a greater emphasis on decline and threat conservation portfolio will also enable us to decide what than the Conservancy has in the past. This shift will help we will not do in an ecoregion. us pay closer attention to species and communities before they become so rare that the options for conservation Although each ecoregion will have a single portfolio are extremely limited. design, the design process will be iterative, adaptive, and dynamic as new information is gained and ecological changes occur. To accomplish this design, we need to g Ecoregion identify what species and community types we will target V An ecoregion is a relatively large unit of land in the ecoregion as well as how many occurrences and water delineated by the biotic and abiotic factors that will be needed to ensure their long-term survival. regulate the structure and function of the communities Many species, such as migratory birds, will be conserved within it (see maps: pages 7-10). Ecoregions provide only if sites in several ecoregions across their range are a good basis for a conservation portfolio because they protected. Rangewide assessments (see below) will improve our efficiency by encouraging us to look at a play a significant role in the portfolio planning process. number of species and community types at once; provide a strategy for capturing genetic and ecological variability within species or communities; are delineated using n These elements similar ecological criteria; and provide a more ecologically The Nature Conservancy's goal is to ensure the long- relevant unit of geography for organizing and prioritizing term survival of all viable native species and community our conservation planning efforts (e.g., compared to types. But given the current level of information on statewide plans). species and communities, as well as the inefficiency and complexity of trying to plan for the conservation of all We propose to use Bailey's classification system for species in an ecoregion at once, we must find a sampling ecoregional planning in the United States. Bailey's strategy that is as efficient as possible at capturing all classification system is hierarchical (domains, divisions, species. We have explicitly chosen to focus on vulnerable provinces, sections and sub-sections), based on species and viable native communities. Taken together, ecologically meaningful variables, and commonly accepted we expect these two categories of elements will provide the by some of our most important partners. Under Bailey's best sampling strategy to conserve all the viable native system there are 52 ecoregional provinces in the species and communities in an ecoregion. conterrninous•United States, which are defined on the basis of terrestrial vegetation formations. These provinces form the suite of units referred to as "ecoregions" Representative - in the Conservation Goal. Bailey's ecoregional provinces 10 As used here, representative" modifies the term are divided into sections and subsections that can be "site." A site or group of sites is representative of its used to further delineate ecological differences within ecoregion when it at least adequately samples the the provinces. For example, they may be useful in helping environmental gradient found in that ecoregion and at select species and community occurrences that represent best includes all species and all communities and the full the range of genetic or ecological variation. Because ranges of variation within and among them. No site or hydrologic characteristics are strongly influenced by group of sites can be perfectly representative, but as a goal, terrestrial watersheds, ecoregions defined on the the concept is very useful. basis of terrestrial vegetation formations explain much of the environmental variation found within aquatic systems as well. 1 1 Sites with other members of their biological communities, will Site is the term we use to describe the places in allow. And, as their present environments change over which we work. The term site has a long history in The time, we want them to have a chance to evolve or to Nature Conservancy's lexicon. As with the term 'element," disperse to new locations that meet their environmental it has been, and continues to be, one of our core concepts. requirements. We have learned to think about sites more broadly than simply equating them with preserve lands or core Where ecosystem patterns and processes are relatively conservation lands managed solely for the conservation undisturbed, understanding this dynamic setting, its of biological diversity. complex interactions, and how to maintain it is challenging enough. In most places, however, human In 1995, the Site Design Working Group refined our activities have influenced ecosystem composition, definition of the term "site" and overhauled the patterns, and processes. In these cases, restoration components of the site design process, based on our activities are often an integral part of our conservation stewardship and bioreserve experience. The Working strategies. Restoration is used to describe a wide range Group identified the following characteristics of sites: of activities from removal of a non-native species to the 1) they are element based; 2) they include the area reintroduction of an ecological process, and replanting necessary to maintain the viability of the target elements or reintroducing native species. over time (considering both the ecological patterns and processes and threats); 3) they are scaleless and can range in area from a few hundred acres (standard sites) to Multiple occurrences millions of acres (bioreserves): and 4) they may include Protecting multiple occurrences ensures that a variety of ownerships and land uses. from Nature a14 portion of the genetic and ecological variation found Conservancy preserves managed solely for the among occurrences will be conserved. This variation conservation of biological diversity to private arid public increases the likelihood that a species or community lands managed compatibly for resource production, will be able to adapt or respond to future environmental housing, or other uses. changes. In addition, multiple protected occurrences ensure against catastrophic loss. Selecting occurrences that represent the ecological variation across the range of Work at sustainable levels a species or community significantly reduces the chances Achieving our conservation goals at a site requires that a single catastrophic event will affect the long-term long-term12 sustained effort. Given finite resources survival of that species or community. The number of (knowledge, staff, partners, and funding), we need to occurrences needed to meet both of these objectives will make a realistic, even if ambitious, assessment of our vary by species or community type. long-term ability to meet our conservation goals at a site. We must ask ourselves several questions: What ecological processes are necessary to sustain the long-term survival Viable, or recoverable occurrences of the conservation targets found at this site? Are those The definition of viable in reference to an processes still functioning at this site? Can they be occurrence15 is the same as that for a species or community restored? What are the challenges and opportunities to type (see 2 above). It refers to the ability of an occurrence meeting our conservation goals relative to the eight to persist for many generations. The viability or recover- strategic themes for conservation success? And, finally ability of an element occurrence depends on the condition given this assessment, are our resources adequate to (population si:e, composition. etc.) of the occurrence address the site's conservation needs over the long term? and the ability of the surrounding landscape matrix to sustain the ecological processes necessary to support the element occurrence. Occurrence viability is, therefore, Conserve or where necessary restore inextricably linked to the viability of the site in which ecosystem patterns and processes the occurrence is to be conserved or restored. The13 implicit intent of our conservation goal is to protect the diversity of life in both an ecological and an evolutioncny context. Ecosystem patterns and processes create this Genetic Variation context. "Ecosystem patterns" refers to the spatial Genetic variation, or genetic diversity is a measure distribution of species, species assemblages. and physical of16 the differences in the genetic makeup of individuals, features braided stream channel). Processes such populations, or species. A variety of metrics can be used as fire. hydrology or predator-prey interactions are driving including the number and percentage of genes in the forces that shape the composition. patterns. dynamics population that are polymorphic; the number of alleles and function of ecosystems. for each polymorphic gene: and the number and percentage of genes per individual that are polymorphic. Our goal is to enable species to continue to interact with All species require genetic diversity to maintain other members of their biological communities within reproductive vitality, resistance to disease, and the ability a naturally varying environmental context. We want these to adapt to changing conditions. species to persist in their present locations for as long as their naturally changing environments. and interactions 7 Ecological variation Thus, we should always strive to build our ecoregional 1I Ecological variation is a measure of differences in portfolios of occurrences within sites that retain as much the collective response of a species or community type of their original ecosystem integrity as possible. to different environmental conditions. For species, ecological variation includes behavioral differences among Yet the viability of an occurrence, as well as our ability individuals and populations, variation in ecological IO work at sustainable levels to conserve it, are dependent interactions between species (e.g., pollination, predation, upon more than just our scientific capability to maintain competition) and between biota and the environment or restore ecosystem patterns and processes. Site viability (e.g., nutrient cycling, flooding regimes) that may not be has long-term connotations. Our ability to maintain genetically based. For community types, ecological viable sites for the long run will depend upon how variation includes differences in the species, structure, well the necessary set of strategic themes exist, or can be and interactions among the component species. established, in the places we are working.

Long-term survival , Efficient portfolio design 18 The specific time that "long-term" represents 2 1 An efficient portfolio design is a site-selection for a given species or community is correlated with its process, the result of which maximally conserves species, life-history parameters and catastrophic disturbance communities, and their genetic and ecological variations. frequencies. Conservation efforts should allow species The site-selection process should first review the existing and communities to persist in their present locations conservation sites in the ecoregion and then add additional for as long as their naturally changing environments, high-quality sites that protect multiple unprotected targets. and interactions with other members of their biological For example, consider the case of two sites that both communities will allow. contain excellent populations of a threatened bird species that is not yet protected in the portfolio. But Site One con- tains only the threatened bird species and its habitat, while n Across the ranges Site Two contains the bird, its habitat, a population of a 17 The term "range" describes the geographic second rare species, and a viable example of a community. distribution of native species or communities. The range Site Two clearly contributes more significantly to the of a species or community may be small, found in only a portfolio than Site One, and should therefore be selected. single locality, or large, as with the small-whorled pogonia, which occurs from Maine south and west to Georgia In addition to efficiency it is also important to ensure that and Michigan. A rangewide assessment of a species or the sites selected provide effective conservation. This can community type is important to planning for its long-term best be accomplished by choosing sites that hold the great- survival. This assessment involves mapping all occurrence est promise for long-term Kistainability. In many cases, data for an element, describing the known or hypothesized efficiency and effectiveness will need to be balanced when genetic and ecological variability among the occurrences, selecting among sites during the portfolio design process. and detailing information about the quality of the site relative to the element. This information should guide the site selection process within and among ecoregions. High-quality sites The use of consistent, compatible, and comprehensive data 22 The quality of a site is determined by the will result in the most effective assessment. Incomplete condition (e.g., composition, structure, function) of and/or coarse-scale information can be used, but the element occurrence(s), the integrity of the ecological the assessment should be updated as information about processes that sustain those occurrences, and the ability the element improves. to reduce or eliminate threats. High-quality sites contain not only element occurrences that are ecologically as well The rangewide assessment should identify the number as demographically viable, but also ecological processes and distributions of occurrences necessary to represent sufficiently intact to sustain those occurrences. the range of the genetic and ecological variation and the occurrences with the greatest viability Complementary sites 23 In the process of designing ecoregional portfolios, 1.1 Sites that hold greatest promise each new site added should provide the greatest additional 2V for long-term sustainability conservation to the collection of sites already in the Attempts to restore certain processes and patterns or portfolio. Thus, each site added complements the others reduce threats to a site can be extremely time-consuming and contributes species or community types to the and expensive, and may entail significant ecological portfolio that are needed to make the portfolio complete uncertainty. For example, restoration ecologists have been or whole. Finishing the portfolio design requires able to fully restore composition, structure, and function evaluating if the species and community types of the in few, if any ecological communities; many ecosystems ecoregion have been adequately conserved with multiple have been so severely altered for so long that they have viable or recoverable occurrences. (See "efficient portfolio lost many of the biological and physical components design" above.) necessary to restore original ecosystem integrity.

- r