Management of Arizona’s
Wildlife Habitat
An analysis of selected habitat types for use in Arizona’s
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

Submitted to Arizona Game and Fish Department
by
The Nature Conservancy in Arizona

August 25, 2004

Introduction
Identifying the primary managers of wildlife habitat can provide one useful type
of information for development of Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. This can contribute to satisfying at least three of the required elements: #4
(conservation actions and priorities), #5 (monitoring plans), and #7 (coordination). This
can be particularly useful in the prioritization of actions and resources.
Toward that end, The Nature Conservancy has compiled relevant information and
conducted new analyses from our recent statewide efforts to map and analyze two natural
communities, grasslands and forests, and a species group, native fish. The results are
presented in three sections, with appendices describing data sources.

1. Fish Habitat in Perennial Streams
Native fish may be the vertebrate species group that has suffered the greatest
declines, and for which habitat protection is most urgent. As part of The Nature
Conservancy’s ongoing efforts to focus and prioritize our efforts at conserving biological
diversity, we recently developed a digitized mapping of the distribution of Arizona’s
native fish species (Figure 1). The intent was to identify places in need of greater
conservation efforts, particularly those streams with the greatest species richness, on the
principle that it is most efficient to first protect streams with the most native species, then
focus on extremely rare species that occur in smaller assemblages.
Comparing the results with land management status produced several insights.
Private lands control streams occupied by the greatest total number of species (Figure 2),
and the third-highest total length of occupied stream reaches. The US Forest Service and
tribal lands contain the greatest amount of fish habitat, both occupied and potential
(Figure 3). Looking at just those streams with five or more native fish species present,
the Forest Service has more than double the stream miles of habitat than either tribal or
private lands (Figure 4).
Looking at finer levels of management reveals details such as that the San Carlos
Apache Reservation has the highest species richness, but the White Mountain Apache
Reservation has the greatest amount of perennial stream habitat (Table 1). This
difference could be an artifact of data limitations, since lack of species presence data led
to many streams on the reservations being attributed as “0 or no data.”

1

Figure 1. Native fish species richness in Arizona’s perennial streams. Values include
introduced populations. White lines represent perennial stream reaches with zero native species
present or a lack of data.

2

Figure 2. Total native fish species by manager for Arizona.

BLM
Military
NPS
Other
Private
State
State Park
Tribal
USFS
USFWS

0

5

10 15 20 25
Native Species

30

35

Figure 3. Native fish habitat by manager for Arizona.

BLM

Total Stream Miles
Total Fish Habitat

Military
NPS
Other
Private
State
State Park
Tribal
USFS
USFWS

0

500

1000
Stream Miles

3

1500

2000

Figure 4. Native fish habitat by manager and number of species present. Zero species values represent perennial stream reaches where
native fish are not present or where fish presence data are lacking.

BLM

Tribal

USFS

Private

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

USWS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SPECIES

SPECIES

SPECIES

SPECIES

SPECIES

4

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

MILES

State Trust

Other

MILES

State Park

Military

MANAGER
NPS

Table 1. Native fish distribution by management area.
Agency

Management area

Species

Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management
National Forest
National Forest
National Forest
National Forest
National Forest
National Forest
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Indian Reservations
Local or State Parks
Military
Military
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
Other
Other
Other
Private
State Trust
National Wildlife Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge

Arizona Strip Field Office
Kingman Field Office
Lake Havasu Field Office
Phoenix Field Office
Safford Field Office
Tucson Field Office
Yuma Field Office
Apache-Sitgreaves N.F
Coconino N.F
Coronado N.F
Kaibab N.F
Prescott N.F
Tonto N.F
Cocopah Indian Res.
Colorado River Indian Res.
Fort McDowell Indian Res.
Fort Yuma Indian Res.
Fort-Mohave Indian Res.
Gila River Indian Res.
Havasupai Indian Res.
Hualapai Indian Res.
Indian Allotments
Kaibab Indian Res.
Navajo Indian Res.
Salt River Indian Res.
San Carlos Indian Res.
White Mtn Apache Indian Res.
Yavapai Apache Indian Res.
Parks and Recreation
Fort-Huachuca
Military Res.
Canyon De Chelly N.M
Glen Canyon N.R.A
Grand Canyon N.P
Hubble Post N.H.S
Lake Mead N.R.A
Marble Canyon N.M
Montezuma Castle
Montezuma Well
Organ Pipe N.M
Bureau of Reclamation
County Land
Game and Fish
Private Land
State Trust Land
Cibola N.W.R
Havasu N.W.R
Imperial Mtn N.W.R
San Bernardino N.W.R

5

6
6
3
8
12
6
4
13
14
10
0
10
10
2
2
5
2
3
0
3
4
9
0
4
5
11
7
8
8
0
4
2
4
4
0
6
4
4
4
1
9
7
15
30
22
2
3
2
6

miles with
miles total
fish
perennial
18
50
67
71
5
18
27
42
84
93
60
64
47
91
436
714
128
188
76
139
0
7
78
88
470
630
5
5
63
77
15
15
0
1
14
22
0
22
6
6
110
114
1
1
0
6
82
511
5
5
232
260
565
800
1
1
58
63
0
2
4
19
36
43
32
70
413
455
0
0.5
120
357
21
21
2
2
1
1
0.3
0.3
27
62
1
17
15
36
741
967
153
212
12
38
91
98
39
75
2
2

2. Grassland Habitat
Arizona’s grasslands have undergone dramatic vegetation changes over the last 130
years, including encroachment by shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover, and spread of non-native
species.
These changes have affected a variety of animal species in addition to the plant
communities. While not all animals associated with grasslands are strictly dependent on natural
conditions, at least 23 native species of grassland mammals and birds in the Southwest have been
extirpated or have experienced significant range reductions (Brown and Davis 1995).
To assess grassland conditions, we developed a series of grassland classes or types using
information from range management experts and the literature to define threshold values for
shrub cover. The classes include: native grassland with low shrub cover (Type A); shrubencroached native grassland with restoration potential using prescribed fire (Type B); sacaton
riparian grassland (Type C); non-native grassland with low shrub cover (Type D); shrubencroached non-native grassland (Type E); and former grassland that has undergone a type
conversion to shrubland (Type F).
Using these grassland classes, we interviewed 39 range management specialists and had
them draw areas on maps. The results were field verified, and refined as needed (Figure 5,
Appendix 1).
Most current and historic grasslands of known status in Arizona occur on private and
state trust lands (Table 2). Open native grasslands (Types A, A&D) and those which are
restorable to native grassland conditions (Types B, A&B) comprise 10.9 million acres statewide,
of which 37% are in private management. Sacaton grasslands (Type C) comprise 37 thousand
acres, of which 64% are in private management.
Table 2. Extent, in acres, and percent abundance of grassland types by land manager (BLM,
ASLD, Private) and for Arizona overall (total).
Grassland Type

Open Native
(A, A&D)
Native Restorable
(B, A&B)
Riparian (C)
Exotic (D, E)
Historic (F)
Transition (T)
UNK
Total

BLM
Acres

% BLM
Land

State
Acres

492,935

9

1,423,461

%
State
Land
27

Private
Acres

Total Acres

2,316,359

%
Private
Land
45

%
All*

5,200,961

31

947,841

17

1,801,911

32

1,754,477

31

5,655,570

34

449
17,458
1,049,033
234,930
45,304
2,787,951

1
1
28
34
1
11

9,556
496,675
1,090,623
117,353
60,816
5,000,394

26
34
30
17
1
20

24,013
637,854
867,641
315,490
142,638
6,058,472

64
44
23
46
2
25

37,361
1,456,340
3,694,395
683,134
7,772,725
24,500,486

0
9
22
4

* Value represents the percentage of the total grassland acreage for each grassland type excluding UNK grasslands.

6

Figure 5. Arizona grassland habitat extent and condition.

7

3. Forest Land Habitat
Forests comprise the primary habitat for a variety of Arizona’s wildlife species. The
diversity of Arizona’s forests range from semi-arid riparian gallery forests to sub-alpine and
montane forests, spanning roughly 27 % of the state. The majority of forest land is located
above the Mogollon Rim with discrete patches in southeastern Arizona’s mountain islands
(Figure 7). Pinyon-juniper and pure juniper woodlands are the most abundant forest type in
Arizona, occupying approximately 14.8 million acres or 20.3 % of the state (Figure 6). The
rarest and most significant in ecological terms is riparian forest, which occupies less than one
half a percent of Arizona’s land. For this analysis, multiple categories from the GAP vegetation
mapping and AGFD’s riparian vegetation mapping were grouped into four categories: conifer
forest, Madrean oak woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, and riparian forest (Appendix 2).
Figure 6. Area covered by forest type in Arizona (in thousands of acres).
1 6 ,0 0 0

1 4 ,0 0 0

Thousands of Acres

1 2 ,0 0 0

1 0 ,0 0 0

8 ,0 0 0

6 ,0 0 0

4 ,0 0 0

2 ,0 0 0

0
C o n ife r F o re s t

M a d re a n O a k
W o o d la n d

P in yo n J u n ip e r
W o o d la n d

R ip a ria n F o re s t

F o re s t T y p e

When all forest types are considered together, the largest amount of forest lands (42%)
are administered by USDA Forest Service, 31% are tribal lands, and 10% are private. However,
those proportions vary by forest type (Table 3). Most notably, private lands control the largest
share of the riparian forests.

8

Figure 7. Distribution of Arizona’s forest habitat.

9

Table 3. Land management of Arizona’s forests. Managers are sorted in descending order according
to total acreage of forest lands, as derived from GAP vegetation and AGFD riparian mapping, along with
ALRIS land ownership data.
Conifer Forests
Management

US Forest Service
Indian Reservation
Private
Bureau of Land
Management
State Trust
National Park Service
Military
Arizona Game and Fish
Other
US Fish & Wildlife Service
TOTAL

Total Acres % of
forest
type
3,239,174
64.4
1,440,996
28.6
138,513
2.8
19,067
0.4
34,975
122,164
32,756
660
1,748
0
5,030,053

0.7
2.4
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

Madrean Oak
Pinyon Juniper
Riparian Forests
Woodlands
Woodlands
Total Acres % of
Total Acres % of
Total Acres % of
forest
forest
forest
type
type
type
940,236
69.5 3,251,232
21.9
22,673
8.8
110,362
8.2 5,699,797
38.5
58,157
22.6
117,354
8.7 2,341,558
15.8
82,189
31.9
61,331
4.5 1,573,348
10.6
43,906
17.1
80,841
25,043
17,123
549
289
268
1,353,395

6.0
1.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

1,440,861
512,085
0
3,447
381
0
14,822,710

9.7
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

32,092
11,591
598
725
2,270
3,283
257,483

12.5
4.5
0.2
0.3
0.9
1.3

Literature Cited
Brown, D.E. and R. Davis. 1995. One hundred years of vicissitude: terrestrial bird and mammal
distribution changes in the American Southwest, 1890-1990. Pages 231-244 in L.F.
DeBano, ed. Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: the sky islands
of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Gori, D.F., and C.A.F. Enquist. 2003. An assessment of the spatial extent and condition of
grasslands in central and southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and northern
Mexico. The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ.
Schussman, H., and D. Gori. 2004. An Ecological Assessment of the Bureau of Land
Management’s Current Fire Management Plans: Materials and Recommendations for
Future Fire Planning. Report to Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office,
Phoenix, Arizona. 101 pp.
The Nature Conservancy. 2004. Arizona Forest Legacy Program: Assessment of Need. Report to
Arizona State Land Department, Fire Management Division, Phoenix, Arizona. 269 pp.

10

Appendix 1. Data Sources
Section 1. Fish Habitat
For the underlying distribution map, we used digitized point localities from the Arizona
Game & Fish Department’s Heritage database and Wendell Minckley’s database of ichthyology
specimens. We limited the data to recent records, 1975 or later. We used perennial stream
segments from the Arizona State Land Department (ALRIS) digital file. We attributed each
stream segment with each native fish species found there, using available literature and making
assumptions to interpolate distribution between points. The resulting maps have been reviewed
by Rob Bettaso (AGFD), Peter Unmack (ASU), Doug Duncan (USFWS), and others, with their
input being used to refine the mapping for each species.
Section 2. Grassland Habitat
The underlying data set and portions of these analyses were presented in two reports:
Schussman and Gori 2004, and Gori and Enquist 2003.
To develop the grassland assessment, we used an expert-based approach to develop a
broad-scale, rapid assessment of Arizona’s grasslands, interviewing 39 range management
specialists from the Forest Service (USFS), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), University of Arizona, Arizona State Land Department, The Nature
Conservancy and New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. Expert input was verified and
corrected where necessary through extensive field reconnaissance and quantitative vegetation
sampling at 436 random sampling points. The original expert maps were corrected based on data
from field sampling points, notes made while traversing polygons, and field mapping.
We estimated the accuracy of the original, uncorrected expert map as the percent of field
sampling points and monitoring plots that “agreed” with the expert’s determination for that area.
Using this approach, 322 out of 436 sites or 74% were correctly classified by the experts. This
level of accuracy compares favorably to that of land cover maps derived from the analysis of
Landsat satellite imagery. It is important to note that the accuracy of the final grassland map
should be greater than the above figures because it was revised and corrected based on field data.
Section 3. Forest Land Habitat
These analyses were conducted for a 2004 report by The Nature Conservancy to the
Arizona State Land Department.
Spatial distribution of forest types was determined from the 1998 Arizona Gap Analysis
Program vegetation data, U.S. Geological Survey. This was augmented with 1994 Arizona
Game and Fish data on riparian forests.

11

Appendix 2: Crosswalk of vegetation communities and forest types.
Arizona Forest Legacy
Program-Forest Type
Madrean Oak Woodland

Gap vegetation categories (1998)

Biotic Communities
(Brown 1994)

Encinal Mixed Oak

Madrean Evergreen Woodland

Encinal Mixed Oak-Mesquite

Interior Chaparral

Encinal Mixed Oak-Mexican Mixed Pine
Encinal Mixed Oak-Mexican Pine-Juniper
Encinal Mixed Oak-Pinyon-Juniper
Encinal Mixed Oak/Mix Chapparal/Semidesert Grassland-Mix
Scrub
Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

GB Big Sagebrush-Juniper-Pinyon

Great Basin Conifer Woodland

GB Juniper
PJ (Mixed)/Mixed Chapparal-Scrub
PJ-Shrub/Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak-Juniper
PJ/Sagebrush/Mixed Grass-Scrub
Pinyon-Juniper (Mixed)
Pinyon-Juniper-Mixed Grass-Scrub
Pinyon-Juniper-Mixed Shrub
Pinyon-Juniper-Shrub Live Oak-Mixed Shrub
Conifer Forest

Arizona Cypress

Subalpine Conifer Forest

Douglas Fir-Mixed Conifer

Rocky Mountain and Madrean Montane
Conifer Forest

Englemann Spruce-Mixed Conifer
Ponderosa Pine
Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak-Juniper/Pinyon-Juniper
Complex
Ponderosa Pine-Mixed Conifer
Ponderosa Pine-Mixed Oak-Juniper
Ponderosa Pine/Pinyon-Juniper
Ponderosa Pine-Mixed Conifer/Shrub Live Oak
Riparian Forest

GB Riparian Forest/Mixed Riparian Scrub

Montane Riparian Forest/Wetlands

GB Riparian/Cottonwood-Willow Forest

Plains and Great Basin Riparian
Forest/Wetlands
Riparian Deciduous Forests and
Woodlands
Sonoran Riparian Deciduous Forest and
Woodlands

Int. Riparian/Cottonwood-Willow Forest
Int. Riparian/Mesquite Forest
Int. Riparian/Mixed Broadleaf Forest
Son. Riparian/Cottonwood-Mesquite Forest
Son. Riparian/Cottonwood-Willow Forest
Son. Riparian/Leguminous Short-Tree Forest/Scrub
Son. Riparian/Mesquite Forest
Son. Riparian/Mixed Broadleaf Forest
Son. Riparian/Mixed Riparian Scrub
Cottonwood-Willow*
Mesquite*
Conifer Oak*
Mixed Broadleaf*
Tamarisk and Russian Olive*
* From AZ Game and Fish Department riparian vegetation 1993-1994

12