New Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool

Overview

The Crucial Habitat Rank was derived from a categorical combination of the other layers' Priority Level values where 1 is "Most Crucial" and 6 "Least Crucial." The layers include: Species of Concern, Large Natural Areas, Natural Vegetation Communities, Freshwater Integrity, Wetland and Riparian Areas, and Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (Terrestrial and Aquatic SERI). Table 1 below summarizes the categorical rules applied to the seven underlying data layers to arrive at a Crucial Habitat Rank.

Priority Level 1

Species of Concern priority level = 1, OR a Terrestrial Species of Economic and Recreational Importance priority level = 1, OR Wetland and Riparian Areas priority level = rank of 1

Priority Level 2

Species of Concern priority level = 2, OR Aquatic Species of Economic and Recreational Importance priority level = 1, OR Wetland and Riparian priority level = 2

Priority Level 3

Species of Concern priority level = 3, OR Wetland and Riparian priority level = 3

Priority Level 4

Species of Concern priority level = 4, OR Terrestrial Species of Economic and Recreational Importance priority level = 2, OR Large Natural Areas priority level = 1, OR Freshwater Integrity priority level = 1, OR Natural Vegetation Communities priority level = 1 or 2

Priority Level 5

Species of Concern priority level = 5, OR Terrestrial Species of Economic and Recreational Importance priority level = 3, OR Large Natural Areas priority level = 2, OR Wetland and Riparian Areas priority level = 5, OR Freshwater Integrity priority level = 2, OR Natural Vegetation Communities priority level = 3 or 4

Priority Level 6

All other priority levels (Species of Concern = 6 or Terrestrial Species of Economic and Recreational Importance = 4 or 5, OR Large Natural Areas = 3, OR no data)

Table 1. Categorical rules for assigning a Crucial Habitat Rank to a hexagon
Crucial Habitat Rank	CHAT layer scores
	Species of Concern	Terrestrial SERI	Aquatic SERI	Large Natural Areas	Wetland and Riparian	Freshwater Integrity	Natural Vegetation Communities
1	1	1			1
2	2		1		2
3	3				3
4	4	2		1	4	1	1 or 2
5	5	3		2	5	2	3 or 4
6		4 or 5		3

Overview

Species of Concern (SOC) are defined as species of state and/or national conservation importance. Hexagons were scored based on observations for the following: federally listed Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate species; New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) New Mexico listed animal species (Threatened or Endangered); New Mexico State Forestry Division State Endangered Plant Species (Endangered or Threatened ), and Natural Heritage New Mexico Conservation Status rankings (G1/S1 Critically Imperiled globally and within the state, respectively; G2/S2, Imperiled; G3/S3, Vulnerable; G4/S4, Apparently Secure, and G5/S5, Secure). Observations older than 1975 and with a spatial uncertainty greater than 2,500 m were excluded. Area within a designated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for Endangered or Threatened species was considered “observation” data.

Species Considered

The table below lists the species considered for the SOC layer.

In addition, select habitat models for animal species on NMDGF Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) list were used to evaluate potential Crucial Habitat within hexagons. The 2012 USGS National ReGAP range-wide species distribution models were used as well as range-wide models created by Natural Heritage New Mexico for 26 of the SGCN.

Datasets were compiled from the following contributors: Natural Heritage New Mexico's NMBiotics database, USFWS Critical Habitat and Golden Eagle Survey data, NMDGF field data, New Mexico Museum of Southwestern Biology and NM Biodiversity Collections Consortium specimen data, and New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council field data. Scott Story's WGA Version 5 Species Habitat Toolbox was used to calculate the priority level per hexagon with modifications to accommodate the above unique datasets.

Priority Level 1

Federal Endangered species, OR Federal Threatened species, OR State Endangered species, OR G1 species observations

Priority Level 2

Federal Candidate species observations, OR State Threatened species observations, OR G2 species observations, OR Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act species observations, OR modeled habitat for >15 SGCN species

Priority Level 3

G3 species observations for species (not state or federally listed), OR modeled habitat for at least one of the following: Federal or State Endangered species, OR 11-15 SGCN species

Priority Level 4

G4 or G5 species observations that are also ranked S1 or S2 (not state or federally listed), OR modeled habitat for at least one of the following: Federal or State Threatened species, OR Federal Candidate species, OR 8-10 SGCN species

Priority Level 5

G4 or G5 species observations that are also ranked S3 (not state or federally listed), OR modeled habitat for at least one of the following: at least one G1, G2 or G3 species, OR G4 or G5 and S1 species (not state or federal listed); >3 G4 or G5 and S2 or S3 species (not state or federally listed)

Priority Level 6

None of the above or no data

Dataset Citation

Natural Heritage New Mexico species occurrence data. http://nhnm.unm.edu/index.php

USFWS Critical Habitat for federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act. http://www.fws.gov/

SW ReGAP Distribution models for selected Tier 1 species. http://swregap.nmsu.edu/habitatreview/

Natural Heritage New Mexico Species Distribution Models

Overview

Terrestrial Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI) are based on models developed by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and Dr. Samuel Cushman for ‘General' and ‘Priority’ occupied habitat for bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, pronghorn, cougar, and black bear. General habitat includes the general distribution, as well as year-round and winter ranges. All bighorn sheep habitat is considered ‘Priority.’ Elk and mule deer had both priority and general habitat designated. Pronghorn, cougar, and black bear had only general habitat designated.

Priority Level 1

Overlapping priority habitat for 3 species, OR priority habitat for bighorn sheep

Priority Level 2

Overlapping priority habitat for 2 species

Priority Level 3

At least 1 priority species, OR overlapping of general habitat for 5 species

Priority Level 4

Overlapping general habitat for 3 or 4 species

Priority Level 5

Overlapping general habitat for 1 or 2 species

Priority Level 6

Areas with no general or priority habitat

Dataset Citation

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Overview

Aquatic Species of Economic and Recreational Importance as defined by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish are designated sportfish waters (both streams and lakes). All hexagons with overlapping sportfish waters were categorized as 1, otherwise they were categorized as 6 (no data).

Priority Level 1

If a hexagon intersect includes sportfish waters

Priority Level 6

No sportfish waters intersect hexagons and are assigned a priority value of 6

Dataset Citation

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Overview

Freshwater Integrity is a measure of watershed stress from human impacts and the risk of potential degradation to habitat. It is measured by the average National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) Cumulative Distance value that ranges from 1-6. A value of 1 represents watersheds under high stress and at risk of high degradation; watersheds with a 5 score are the least stressed and potentially least degraded. NFHAP scores of 5 are considered crucial habitat because those watersheds with lowest degradation and stress are of the highest value for habitat maintenance. Zero indicates that the watershed was not evaluated by NFHAP and was recoded to 6.

Priority Level 1

NFHAP value = 5; very low potential watershed degradation (minimum stress; highest benefit to aquatic organisms)

Priority Level 2

NFHAP value = 4; low potential watershed degradation (low stress)

Priority Level 3

NFHAP value = 3; moderate potential watershed degradation (moderate stress)

Priority Level 4

NFHAP value = 2; high potential watershed degradation (high stress)

Priority Level 5

NFHAP value = 1; very high potential watershed degradation (very high stress; lowest benefit to aquatic organisms)

Priority Level 6

No data available for these areas

Dataset Citation

National Fish Habitat Action Plan assessment of watershed condition at HUC-12. http://fishhabit.org

Overview

Wetland and riparian areas of high value for wildlife habitat and ecosystem services. Scores are based on a combination of Playa Lakes Joint Venture assessments (Playa Lakes JV ), New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Outstanding Natural Resource Waters, New Mexico Environment Dept. and Natural Heritage New Mexico – New Mexico Rapid Assessment Methodology (NMRAM), and Natural Heritage New Mexico Biodiversity Significance scores riparian/wetland sites (NHNM Site Rank). Playa Lakes JV playa sites were categorized based on their priority for wildlife conservation (based on size, condition, and if the playa was part of a playa cluster). All designated Outstanding Natural Resource Waters were categorized as Priority Level 1 because of their importance for preserving sensitive aquatic species and ecosystems. NMRAM sites were categorized using on-the-ground assessments of wetland ecological condition: (A - excellent condition, B - good condition, C - fair condition, D - poor condition). NHNM Site ranks were categorized based on biodiversity significance as a function of vegetation composition, condition, and stressors (1 - most significant, to 5 - least significant). In the case of overlapping wetland and riparian areas, the highest rank (best quality) is taken for the hexagon.

Priority Level 1

Playa Lakes JV = Very high to high priority to avoid development AND playa WITHIN a playa cluster or Saline, OR all NMED Outstanding Natural Resource Waters, OR NMRAM Site Rank is A, OR NHNM Site Rank 1 or 2

Priority Level 2

Playa Lakes JV = Medium priority AND playa WITHIN a playa cluster, OR NMRAM Site Rank B, OR NHNM Site Rank 3

Priority Level 3

Playa Lakes JV = Medium priority AND playa OUTSIDE a playa cluster, OR NMRAM Site Rank C, OR NHNM Site Rank 4

Priority Level 5

Playa Lakes JV = Low priority, OR NM RAM = Site Rank D, OR NHNM Site Rank = 5

Priority Level 6

Areas not covered by the datasets.

Dataset Citation

McLachlan, M., A. Daniels, A. Bartuszevige. 2012. User's manual: playa lakes decision support system. Playa Lakes Joint Venture, Lafayette, CO, USA. http://www.pljv.org/pci/new-mexico

New Mexico Environment Department, Outstanding Natural Resource Waters (ONRW), http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/ONRW/

Muldavin, E.H., B. Bader, E.R. Milford, M. McGraw, D. Lightfoot, B. Nicholson, and G. Larson. 2011. New Mexico Rapid Assessment Method: Montane Riverine Wetlands. Version 1.1. Final report to the New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 90 pp. and appendices.

Muldavin, E.H., B. Bader, E.R. Milford, M. McGraw, D. Lightfoot, B. Nicholson, and G. Larson. 2011. New Mexico Rapid Assessment Method: Montane Riverine Wetlands. Field Guide Version 1.1. Final report to the New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau, Santa Fe New Mexico. 39 pp. and appendices. http://nhnm.unm.edu/index.php

Muldavin, E., P. Durkin, M. Bradley, M. Stuever, and P. Mehlhop. 2000. Handbook of wetland vegetation communities of New Mexico, Volume I Classification and Community Descriptions. 212 pp. http://nhnm.unm.edu/index.php

Bradley, M., E. Muldavin, P. Durkin, and P. Mehlhop. 1998. Handbook of wetland vegetation communities of New Mexico. Volume II: Wetland reference sites for New Mexico. Report by New Mexico Natural Heritage Program for U.S. EPA and NM Environment Department. 171 pp. http://nhnm.unm.edu/index.php

Overview

Large Natural Areas are areas greater than 1,000 ha (2,471 ac) that are minimally fragmented by roads, powerlines, railroads, pipelines, and other human impacts. Areas were delineated using the Landscape Condition Model of Comer and Hak (2012) that computes a Landscape Condition score for 90 x 90-meter pixels based on a pixel's distance from 19 impact elements associated with transportation, urban/industrial development, and managed/modified land cover (e.g., cultivated areas). Using protected areas as a reference (USGS Protected Areas Database Gap status 1-3), a minimum Landscape Condition score threshold was determined that represents a natural area (stratified by plains, mountain, and desert ecosystems). Then, a 1,000-ha moving-window smoothing process was performed to identify Large Intact Blocks (LIBs) containing contiguous areas above their respective ecosystem threshold values. For each LIB, an average Landscape Condition score was computed and the LIBs proportionally binned into three Large Natural Area classes (highest 1/3, middle 1/3, and lowest 1/3 in condition above the threshold). For hexagons that crossed two or more Large Natural Areas polygons, the hexagons were assigned to the class with the lowest value occupying at least 25% of the hexagon.

Priority Level 1

All Large Natural Areas > 1,000 ha AND Landscape Condition score in the best third of the value range (best-quality large intact blocks)

Priority Level 2

Large Natural Areas < 10,000 ha AND Landscape Condition score in the middle third of the value range (moderate-quality blocks), OR Large Natural Areas > 50,000 ha AND Landscape Condition score in the middle third to lowest third of the value range (moderate to lowest-quality large intact blocks)

Priority Level 3

Large Natural Areas < 10,000 ha AND Landscape Condition score in the lowest third of the value range (lowest-quality large intact blocks), OR Large Natural Areas between 10,000 and 50,000 ha AND Landscape Condition score in the middle or worst third of the value range (moderate to lowest-quality large intact blocks)

Priority Level 6

Hexagons that were not in any large intact blocks (<1,000 ha) of any Landscape Condition score

Dataset Citation

Comer, P.J. and J. Hak. 2012. Landscape Condition in the Conterminous United States. Spatial Model Summary. NatureServe, Boulder, CO. 8 pp.

Overview

Natural Vegetation Communities are at-risk Ecological Systems of Concern (ESOC). Ecological Systems follow the definitions of Comer et al. (2003). A conservation status rank based on occurrences, trends and threats was assigned by the WGA ESOC ranking workgroup using the NatureServe Conservation Status Rank Calculator (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2009). Ranks were applied at a national scale where N1 = Critically Imperiled, N2 = Imperiled, N3 = Vulnerable, N4 = Apparently Secure, N5 = Secure. Natural Heritage New Mexico modified and excluded certain ESOCs pending revision and assigned a state rank (1-6). New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank categories follow N-Ranks except for Category 6 which contains ESOCs subject to future revision and therefore not included. Hexagons were attributed with the majority New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank category that occupied at least 25% of the cell.

Priority Level 1

A vegetation community with a New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank = 1

Priority Level 2

A vegetation community with a New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank = 2

Priority Level 3

A vegetation community with a New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank = 3

Priority Level 4

A vegetation community with a New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank = 4

Priority Level 5

A vegetation community with a New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank = 5

Priority Level 6

A vegetation community with a New Mexico Natural Vegetation rank = 6, OR hexagons lacking ranked ecological systems

Dataset Citation

Raster dataset categorizing the U.S. by terrestrial ecological system

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 75 pp. http://www.natureserve.org/library/usEcologicalsystems.pdf

Faber-Langendoen, D., L. Master, J. Nichols, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R. Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, and B. Young. 2009. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Methodology for Assigning Ranks. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 50pp.

Summary

This feature class provides the polygons for the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Townships.

Description

This feature class contains the Public Land Survey System Townships which are the primary unit of survey for the PLSS, nominally six miles on a side, usually containing 36 sections. PLSS Townships are numbered from base lines and principal meridians.

Summary

This layer contains polygons of critical habitat as defined by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Critical habitat are areas considered essential for the conservation of a species listed under the Endangered Species Act. These areas provide notice to the public and land managers about the importance of these areas to the conservation of the indicated species. Special protections and/or restrictions are possible in areas where federal funding, permits, licenses, authorizations, or actions occur or are required.

Description

These data identify, in general, the areas where final critical habitat exist for species listed as endangered or threatened. This layer was downloaded on 1/24/2023 from http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/.