&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Habitat Distribution Models for
37 Vertebrate Species in the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion of
Nevada, Arizona, and Utah
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
-------
EPA/600/R-08/117
October 2008
www.epa.gov
Habitat Distribution Models for
37 Vertebrate Species in the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion of
Nevada, Arizona, and Utah
EPA Contract #EP-C-05-061
by
Kenneth G. Boykin
New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Ecology
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
David F. Bradford
William G. Kepner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Division
Las Vegas, Nevada
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official
Agency policy. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
4260leb08
-------
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the several people who met with us to discuss the development and execution of
this project, particularly Marci Henson, Susan Wainscott, Lee Bice, and Matthew Hamilton of Clark
County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management Desert Conservation Program, and
Carrie Ronning of Bureau of Land Management. We are also grateful to a number of individuals who
provided species occurrence records: Elisabeth Ammon (Great Basin Bird Observatory), Lisa Crampton
(University of Nevada Reno), Teresa Jezkova (School of Life Sciences, University of Nevada Las Vegas),
Jennifer Newmark (Nevada Natural Heritage Program), and Lisa Smith (formerly Biological Resources
Research Center, University of Nevada Reno). We also thank Tom McKay and Bill Dollarhide (Natural
Resources Conservation Service) for assistance with the SSURGO soils dataset. Lastly, we are grateful
for the thoughtful consideration and constructive comments from the reviewers of this report: Polly
Conrad, Christy Klinger, and Larry Neel (Nevada Department of Wildlife), Jeri Krueger (US Fish and
Wildlife Service), Matt Hamilton (Clark County Desert Conservation Program), Kevin Gergely (US
Geological Survey), and Jay Christensen (US Environmental Protection Agency).
Cover: Cover image indicates the study areas of Mojave Desert Ecoregion and Clark County, NV with a
backdrop of LANDSAT 7 ETM+ imagery.
Suggested citation format for this report:
Boykin, K.G., D.F. Bradford, and W.G. Kepner. 2008. Habitat Distribution Models for 37 Vertebrate
Species in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (EPA/600/R-08/117, 142 pp.).
in
-------
Executive Summary
Conservation planning for a species requires knowledge of the species' population status and distribution.
An important step in obtaining this information for many species is the development of models that
predict the habitat distribution for the species. Such models can be useful in depicting the amount and
location of potential habitat available, and in providing a starting point for designing surveys to obtain
more detailed information about population characteristics, distribution, and habitat associations.
Clark County, Nevada, has developed a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) that
addresses 78 species covered by a permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and more than 100
"evaluation" or "watch" species. The MSHCP is designed to reduce the likelihood that a species will
become federally listed as endangered or threatened in the future.
The present study was undertaken to develop habitat distribution models for the 37 vertebrate species that
are either covered under the MSHCP or identified as high priority evaluation species, using the recently
completed habitat models from the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) as a starting
point. A secondary purpose of the project was to evaluate the applicability of the SWReGAP models
when applied at a much smaller geographic scale than the 5-state SWReGAP region (i.e., Arizona,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado). Specifically, we focus on the Mojave Desert Ecoregion
(exclusive of California) and Clark County, NV.
We reviewed the 37 original SWReGAP habitat models to see if they could be improved for the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion by incorporating additional and more specific information, such as datasets that did not
cover the entire 5-state SWReGAP area, information not available at the time the SWReGAP models
were developed, species occurrence records, and local knowledge. The original and revised models used
a deductive (i.e., literature driven) process.
We revised 35 of the 37 original models. The extent of habitat predicted by the original and revised
models within the study areas differed widely among the species, although the median change in habitat
extent among the species was not great (i.e., increase of 4.1%). Given the greater input and specificity for
the revised models than the original models, we find that the revised models would be the better starting
point for evaluating habitat distribution for species addressed by the Clark County MSHCP.
Using the revised models, we computed the extent of predicted habitat distributed among land
management categories that reflect degree of biodiversity protection (i.e., gap analysis). For most of the
37 species the proportion of habitat in the most protected categories (i.e., Status 1 and 2 of SWReGAP)
was much higher for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion and Clark County than for the 5-state SWReGAP
region as a whole. The lands in Status 1 and 2 categories combined roughly correspond to the lands
assigned by Clark County to its Conservation Management categories of IMA (Intensively Managed
Area) and LIMA (Less Intensively Managed Area).
We evaluated the feasibility of developing inductive (i.e., data driven) models using the
Maximum Entropy algorithm for four of the 37 species. The inductive models used known
occurrence records, which allow development of species-environment associations without
precise knowledge of this association. The result is a prediction of habitat distribution by
probability values rather than binary representation (i.e., suitable vs. non-suitable). The four
-------
species addressed were the desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), common chuckwalla
(Sauromalus ater), phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), and desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys deserti).
The resulting inductive models were similar to the original deductive SWReGAP models in that many of
the variables used in the original models (e.g., land cover, elevation) were also used in the inductive
models. A major difference between them, however, was that for all four species, a variable was included
in the inductive models that were not available for the original deductive models. These were a sand
coverage (SSURGO soils dataset) for the desert iguana and desert kangaroo rat, a mesquite/acacia bosque
coverage for the phainopepla, and a rock outcrop coverage (SSURGO) for the chuckwalla. The inductive
models clearly fit the occurrence records belter than the deductive models. Although this is not surprising
given that the locality records were used to build the inductive models, the differences were substantial.
We feel that the inductive models for the four target species provided more accurate and insightful habitat
models than the deductive models.
Many taxa addressed by the Clark County MSHCP would be amenable to inductive modeling, beyond the
four species addressed herein. For most species, however, critical next steps in habitat modeling would
be to conduct a ground-based accuracy assessment of existing models, and further sampling for species
locations and habitat associations to improve these models.
VI
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iii
Executive Summary v
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
Introduction 1
Gap Analysis and the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Proj ect (SWReGAP) 1
Habitat Modeling and Project Objectives 1
Methods 5
Reduced-extent Versions of SWReGAP Models 6
Revision of SWReGAP Deductive Models 6
Comparison of Gap Analysis Statistics for Mojave Desert and Clark County 6
Occurrence Locations for Species 10
Inductive Modeling 11
Results and Discussion 13
Revised SWReGAP Habitat Models 13
Land Stewardship (Ownership) and Management Status 16
Comparison of Gap Management Status and Clark County Management Status 19
GAP Analysis Statistics for Species Habitat Models 20
Clark County Management Status 22
Inductive Habitat Models for Four Species 23
Desert Iguana 23
Phainopepla 27
vn
-------
Desert Kangaroo Rat 30
Common Chuckwalla 33
General Discussion 37
Scale Down of SWReGAP Models 37
Comparison of SWReGAP & Clark County Management Category Statistics 37
Inductive vs. Deductive Models 37
Limitations of the Inductive Models 38
Next Steps for Improving Models for the Four Target Species 38
Implications and Suggestions for Conservation Planning 39
Literature Cited 41
Appendices 43
Appendix A. Datasets Considered in Inductive Modeling 45
Appendix B. Land Cover Types Mapped within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion for Southwest Regional
Gap Analysis Project 49
Appendix C. Project Outputs 53
Appendix D. Gap Analysis Statistics for Revised Models for Management Status 57
Appendix E-1. Gap Analysis Statistics for Revised Models for Stewardship (in hectares) 67
Appendix E-2. Gap Analysis Statistics for Revised Models for Stewardship (in percentage) 73
Appendix F. Gap Analysis Statistics for Clark County Conservation Management Areas 83
Appendix G. Comparison between Original SWReGAP Deductive Models and Revised Deductive
Models 89
Appendix H. Revised Deductive Habitat Models for 37 Species 99
Vlll
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Thirty-seven "covered" or "high priority evaluation" vertebrate species addressed in this
study 3
Table 2. Description of Clark County Conservation Management Status Categories (RECON 2000) 9
Table 3. Area of land in each GAP Management Status category by land ownership for the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion study area 17
Table 4. Area of land in each GAP Management Status category by land ownership for the Clark
County study area 18
Table 5a. Comparison of area (hectares) within GAP Management Status categories and Clark
County Management Category within Clark County 19
Table 5b. Comparison of area (hectares) within GAP Management Status categories (Status 1 and 2
combined) and Clark County Management Category (IMA and LIMA combined) within
Clark County 19
Table 6. Iterations of Maximum Entropy Models for four species within the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion 25
IX
-------
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the study areas including Mojave Desert Ecoregion - exclusive of California
(dashed line) and Clark County, Nevada (solid bold line) 5
Figure 2. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project management status categories (top) and land
ownership (below) for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion, exclusive of California.
Management status categories as derived from Ernst et al. 2007 8
Figure 3. Distribution of Clark County Conservation Management Areas: Intensively Managed
Areas (IMA), Less Intensively Managed Areas (LIMA), Multiple Use Managed Area
(MUMA), and Unmanaged Area (UMA) 10
Figure 4. Change in extent of habitat predicted for a species in the revised deductive models
relative to the original SWReGAP models in Clark County 14
Figure 5. Change in extent of habitat predicted for a species in the revised deductive models
relative to the original SWReGAP models in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion 15
Figure 6. Change in extent of habitat predicted for a species in the revised deductive models
relative to the original SWReGAP models 16
Figure 7. Percentage of predicted suitable habitat from deductive model on Status 1 and 2 lands in
Clark County. Letters after species name indicate K=known year round, B=breeding,
M=migratory, and P=potential occurrence 20
Figure 8. Percentage of predicted suitable habitat from deductive model on Status 1 and 2 lands in
the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Letters after species name indicate K=known year round,
B=breeding, M=migratory, BW=breeding in winter, and P=potential occurrence 21
Figure 9. Percentage of predicted suitable habitat from deductive model on IMA and LIMA lands
in Clark County. Letters after species name indicate K=known year round, B=breeding,
M=migratory, and P=potential occurrence 22
Figure 10. Predicted habitat distribution for the desert iguana in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion: (A)
original SWReGAP deductive model, (B) revised deductive model, (C) inductive model
represented as probabilities (%) for species occurrence, and (D) inductive model
represented in binary fashion (i.e., suitable/not suitable) using a 52.9 threshold. Gray
outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion. For the two inductive
models (C and D), portions of the study area could not be modeled due to missing
information (see Fig. 11B) 24
Figure 11. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the desert iguana in an overlay of the revised
deductive model (from Fig. 10B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 10D)
showing: (A) models only, and (B) models with occurrence points and distribution of
SSURGO soils data 26
Figure 12. Predicted habitat distribution for phainopepla in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion: (A)
original SWReGAP deductive model with suitable (year round), summer breeding, and
XI
-------
winter breeding habitat, (B) revised deductive model with suitable (year round), summer
breeding, and winter breeding habitat, (C) inductive model represented as probabilities
(%) for suitability, and (D) inductive model represented in binary fashion (i.e.,
suitable/not suitable) using a 30.9 threshold. Gray outlines indicate county boundaries
and Mojave Desert Ecoregion 28
Figure 13. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the phainopepla in an overlay of the revised
deductive model (from Fig. 12B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 12D),
showing: (A) models only, and (B) models with occurrence points 29
Figure 14. Predicted habitat distribution for the desert kangaroo rat in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion:
(A) original SWReGAP deductive model, (B) revised deductive model, (C) inductive
model represented as probabilities (%) for suitability, and (D) inductive model
represented in binary fashion (i.e., suitable/not suitable) using a 23.5 threshold. Gray
outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Visual differences
between deductive (A) and (B) models are due to image creation; there are no changes in
actual suitable habitat. For the two inductive models, portions of the study could not be
modeled due to missing information (see Fig. 15B below) 31
Figure 15. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the desert kangaroo rat in an overlay of the
revised deductive model (from Fig. 14B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 14D)
showing: (A) models only, and (B) models with occurrence points and distribution of
SSURGO soils data 32
Figure 16. Predicted habitat distribution for the common chuckwalla in the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion: (A) original SWReGAP deductive model, (B) revised deductive model, (C)
inductive model represented as probabilities for suitability, and (D) inductive model
represented in binary fashion (i.e., suitable/not suitable) using a 38.8 threshold. Gray
outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion. For the two inductive
models, portions of the study could not be modeled due to missing information (see Fig.
17B below) 34
Figure 17. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the common chuckwalla in an overlay of the
revised deductive model (from Fig. 16B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 16D)
showing: (A) models only, and (B) models with occurrence points and distribution of
SSURGO soils data 35
xn
-------
Introduction
Clark County, Nevada, has developed a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) that
addresses 78 "covered" species, and more than 100 "evaluation" or "watch" species (RECON 2000;
http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/daqem/epd/Pages/dcp_mshcp.aspx). "Covered" species are
those covered by a permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) which, among other things,
allows the "take" of any of the species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, or may
become so listed in the future. The MSHCP is designed to reduce the likelihood of a species becoming
federally listed in the future.
Clark County is responsible for reporting to FWS on the status and distribution of the species covered by
the permit. An important step in obtaining this information for many species is the development of
models that predict the habitat distribution for the species. Such models can be useful in depicting the
amount and location of potential habitat available, and in providing a starting point for designing field
studies to obtain more detailed information about population size, distribution, and habitat associations.
The purpose of the present project was to develop habitat distribution models for the 37 vertebrate species
that are either covered under the MSHCP or identified as high priority evaluation species, using the
recently completed habitat models from the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) as a
starting point (Prior-Magee et al. 2007). This effort also provided an evaluation of the utility of the
SWReGAP models when applied at a scale smaller than the entire 5-state SWReGAP region.
Gap Analysis and the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP)
The Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is a national interagency program that maps the distribution of plant
communities and selected animal species and compares these distributions with land stewardship to
identify vulnerable biotic elements. GAP uses remote sensing (Landsat 7) and Geographic Information
System (GIS) technology to assemble and view large amounts of biological and land management data to
identify areas (gaps) where conservation efforts may not be sufficient to maintain diversity of living
natural resources (i.e., gap analysis). Historically, GAP has been conducted by individual states; however,
this has resulted in inconsistencies in mapped distributions of vegetation types and animal habitat across
state lines because of differences in mapping and modeling protocols, and differences in available
environmental datasets. In response to these limitations, GAP embarked on a second generation effort to
conduct the program at a regional scale, beginning with SWReGAP, which included five southwestern
states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) and comprises nearly one-fifth of the
conterminous United States (Prior-Magee et al. 2007; http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/). The
primary goals of SWReGAP were to develop a detailed contemporary land cover database, digital maps
for land ownership and land management status, and a set of habitat models for terrestrial vertebrate
species across the southwestern U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was a partner
with U.S. Geological Survey (and other agencies and universities) in the project and had lead
responsibility for the Nevada ecoregional component in the 5-state effort
(http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-sci/gap.htm).
Habitat Modeling and Project Objectives
Two paradigms are common in spatial habitat modeling, i.e., deductive and inductive modeling.
Deductive modeling uses literature-based wildlife habitat relationship models to identify potential suitable
-------
habitat. Using this approach, we identified suitable conditions within mappable datasets to derive the
habitat maps for the MSHCP species of interest. This is often known as a "top-down approach."
SWReGAP used this method in their modeling of 819 terrestrial vertebrates within the Southwest United
States (Boykin et al. 2007A). Inductive modeling uses species occurrence locations to statistically
identify the species' environmental niche. This has also been termed a "bottom-up approach."
Traditionally, inductive modeling has needed both known presence and absence points. However, new
techniques have been developed that use presence-only points with pseudo-absence points. One such
technique is the algorithm that comprises Maximum Entropy Software (Phillips et al 2006). Hernandez et
al. (2006) compared four common inductive modeling algorithms (GARP, Bioclim, Domain, and
Maximum Entropy) and identified Maximum Entropy as providing a more accurate model at low sample
sizes.
The MSHCP provides conservation for 78 species, and lists another 37 as high priority evaluation species
to be considered for coverage under future phases of the plan. Of these, 37 are terrestrial vertebrate
species (27 covered species and 10 high priority evaluation species; Table 1). All 37 of these species
were modeled within the SWReGAP effort for the five southwestern states (Boykin et al. 2007A). The
present study had four objectives concerning habitat models for these species:
1. Create reduced-extent versions of the original SWReGAP models for both the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion (exclusive of California) and Clark County, Nevada, for each of the 37 species of interest.
Using these datasets we compute gap analysis statistics including area (in hectares) and percent of habitat
within land ownership categories and GAP management status categories for both the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion and Clark County.
2. Review these reduced-extent models to see if they can be improved for the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion by incorporating additional information that was not applicable to the 5-state SWReGAP area
(i.e., mesquite-acacia data), information not available at the time the SWReGAP models were developed
(e.g., Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas), known locality records, and knowledge of local species-habitat
relationships. Using these revised models, we again compute gap analysis statistics for area (in hectares)
and percent of habitat within land ownership categories and GAP management status categories for both
the Mojave Desert Ecoregion and Clark County. We also compute similar statistics for Clark County
using Clark County's Conservation Management categories.
3. Compare the GAP Statistics for Revised and Original SWReGAP Models. This comparison
provides an indication of concordance between the original models developed for the 5-state area and
those developed for a single ecoregion (Mojave Desert) and a localized area (Clark County). We also
evaluate the similarities and differences between Gap statistics for the GAP management status categories
and Clark County's Conservation Management categories.
4. Evaluate the feasibility of developing inductive models using existing locality records by
developing such models for four of the 37 species using the Maximum Entropy algorithm. The four
species are the desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), common chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater),
phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), and desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys deserti). We subsequently
compare the distribution of suitable habitat depicted by these inductive models with that depicted by the
original and revised deductive models above.
-------
Table 1. Thirty-seven "covered" or "high priority evaluation" vertebrate species addressed
in this study.
Taxon
Common Name*
Scientific Name*
Amphibians Southwestern toad**
Relict leopard frog
Bufo microscaphus
Rana onca
Reptiles Glossy snake
Western banded gecko
Sidewinder
Speckled rattlesnake
Mojave rattlesnake
Mojave black-collared lizard
Desert iguana
Gilbert's skink
Long-nosed leopard lizard
Desert tortoise
Gila monster**
Common kingsnake
Desert horned lizard**
Spotted leaf-nosed snake
Long-nosed snake
Common chuckwalla**
Western lyre snake
Desert night lizard**
Birds Burro wing owl**
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Willow flycatcher
Peregrine falcon
Blue grosbeak
Phainopepla
Summer tanager
Vermilion flycatcher
Bell's vireo
Arizona elegans
Coleonyx variegatus
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus scutulatus
Crotaphytus bicinctores
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Eumeces gilberti
Gambelia wislizenii
Gopherus agassizii
Heloderma suspectum
Lampropeltis getula
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Sauromalus ater
Trimorphodon biscutatus
Xantusia vigilis
Athene cunicularia
Coccyzus americanus
Empidonax traillii
Falco peregrinus
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla nitens
Piranga rubra
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vireo bellii
Mammals Desert pocket mouse**
Townsend's big-eared bat**
Desert kangaroo rat**
Silver-haired bat
Long-eared myotis
Long-legged myotis
Palmer's chipmunk
Kit fox**
Chaetodipus penicillatus
Corynorhinus townsendii
Dipodomys deserti
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Myotis evotis
Myotis volans
Tamias palmeri
Vulpes macrotis
* Names follow Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project naming convention (Boykin et al. 2007)
** High Priority Evaluation Species
-------
-------
Methods
The project focuses on two geographic areas: (1) the Mojave Desert Ecoregion, as defined by The Nature
Conservancy, exclusive of California, and (2) Clark County, Nevada, which is contained within the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion (Figure 1). The Mojave Desert Ecoregion encompasses over 5 million hectares
within the study unit and Clark County includes over 2 million hectares. The ecoregion as a study area
was selected because it provides an ecological context for the Clark County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
• Esm*r»kta County
1 Nye County s^ I
v--'\ r* l
V\ *. <. V '•-.<"-
-,—,'1
I
Utah
Legend
| Clark County
| Mojave Desert Ecoregion
Figure 1. Map of the study areas including Mojave Desert Ecoregion - exclusive of California (dashed line)
and Clark County, Nevada (solid bold line).
-------
Reduced-extent Versions of SWReGAP Models
Reduced-extent versions of the original deductive SWReGAP models were created by clipping the
original SWReGAP datasets (http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/) to the Mojave Desert Ecoregion as
defined by The Nature Conservancy and to the Clark County boundary. ArcGIS 9.2 was used for
clipping (Earth Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA). Reduced-extent versions were created
using the 30-m pixel resolution level dataset as provided by SWReGAP. Metadata for these reduced-
extent versions contains detailed processes used to create or modify the data. Reduced-extent versions of
original SWReGAP models provided a smaller dataset for visualization and use in generating gap analysis
statistics.
Revision of SWReGAP Deductive Models
The original 37 SWReGAP models were reviewed to consider information specific to the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion and Clark County. Revisions considered all variables available within the SWReGAP project
and included land cover, land form, elevation, slope, aspect, distance to hydrological features (springs,
streams, lakes, wetlands), and STATSGO soils data. Model variables were added, modified, or deleted in
the model based on specific information for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion or Clark County. Only land
cover types mapped within the study area were included in the model (Appendix B). Georeferenced
locality records from several sources (see below) and recent literature (e.g., NDOW 2006) were used to
further modify the models. Modifications were documented in revised habitat model reports and maps for
each species.
Comparison of Gap Analysis Statistics for Mojave Desert and Clark County
We conducted gap analysis specifically for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion study area and Clark County
using the revised SWReGAP models. These gap analyses were created by cross-tabulating stewardship
categories (Fig. 2) with each habitat model. Thus, the analyses provide the amount of predicted suitable
habitat (in hectares) for each species in each SWReGAP management status category or land owner
(Ernst et al. 2007) for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion (exclusive of California) and Clark County.
The two primary goals of SWReGAP were to provide an assessment of the management status for certain
elements of biodiversity (vegetation communities and animal species) throughout the 5 Southwestern
states, and to provide land stewards with information on the representation of these elements on their land
so they can make informed decisions about their management practices regarding biodiversity.
To accomplish this, the mapped distributions of vegetation communities were compared to a map of land
stewardship. In GAP, the land stewardship map combines attributes of ownership, management, and a
measure of intent to maintain biodiversity. These comparisons do not consider viability, but provide a
beginning to assess the likelihood of future habitat conversion—the most obvious cause of biodiversity
decline. We use the term "stewardship," because legal ownership of a land area does not necessarily
equate to the entity charged with managing the resource. Though we record the management and
ownership entities of public lands and privately owned conservation lands, we also acknowledge that
these attributes are complex and change rapidly. GAP Management status categories differentiate land
parcels into four groups based on long-term maintenance of biodiversity (Ernst et al. 2007). Status 1 and
2 lands are considered to be most protected in regard to long-term management for biodiversity. The four
categories are:
Status 1: An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a
mandated management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which disturbance
-------
events (of natural type, frequency, intensity, and legacy) are allowed to proceed without
interference or are mimicked through management.
Status 2: An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a
mandated management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which may
receive uses or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities,
including suppression of natural disturbance.
Status 3: An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the
majority of the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type (e.g.,
logging) or localized intense type (e.g., mining). It also confers protection to federally listed
endangered and threatened species throughout the area.
Status 4: There are no known public or private institutional mandates or legally recognized
easements or deed restrictions held by the managing entity to prevent conversion of natural
habitat types to anthropogenic habitat types.
Revised deductive habitat models were used to derive new gap analysis statistics for the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion and Clark County using the SWReGAP stewardship data layer (Ernst et al. 2007). Statistics
were generated for land ownership and GAP management status categories.
For Clark County, statistics were also generated for the Clark County Conservation Management Status
(Table 2, Fig. 3) categories (RECON 2000). These four Clark County Conservation Management
categories are defined based on management intensity and use. We compared SWReGAP management
status categories and Clark County Conservation Management Status categories to understand both the
differences and similarities between these datasets.
-------
Management Status for the Mojave Desert EOOTMlftn
Stale Land Board
: ,' ;'. ' •-. R. • ,-
Offiw Slate Und
Figure 2. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project management status categories (top) and land ownership
(below) for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion, exclusive of California. Management status categories as derived
from Ernst et al. 2007. Not shown are 34,800 hectares of Boulder City lands under desert tortoise
conservation easement. This conservation easement is not included in analyses.
-------
Table 2. Description of Clark County Conservation Management Status Categories
(RECON 2000).
• Intensively Managed Area (IMA) - IMAs consist of lands in which management is oriented toward
actions that reduce or eliminate potential threats to biological resources, such as wilderness areas,
biodiversity hotspots, wilderness study areas, or the conserved/critical habitat areas established for the
Mojave Desert tortoise. IMAs will provide an adequate amount and quality of habitats to support
viable populations of all of the species covered by the MSHCP. This MSHCP designates the
following lands as IMAs:
o BLM lands committed to conservation of the desert tortoise pursuant to the terms of the DCP
o All National Park Service lands except those identified as development zone in the GMP and
existing minor developments such as parking lots, trailheads, and boat ramps
o Wilderness, Research Natural Areas (RNAs), Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), and Instant
Study Areas (ISAs) managed by the BLM and the USFS
o The Desert National Wildlife Range (including portions of NAFR), and other refuges,
managed by the USFWS
o State Wildlife Management Areas located within the plan area
o State parks located within the plan area (Valley of Fire State Park)
o Nellis Small Arms Range
• Less Intensively Managed Area (LIMA) - LIMAs are lands on which management generally limits
the range of uses allowed to primarily low-impact recreational uses. LIMAs will function to augment
the habitat in IMAs for some species, as well as providing buffers from areas of more intensive uses
and connectivity between IMAs. This MSHCP designates the following areas as LIMAs:
• BLM lands managed as National Conservation Areas (NCAs)
• USFS lands managed as the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area
• Lands within NAFR and NSAR with limited Air Force use and restricted access
• Target areas on NAFR
• State parks other than Valley of Fire State Park
• Multiple Use Managed Area (MUMA) - MUMAs are lands on which human activities are not
precluded and which may, at times, be intense but which nevertheless continue to support significant
areas of undisturbed natural vegetation. MUMAs provide connectivity between the populations of
species in IMAs and LIMAs, additional habitat for these species, and buffering between the IMAs,
LIMAs, and areas of more intensive use. Agricultural lands may, in some situations, provide similar
values. This MSHCP designates the following areas as MUMAs:
o Undesignated BLM lands
• Unmanaged Area (UMA) - UMAs are lands on which human activities predominate and which may
incidentally support populations of some species. This MSHCP designates the following areas as
UMAs:
• Private lands
• Indian reservations
• Intensive/developed recreation use areas
• Highways and material sites
• Lands disturbed by previous land uses
• Mines
• Landfills
• Intensive agriculture
• Nellis Air Force Base and Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field
-------
x EsmeraldaCoLinty
California
Mojave
. f .DsW ' Cla* County
Legend
Clark County Conservation Management Areas
| | IMA
| | LIMA
| |MUMA
| UMA
0 12.525 50 75 100
• Kilometers
\J
Arizona
Figure 3. Distribution of Clark County Conservation Management Areas: Intensively Managed Areas
(IMA), Less Intensively Managed Areas (LIMA), Multiple Use Managed Area (MUMA), and Unmanaged
Area (UMA).
Occurrence Locations for Species
Datasets for georeferenced locality records were collected for all 37 species from Mammal Networked
Information System (MaNIS; http://manisnet.org/), Ornithological Networked Information System
(OrNIS; http://olla.berkeley.edu/ornisnet/), and Herpnet (http://www.herpnet.org/). A total of 16,234
records for all 37 species were filtered from these sources to identify 2,150 location records for the entire
United States. Filtering out records outside of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, identified 536 records. Within
the study area were a total of 236 records of location information.
Locality data for amphibians and reptiles were also obtained from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas
(UNLV) Barrick Museum of Natural History, but these data did not contain digital locations.
Herpetofauna data for Clark County from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Biological Resources
Research Center (BRRC) was obtained, including 770 records from several museums. Data were also
provided by the Great Basin Bird Observatory, including Nevada Breeding Bird Atlas data and Nevada
Bird Count data. Nevada Department of Wildlife provided additional records for all 37 species. Data
from Tereza Jeskova, a Ph.D. candidate at UNLV, provided additional records for the desert kangaroo rat
from MANIS that were georectified and other sample points obtained in the course of her studies. Lisa
Crampton, a postdoctoral fellow at UNR, provided additional phainopepla occurrence records.
10
-------
Additional phainopepla records were also provided by Nevada Natural Heritage Program through Jennifer
Newmark. Data were compiled for species into an MS Access database and Microsoft Excel file with
coordinates converted to Albers for use in Maximum Entropy modeling. Occurrence records were not
analyzed for accuracy.
Inductive Modeling
Inductive modeling uses species occurrence points to predict species habitat distribution over the
landscape. Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) is a niche modeling software that identifies probability
distributions (Phillips et al. 2004, Phillips et al. 2006). MaxEnt is one of the many newer algorithms that
predict suitable habitat using presence-only data. Presence-only data has precluded use of techniques such
as logistic regression, which requires absence data. Software such as GARP and MaxEnt use species
presence points incorporated with pseudo-absence points (Phillips et al. 2006). We used an iterative
approach in Maximum Entropy modeling with eight variables (Appendix A). The 8 variables were
elevation (Boykin et al. 2007A), SWReGAP land cover (Lowry et al. 2007), SWReGAP landform
(Lowry et al. 2007), percent sand derived from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (NRCS
2006), rock outcrop derived from SSURGO (NRCS 2006), distance to mesquite/acacia bosque habitat
inclusive of Clark County derived from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Crampton et al. 2006),
distance to perennial streams (Boykin et al. 2007A), and slope (Boykin et al. 2007A).
We modified the SWReGAP land cover dataset to exclude urban and agriculture areas. This provided a
mask for historical locations within these areas. SSURGO identified polygons with either percent sand or
rock outcrop presence for the four species of interest. These datasets were created using the Soil Data
Viewer (Version 5.1) extension for ArcGIS to identify percent sand or soil types with rock outcrop in the
mapping unit name. The mesquite/acacia dataset was converted to grid using a "distance to" grid
algorithm.
Multiple iterations for each of the four species were run to identify the best model in terms of Area Under
the Curve (AUC) values, omission error, parsimony, and biological knowledge (Phillips et al. 2006).
Variable contributions, response curves and jack-knife variable response also influenced model selection.
Variable contributions provide a relative percent of variable contribution to specific model outputs. The
variables used in each stepwise iteration were based on the authors' knowledge of the species and
available datasets. Only variables that were biologically relevant were included. Often times a
premodeling step in modeling is variable elimination based on correlation (Hernandez et al. 2006).
However, we felt all variables were important even given some likely correlation.
AUC values were derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots. ROC plots can be used to
compare model performance and to identify habitat presence or absence thresholds (Guisan and
Zimmerman 2000, Phillips et al. 2006). The ROC plot is a plot of sensitivity (true positive fraction) on the
y-axis and 1 - specificity (false positive fraction) on the x-axis. Sensitivity represents the absence of
omission errors and is a measurement of correctly predicting presence. Specificity represents commission
error and is a measure of correctly predicting absence (Fielding and Bell 1997). To derive athreshold,
sensitivity is maximized and commission error (1 - specificity) is minimized (Fielding and Bell 1997,
Phillips et al. 2006). Models, which depict a probability surface, were converted to binary
(presence/absence) using a threshold as defined by the equal sensitivity and specificity metric derived
from Maximum Entropy. This allowed visual comparison with deductive models. Omission errors were
calculated based on the threshold chosen.
11
-------
12
-------
Results and Discussion
Revised SWReGAP Habitat Models
We reviewed the original SWReGAP models for the 37 species and revised 35 of them for the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion (relict leopard frog and desert kangaroo rat were not changed). These revised models
are provided in Appendix H and at http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/. A description of the
revision is provided in the report for each model at this Web site.
The difference in extent of habitat predicted for the revised versus original models varied greatly among
the species (Figs. 4 and 5; Appendix G). For the 35 species with revised models, differences in extent of
habitat between the models ranged from no change (e.g., long-eared myotis in Clark County) to a large
reduction of over 4.0 million hectares in the Mojave Ecoregion (-99%) for the blue grosbeak and to a
large addition of 3.7 million hectares in the Mojave Ecoregion for long-nosed snake (Appendix G). The
model for blue grosbeak at the scale of the 5-state area was inclusive of many land cover types where the
species could occur, whereas the revised model reflected specific information for the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion indicating that it occurs primarily in lowland riparian habitat, a habitat of very small extent in
the region. For the long-nosed snake we added three land cover types that make up a significant portion
of the study area. These include Mojave Mid elevation Mixed Desert Scrub (S060), Sonora-Mojave
Creosotebush-White bursage Desert Scrub (S069), and Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub (S070).
Model changes included changes to land cover within the study area in 30 models (81%), changes to
elevation in 11 models (30%), changes to hydrology in 7 models (19%), landform changes for 5 models
(13.5%), soil changes in 3 models (8%), and modifications of Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) in 18
models (48.6%).
The extent of predicted habitat changed little for many species. Specifically, changes within -5 to 5%
occurred in Clark County for 12 species (32%) and in the Mojave Ecoregion for 10 species (27%; Fig 6).
Increases greater than 5% occurred for 16 species in Clark County (43%) and 19 species within the
Mojave Ecoregion (51%). Seven and 10 species had changes greater than 50% in Clark County and the
Mojave Ecoregion, respectively. Of these, habitat extent of 6 species increased more than 100% at both
scales. These species included spotted leaf-nosed snake, western lyre snake, common chuckwalla,
yellow-billed cuckoo, and long-nosed snake. Habitat extent increased more than 100% for the desert night
lizard at the Clark County scale and for the phainopepla at the Mojave Ecoregion scale. Habitat extent
decreased by more than 5% for 8 species in Clark County (22%) and 9 species in the Mojave Ecoregion
(24%). Four of these species had decreases greater than 50% including the blue grosbeak, vermillion
flycatcher, and summer tanager. The long-legged myotis decreased in habitat extent by more than 50% at
the Mojave Ecoregion scale and the southwestern toad decreased in habitat extent by more than 50% at
the Clark County scale.
13
-------
900%
700%
300%
100% -
100% -
2843%
2483% 1
85
-99% -94% -93°
^^•LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
^^| BLUE GROSBEAK
^^B VERMILION FLYCATCHE
o-67%-32%
| •
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
SUMMER TANAGER
30%-26%-25%-15%-3% 0% 0* 0% 0% 0% 0*
U U U " "1%
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H H
M ii
|§Sp|gs|| | 1
§ § M 1 1 g § is |
b fS ^ ° a
™n/ 50% 52% 54%
2go/ 34% 38%
1% 1% 7% 7% 12% 1» '^ g g | | | |
|sla|§p|||l|o
ppg|||so||iS|
SSoaa^gglgz^cd
MMG>H^Mp]"&Wffl^
s I 1 " i 1 ? 1 1 1 ° 5
f^O^S P9BW ^,
! is 1 §§^° °
> H E ^
I
PHAINOPEPLA
189% 1
92% 1
III
+
MliiM
111
MM
ii M
Species &
Figure 4. Change in extent of habitat predicted for a species in the revised deductive models relative to the
original SWReGAP models in Clark County.
14
-------
900%
-------
14
12
10
I
in
8
o
1 6
(-50 to -100%) (-26 to -50%) (-6 to -25%) (-5 to +5%) (6 to 25%) (26 to 50%) (50 to 100%)
IMojave Ecoregion • Clark County
Figure 6. Change in extent of habitat predicted for a species in the revised deductive models relative to the
original SWReGAP models.
Land Stewardship (Ownership) and Management Status
The extent of area in each GAP Management Status category for each land ownership category is
provided for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion study area (Table 3) and Clark County (Table 4). Bureau of
Land Management lands comprise the majority of land (58.5%) within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion, with
38% of that land currently managed as Status 1 or 2 (Table 3). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (12%)
and National Park Service (7%) manage the second and fourth largest amounts of land. For the USFWS
100% of their land is currently being managed as a Status 1 or 2. For the Park Service, 59% of their land
is currently being managed as a Status 1 or 2. Private lands account for 12% of the land. Overall, 40% of
the Mojave Desert Ecoregion excluding the California portion is managed as Status 1 or 2.
Within Clark County, the Bureau of Land Management manages over 54% of the land with 47% of that
land currently being managed as either Status 1 or 2. The US Fish and Wildlife Service manages 17% of
the land with the entire portion in Status 1 and 2. Private lands account for 10% of the land. Overall,
57% of Clark County is managed as either Status 1 or 2 lands. Therefore a large proportion of both the
eastern Mojave Desert Ecoregion and Clark County have permanent protections in place and an
operational management plan for biodiversity conservation and management, 40% and 57%, respectively.
16
-------
Table 3. Area of land in each GAP Management Status category by land ownership for the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion study area. Percent for Status 1 and 2 lands combined
represents percent of land managed by owner that is in Status 1 and 2.
Land Owner
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Forest Service
Department of Defense and
Department of Energy
National Park Service
Tribal Land
State Parks and Recreation
Areas
State Land Board
State Wildlife Reserve
City Land
County Land
The Nature Conservancy
Private Unrestricted for
Development/No Known
Restriction
Total
Status 1
(ha)
19,783
-
327,999
27,811
-
123,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,147
-
499,739
Status 2
(ha)
1,213,653
-
305,349
100,923
-
110,958
-
-
2,867
6,021
-
-
-
-
1,739,770
Status 3
(ha)
2,037,664
15,196
-
4,301
256,321
162,853
30,965
21,790
-
287
-
-
573
287
2,530,235
Status 4
(ha)
-
5,161
-
-
22,650
-
24,371
-
89,167
-
573
1,434
-
683,235
826,591
Total
(ha)
3,271,100
20,357
633,347
133,034
278,971
396,810
55,335
21,790
92,035
6,308
573
1,434
1,720
683,522
5,596,336
Status 1 & 2
(ha)
1,233,436
-
633,347
128,734
-
233,957
-
-
2,867
6,021
-
-
1,147
-
2,239,509
Lands
(%)
38%
0%
100%
97%
0%
59%
0%
0%
3%
95%
0%
0%
67%
0%
40%
17
-------
Table 4. Area of land in each GAP Management Status category by land ownership for the
Clark County study area. Percent for Status 1 and 2 lands combined represents percent of
land managed by owner that is in Status 1 and 2.
Land Owner
Bureau of Land
Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Forest Service
Department of Defense
and Department of Energy
National Park Service
Tribal Land
State Parks and Recreation
Areas
State Land Board
State Wildlife Reserve
City Land
County Land
The Nature Conservancy
Private Unrestricted for
Development/No Known
Restriction
Total
Status 1 Status! Status 3 Status 4 Total
(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
6,852 516,120 588,375 - 1,111,346
14,077 - 14,077
200,506 138,716 - - 339,222
27,282 85,148 1,059 - 113,489
17,441 - 17,441
74,434 109,067 - - 183,501
28,902 3,239 32,141
18,562 - 18,562
436 436
5,419 - - 5,419
436 436
1,246 1,246
62 - 62
207,918 207,918
-
309,074 854,470 668,477 213,275 2,045,296
Status 1 & 2 Lands
(ha) (%)
522,972 47%
0%
339,222 100%
112,430 99%
0%
183,501 100%
0%
0%
0%
5,419 100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1,163,544 57%
18
-------
Comparison of Gap Management Status and Clark County Management Status
We created matrices (Tables 5 A and 5B) for the comparison of extent of area within the Clark County
Management categories and the SWReGAP management status categories. The matrix identifies the
categories with similar definitions in the two schemes (gray cells) and those with dissimilar definitions
(white cells). Comparison of all four categories in each scheme showed poor correspondence between the
IMA category and GAP status 1 (Table 5A). For analysis, however, SWReGAP usually combines gap
status categories 1 and 2 (Boykin et al 2007B) and Clark County often combines the IMA and LIMA
categories (Wainscott personal communication 2007). With these categories combined the two schemes
correspond in amount of area fairly well (Table 5B).
Table 5A. Comparison of area (hectares) within GAP Management Status categories and
Clark County Management Category within Clark County.
Gap Status
Clark County
IMA
LIMA
MUMA
UMA
308,488
625,346
98,887
36,433
261
151,649
1,199
934
384
69,699
514,969
22,807
760
4,378
50,510
153,966
Table 5B. Comparison of area (hectares) within GAP Management Status categories
(Status 1 and 2 combined) and Clark County Management Category (IMA and LIMA
combined) within Clark County.
Clark County
Gap Status
IMA and LIMA
MUMA
UMA
land 2
1,085,744
100,086
37,367
70,083
514,969
22,807
5,138
50,510
153,966
19
-------
GAP Analysis Statistics for Species Habitat Models
Gap analysis statistics provide the amount of suitable habitat (in hectares) and percent of that habitat by
land ownership or GAP management status for each species. Gap analysis statistics for each revised
species habitat model are provided for the three datasets: SWReGAP management status (Appendix D or
at http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kbovkin/MSHCP/FinalStatusAnalvsis.xls'). SWReGAP stewardship (i.e.,
ownership (Appendix E or online at http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kbovkin/MSHCP/FinalStewardAnalvsis.xls).
and the Clark County Conservation Management categories (Appendix F, or online at http://fws-
nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kbovkin/MSHCP/FinalClarkCountvAnalysis.xls).
At the scale of Clark County, only the desert kangaroo rat has less then 20% of its predicted suitable
habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands (Figure 7). All other species had over 30% of their predicted suitable
habitat on Status 1 and 2 lands. For the Mojave Desert Ecoregion, there were three species (blue
grosbeak, phainopepla, and kit fox) that have less then 10% of their predicted suitable habitat on Status 1
and 2 lands (Figure 8). The phainopepla model consisted of three temporal aspects including known year
round resident, breeding and breeding in winter. The breeding in winter habitat was the type with less
than 10%; the other two temporal aspects had 30 and greater than 40% of habitat. The blue grosbeak
habitat was less than 10% for its breeding habitat. Breeding designations are based on regional datasets
and may be inaccurate within the study area. All other species had greater than 20% of their habitat on
Status 1 and 2 lands.
100%
$
!Q
ro
x
§
o
•D
0%
o
u
r
Figure 7. Percentage of predicted suitable habitat from deductive model on Status 1 and 2 lands in Clark
County. Letters after species name indicate K=known year round, B=breeding, M=migratory, and
P=potential occurrence.
20
-------
1 00% -,
3
5 70% -
ro
o ^no/f,
o
— 4n%
ji" ^n%
0% -
~i
_
n n n n n n
^'^'f-j'^'^'f-j''^'^'''^'^'^'^'^'^
-1 h
1 h-
^ n
1 i-
n
n
n
n n
n
p.
n n n
d'^'^'^'M'M'^'^'^'w'MVVVV'w'wV'n'ri'n'ri'w'H
u^g"J"oDfsgw^g|w rS°DPP^^ow^tcitd^gSSS^^tdtd^gH£ii§ P
?^W °§ |D » « P |i
7^^ pji o p> ^ F
J> /I /N KH
?d ^ W ^
O '
i w g
L
0 'T^'r) ww^^HD
ro<^?o td^1^ W KH > ' td
U ' ' /i W ^j>
W r H
§ td
U
Figure 8. Percentage of predicted suitable habitat from deductive model on Status 1 and 2 lands in the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Letters after species name indicate K=known year round, B=breeding,
M=migratory, BW=breeding in winter, and P=potential occurrence.
21
-------
Clark County Management Status
We conducted a gap analysis using the existing Clark County Conservation Management Status
categories. This provides information specific to Clark County and applicable to the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan. All species had greater than 40% of their habitat in the combined IMA and
LIMA categories (Figure 9).
•\ nno/
1 UU /o
ono/'
Tn Qno/
,2 OUTo
.Q yno/
re 'u/0
I cno/'
"o °
•— /< r\o/
^ 4U /o
£
Q. 30/0
•\ no/
1 U /o
no/
n
-i
r
U /o
|s|||||l|^ss|l||g|p||ppgpsl|
r
p.
www||li|^^|w|^|
iiillggii i| i i 1
^ P| ww
^3
n
Figure 9. Percentage of predicted suitable habitat from deductive model on IMA and LIMA lands in Clark
County. Letters after species name indicate K=known year round, B=breeding, M=migratory, and
P=potential occurrence.
22
-------
Inductive Habitat Models for Four Species
Desert Iguana
For the revised deductive model (Fig. 10) we added one HUC and deleted two (see report on Web site) to
be consistent with the distribution of the species in Stebbins (2003) and locality records. We also changed
coding for all HUCs from "possible" to "known or expected." We increased maximum elevation from
1060 to 1070 m to be consistent with the published elevation limit in Nevada of 3500 feet (Tanner and
Banta 1966). We also deleted one land cover type (Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and
Steppe [S077]) which does not occur within the Mojave Ecoregion and added three types (North
American Warm Desert Wash [S020], North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
[S097], and North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque [S098]; see report at Web site). It
was noted that a better soils coverage than STATSGO for sandy soil would likely improve the model.
For inductive habitat modeling, we initially created 10 habitat models with resultant AUC values ranging
from 0.914 to 0.951 (Table 6). We used 3,636 occurrence points for creating the model and 913 points to
test the model (many of the points were duplicates). The model with the most variables (Mod 9)
performed the best (AUC = 0.951), but the association with mesquite (distance to mesquite/acacia)
seemed peculiar from a biological standpoint. All models performed well for this species as indicated by
AUC values of greater than 0.9. The two models with the next highest AUCs (0.946) had four and five
variables, and the two below this (AUC = 0.945) had three and four variables. These latter two models
differed only by the inclusion of landform in the four-variable model. For further analysis, we chose the
simplest of these, the three-variable model (Figure IOC; Mod 3 in Table 6) with variables of elevation,
land cover, and percent sand. The relative contribution of each variable to the model was dominated by
elevation (59.4%), with sand (34.6%) and land cover (6.0%) making up progressively smaller
proportions. This model was converted to a binary model using the equal sensitivity and specificity
threshold of 52.9 (Figure 10D; Table 6). This model had an omission error rate of 11.2% using this
threshold. This omission rate identified the percentage of testing sites that were below the identified
threshold.
The variables used in the selected inductive model differed from those in the revised deductive model by
excluding landform and including percent sand. A comparison of the distribution predicted by the
inductive model (binary form; Fig. 10D) with that of the revised deductive model (Fig. 10B) shows that
the inductive model predicts much less habitat for the desert iguana than the deductive model, although
most of the inductive model overlaps the deductive model (Fig. 11A). The primary reason for the large
difference in extent between the two models is likely because the deductive model included the entirety of
wide ranging land cover types (e.g., Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub) and did
not include soil characteristics, whereas the inductive model included percent sand from the SSURGO
dataset. The distribution of occurrence points match the inductive model much better than deductive
model, a finding that is not surprising given that the occurrence points were used to construct the
inductive model (Fig. 11B).
A shortcoming of the inductive model is the two "holes" in the study area that could not be modeled
because the SSURGO dataset was not available for these areas. These "holes" include the Nellis Bombing
Range and a triangular area on the California border (Fig. 1 IB). Another shortcoming is that no
occurrence records were obtained for the main part of the study area in Arizona, which included land
cover types virtually unrepresented in Nevada (Fig. 1 IB). This likely accounts for the lack of habitat for
the inductive model for much of the Mojave Desert Ecoregion in Arizona.
23
-------
Desert Iguana
-
Suitable
B
Original SWReGAP Model (deductive)
D
Inductive Model - Probabilities (%)
Revised Deductive Model
Inductive Model - Binary
Figure 10. Predicted habitat distribution for the desert iguana in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion: (A) original SWReGAP deductive model, (B) revised
deductive model, (C) inductive model represented as probabilities (%) for species occurrence, and (D) inductive model represented in binary fashion
(i.e., suitable/not suitable) using a 52.9 threshold. Gray outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion. For the two inductive
models (C and D), portions of the study area could not be modeled due to missing information (see Fig. 11B).
24
-------
Table 6. Iterations of Maximum Entropy Models for four species within the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion. The selected model for each species is italicized. Variables used in models are
listed at top.
Model Elevation
Name
Desert Iguana
SWReGAP*
Modi
Mod 2
Mod3
Mod 4
Mod5
Mod6
Mod 7
Mod8
Mod 9
Phainopepla
SWReGAP*
Modi
Mod 2
Mod3
Mod 4
ModS
Mod6
Mod 7
Desert Kangaroo
SWReGAP*
Modi
Mod 2
ModS
Mod 4
Chuckwalla
SWReGAP*
Modi
Mod 2
ModS
Mod 4
ModS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rat
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land Land Sand Rock
Cover Form
X X
XXX
X
X X
X
X X
XXX
X X
X X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X X
X
X X
XXX
X
X X
X
X X
X X
XX X
Distance Distance Slope AUC1
to to
Mesquite Streams
0.928
0.945
0.914
0.945
0.935
0.926
x 0.946
x 0.946
x 0.938
x x 0.951
x 0.782
x 0.810
0.750
x 0.902
x 0.904
x x 0.914
x x 0.905
x x 0.912
0.771
0.845
0.799
0.831
x 0.865
0.768
0.805
0.751
0.753
x 0.815
x 0.833
Equal
44.9
49.4
48.8
52.9
52.2
49.5
49.4
50.5
51.7
50.4
40.0
41.5
42.3
24.4
29.8
30.9
29.2
30.0
26.3
23.5
24.2
33.6
25.9
46.8
40.4
41.8
56.1
35.9
38.8
o3
Rate
0.139
0.127
0.125
0.112
0.113
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.140
0.093
0.278
0.259
0.407
0.148
0.130
0.167
0.150
0.208
0.667
0.231
0.429
0.462
0.231
0.286
0.287
0.373
0.486
0.297
0.305
*SWReGAP model indicates variables used in original deductive model in Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project.
'AUC= Area under the Curve metric as derived by Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) Plot (see text)
Equal= Equal sensitivity and specificity threshold (see text)
3 = Omission Rate
25
-------
Desert Iguana
B
I I Deductive Mode
^^| Inductive Model
I I Deductive/Inductive Model
Species Occurrence Records
Deductive Model
Figure 11. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the desert iguana in an overlay of the revised
deductive model (from Fig. 10B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 10D) showing: (A) models only,
and (B) models with occurrence points and distribution of SSURGO soils data.
26
-------
Phainopepla
For the revised deductive model (Fig. 12B) we added 100 m from wetlands because riparian vegetation in
the ecoregion is often associated with the SWReGAP wetlands coverage (e.g., Las Vegas Wash) as well
as the coverage for permanent flowing water. Riparian habitat in the region often includes mesquite.
Hydrology was identified to be used as an "or" statement with land cover. For land cover we added
Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub because many locality records (Nevada
Breeding Bird Atlas [Floyd et al. 2007], Nevada Bird Count, NDOW) were in this land cover type.
However, we acknowledge that this inclusion may overestimate the extent of predicted habitat. We also
added a new coverage for mesquite/acacia woodlands from Crampton et al. (2006;
habitat_merged05.shp). This coverage was identified after completion of the SWReGAP project and was
only available for the Nevada portion of the study area. We deleted agriculture as a land cover type
because agriculture in the ecoregion has few shrubs or trees. We also deleted a number of land cover
types not found in Mojave Ecoregion (see report at Web site).
For the inductive model, we initially created eight habitat models using between two and six variables
(Table 6). We used 223 sites for model training and withheld 54 additional sites for testing. The AUC
values for these models ranged from 0.782 to 0.914 (Table 6). The highest AUC value (0.914) was
associated with the three-variable model (land cover, distance to mesquite, and distance to permanent
streams; Figure 12C). This model makes biological sense given the phainopepla's dependence on
mistletoe associated with mesquite/acacia vegetation (Crampton et al. 2006), and the common occurrence
of this vegetation along desert streams. The relative contribution of each variable to the model was
dominated by distance to mesquite (91.0%), with distance to streams (6.5%) and land cover (2.5%)
making up smaller proportions. We converted the selected inductive model to a binary model using the
equal sensitivity and specificity threshold of 30.9 (Figure 12D). All phainopepla models showed low
habitat suitability within Arizona presumably because of the lack of data for occurrence points and lack of
mesquite/acacia data in Arizona. We identified a 16.7% omission error with the selected model using the
equal sensitivity threshold.
The selected inductive model used the same variables that were used in the revised deductive model with
the exception that distance to wetlands was used in the deductive model but not in the inductive model.
The regional distance to wetland dataset used was limited in our study areas, with only a few identified
wetlands within the entire ecoregion. Despite the use of nearly the same variables, the extent of habitat
predicted by the inductive model was much less than that predicted by the revised deductive model, with
most of the inductive model overlapping the deductive model (Fig. 13A). The primary reason for the
large difference in the extent between the two models appears to be because the deductive model included
expansive land cover types such as the Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub,
whereas the inductive model emphasized the mesquite/acacia coverage. The distribution of occurrence
points match the inductive model much better than deductive, a finding that is not surprising given that
the occurrence points were used to construct the inductive model (Fig. 13B).
27
-------
Phainopepla
B
Year Roun
Breeding
Breeding/Wintering
Original SWReGAP Model (Deductive)
0-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
D
Inductive Model - Probabilities (%)
Year Round
Breeding/
Summering
Breedi ng/Wi nteri ng
Revised Deductive Model
Inductive Model Binary
Figure 12. Predicted habitat distribution for phainopepla in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion: (A) original SWReGAP deductive model with suitable (year
round), summer breeding, and winter breeding habitat, (B) revised deductive model with suitable (year round), summer breeding, and winter breeding
habitat, (C) inductive model represented as probabilities (%) for suitability, and (D) inductive model represented in binary fashion (i.e., suitable/not
suitable) using a 30.9 threshold. Gray outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
28
-------
B
Figure 13. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the phainopepla in an overlay of the revised
deductive model (from Fig. 12B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 12D), showing: (A) models
only, and (B) models with occurrence points.
29
-------
Desert Kangaroo Rat
For the revised deductive model (Fig. 14B) we deleted one land cover type that was not represented in
Mojave Desert Ecoregion (Inter-Mountain Basins Wash [SO 14]). No other changes were made to the
model for this species.
For the inductive model, we initially created five habitat models with AUC values ranging from 0.771 to
0.865 (Table 6). We used 50 sites for model training and withheld 13 additional sites for testing. As for
the desert iguana models, the highest AUC model had the most variables. The simplest model had the
second highest AUC value (Mod 1), with only three variables: elevation, land cover, and percent sand
(Figure 14C). An increase in model accuracy (i.e., AUC) occurred when including sand percentage
within the model (comparison of SWReGAP model and Mod 1). Increases in AUC were also seen when
including land cover (comparison between Mod 3 and Mod 1) or elevation (comparison of Mod 4 and
Mod 1). The relative contribution of each variable to the model was dominated by land cover (45.1%),
elevation (41.8%), with sand (13.1%) a smaller proportion. We converted the chosen model to a binary
model using the equal sensitivity and specificity threshold of 23.5 (Table 6; Figure 14D). We identified a
23.1% omission error with the selected model using the equal sensitivity threshold (Table 6).
The variables used in the inductive model differed from those in the original and revised deductive
models by the inclusion of percent sand only in the inductive model. The SSURGO soils data set was not
considered in the original SWReGAP models because it was not available throughout the 5-state area. A
comparison of the inductive model (binary form; Fig. 14D) with the revised deductive model (Fig. 14B)
shows that the inductive model predicts far more habitat for the desert kangaroo than the deductive model
(Fig. 15A). This large difference appears to result from the limited land cover types selected for the
deductive model, i.e., dunes and wash habitats only. Although the desert kangaroo rat is generally
associated with sandy soils, such soils occur in SWReGAP land cover types other than dunes and washes.
The inclusion of the SSURGO dataset for percent sand in the inductive model provided information not
used in the two deductive models. The distribution of occurrence points match the inductive model much
better than the deductive model, a finding that is not surprising given that the occurrence points were used
to construct the inductive model (Fig. 15B).
As for the desert iguana, a shortcoming of the inductive model is the two "holes" in the study area that
could not be modeled because the SSURGO dataset was not available for these areas (Fig. 15B). A
number of locality records occurred within these "holes." Another shortcoming is that no occurrence
records were obtained for the main part of the study area in Arizona, which included land cover types
virtually unrepresented in Nevada (Fig. 15B). This may account for the lack of modeled habitat for much
of the Mojave Desert Ecoregion in Arizona.
30
-------
Desert Kangaroo Rat
B
Original SWReGAP Model (Deductive)
Revised Deductive Model
0-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
UWi
D
Inductive Model - Probabilities (%)
Inductive Model - Binary
Figure 14. Predicted habitat distribution for the desert kangaroo rat in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion: (A) original SWReGAP deductive model, (B)
revised deductive model, (C) inductive model represented as probabilities (%) for suitability, and (D) inductive model represented in binary fashion
(i.e., suitable/not suitable) using a 23.5 threshold. Gray outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Visual differences between
deductive (A) and (B) models are due to image creation; there are no changes in actual suitable habitat. For the two inductive models, portions of the
study could not be modeled due to missing information (see Fig. 15B below).
31
-------
Desert Kangaroo Rat
Deductive Mode
Inductive Model
Deductive/Inductive Model
B
9 Species Occurrence Records
I I Deductive Model
^^| Inductive Model
I | Deductive/Inductive Model
I I SSURGOData
Figure 15. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the desert kangaroo rat in an overlay of the revised
deductive model (from Fig. 14B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 14D) showing: (A) models only,
and (B) models with occurrence points and distribution of SSURGO soils data.
32
-------
Common Chuckwalla
For the revised deductive model (Fig. 16B) we added 3 HUCs to be consistent with locality records and
Stebbins (2003; see report at Web site for specific HUCS). We also increased the elevation maximum
from 1370 to 1830 m (Stebbins 1985). This increase included nearly all locality records. We also
included STATSGO soil polygons with rocky outcrops >15% of area. This overpredicts habitat, but
captures most of the locality records. We also added several land cover types that occur below pinyon-
juniper communities that could occur in rocky areas. The original land cover types were only cliff,
canyon, and outcrops types. We note that the model would be improved with a better layer for rocky
outcrops and bouldery areas.
For the inductive model, we initially created nine habitat models with AUC values ranging from 0.751 to
0.899 (Table 6). We used 1797 sites for model training and withheld 449 additional sites for testing
(many sites were duplicates). Similar to the desert iguana and desert kangaroo rat, the model with most
variables had the highest AUC value. However, two variables (i.e., distance to mesquite and percent
sand) had no identified biological relationship with the common chuckwalla. We thus selected Mod 5 to
represent the species' habitat, with an AUC value of 0.833 (Figure 16C). The variables in this model
were elevation, land cover, land form, rock (SSURGO), and slope. The relative contribution of each
variable to the model was dominated by land cover (30.2%), rock (29.3%), and elevation (21.6%) with
slope (12.1%) and landform (6.8%) comprising smaller proportions. This model was converted to a
binary model using the equal sensitivity and specificity threshold of 38.8 (Figure 16D). We identified a
30.5% omission error with the selected model using the equal sensitivity threshold (Table 6).
Given the chuckwalla's dependency on rocky terrain, we were disappointed that the rock layer generated
from the SSURGO dataset did not coincide with a large portion of the locality records for the species.
This may be because SSURGO does not include a rock or outcrop layer per se. The rock layer was
generated by selecting class names that reflected rock outcrop, which yielded a poor representation of
rocky/outcrop terrain.
The inductive model was substantially more complex than the deductive models based on the number of
variables included. The original deductive model used elevation and only 3 land cover types. The
revised deductive model included elevation, land cover (10 types), and rock outcrop (STATSGO),
whereas the inductive model included elevation and land cover, plus land form, slope, and rock
(SSURGO). SSURGO was not available for original SWReGAP and was incomplete for our current
study area. A comparison of the inductive model (binary form; Fig. 16D) with the revised deductive
model (Fig. 16B) shows that the two models predict about the same extent of area (within the area where
SSURGO data was available and this comparison can be made). However, the two models predict habitat
in different places for much of the area (Fig. 17A). The differences are likely based on the included land
cover types and the scale of the rock datasets. These two variables and elevation contributed the most to
the inductive model. STATSGO is a coarser dataset than SSURGO, and should lead to increases in
commission error. The distribution of occurrence points match the inductive model much better than
deductive, a finding that is not surprising given that the occurrence points were used to construct the
inductive model (Fig. 17B).
As for the desert iguana and desert kangaroo rat, a shortcoming of the inductive model is the two "holes"
in the study area that could not be modeled because the SSURGO dataset was not available for these areas
(Fig. 17B). A few locality records occurred within these "holes." Another shortcoming is that no
occurrence records were obtained for the main part of the study area in Arizona, which included land
cover types virtually unrepresented in Nevada (Fig. 17B). This may account for the lack of modeled
habitat for much of the Mojave Desert Ecoregion in Arizona.
33
-------
Common Chuckwalla
Original SWReGAP Model (Deductive)
Inductive Model - Probabilities (%)
B
Revised Deductive Model
D
Inductive Model - Binary
Figure 16. Predicted habitat distribution for the common chuckwalla in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion: (A) original SWReGAP deductive model, (B)
revised deductive model, (C) inductive model represented as probabilities for suitability, and (D) inductive model represented in binary fashion (i.e.,
suitable/not suitable) using a 38.8 threshold. Gray outlines indicate county boundaries and Mojave Desert Ecoregion. For the two inductive models,
portions of the study could not be modeled due to missing information (see Fig. 17B below).
34
-------
Common Chuckwalla
Utah
I I Deductive Model
^^| Inductive Model
I | Deductive/Inductive Model
B
Utah
^^| Inductive Model
I I Deductive/Inductive Model
| 1 SSURGO Data
Figure 17. Predicted distribution of suitable habitat for the common chuckwalla in an overlay of the
revised deductive model (from Fig. 16B) and the binary inductive model (from Fig. 16D) showing: (A)
models only, and (B) models with occurrence points and distribution of SSURGO soils data.
35
-------
36
-------
General Discussion
Scale Down of SWReGAP Models
A question at the outset of this project was whether the SWReGAP habitat models, which were developed
for use in a large 5-state area, would be applicable within a small portion of this area, specifically the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion and Clark County, Nevada. A general answer to that question is yes, based on
the finding that the revised deductive models for these specific areas usually retained most of the traits of
the original models. With that said, however, we found it appropriate to revise 35 of the 37 original
models based on the narrower geographic focus and additional information for the localized area. The
extent of habitat predicted by the original and revised models often differed widely, although the median
change in habitat extent among the species was not great (i.e., increase of 4.1%). Given the greater input
and specificity for the revised models than the original models, the revised deductive models would
clearly be the better starting point for evaluating habitat distribution for species addressed by the Clark
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Comparison of SWReGAP & Clark County Management Category Statistics
The Gap Analysis statistics derived for the SWReGAP Management Status categories were generally
similar to those derived for MSHCP Conservation Management Areas, yet the two categorization
schemes were developed independently. Concordance between the two schemes was strong when the
schemes were reduced to three categories. This concordance provides a basis for comparing Gap
statistics for MSHCP categories within Nevada or the 5-state region as a whole. Interestingly, the
proportion of habitat that is in the most protected categories (i.e., Status 1 and 2 of GAP, which roughly
corresponds to IMAs and LIMAs of Clark County) is much higher for most of the 37 species addressed
herein for the Mojave Desert Ecoregion and Clark County than for the 5-state region as a whole.
Inductive vs. Deductive Models
The inductive models were similar to the original SWReGAP models in that many of the variables used in
the original models were also used in the inductive models. For example, land cover was used in both
deductive and the selected inductive models for all four species. However, the inductive model iterations
that used only the original SWReGAP model variables were the worst performing models of all iterations
in every case (Table 1). The major difference between the inductive and deductive models was that for
all four inductive models, a variable was included in the inductive models that was not available for the
original deductive models (i.e., mesquite/acacia, or SSURGO sand or rock). Thus, the data-driven
inductive models generally corroborated the selection of deductive model variables based on literature,
but identified further relationships not found within the literature. Caution must be used as occurrence
points were often generated from the same areas as literature derived inputs.
We feel that the inductive models for the four target species more accurately depicted suitable habitat for
the species than the original or revised deductive models. The inductive models were driven by known
occurrence records, which allow development of species-environment associations without precise
knowledge of this association. The locality records clearly fit the inductive models better than the
deductive models. Although this is not surprising given that the locality records were used to build the
inductive models, the differences were striking. Deductive models predicted habitat in large areas lacking
records (e.g., desert iguana) or failed to predict habitat in large areas with known records (e.g., desert
kangaroo rat). A key to success in inductive modeling, however, is the availability of accurate and
37
-------
precise locality records and accurate coverages for key environmental features. For the desert iguana, the
imprecision of many locality records may have not had pronounced effects because the land cover and
soil types inhabited by this species are often extensive. For the chuckwalla, however, inaccuracies in both
the locality records and the rock coverage were thought to be a problem. For the phainopepla we were
fortunate in having many precise locality records from sources other than museum records, and a precise
coverage for mesquite/acacia habitat. For the desert kangaroo rat, we were also fortunate in having a
number of precise locality records, but the total sample size was small. For all four species, it must be
noted that an on-the-ground accuracy assessment would be required to quantitatively assess the accuracy
of the models.
Limitations of the Inductive Models
A conspicuous limitation to inductive modeling in the present study was lack of complete coverage by the
SSURGO soils data set. A particularly large "hole" in the dataset includes the Nellis Bombing Range and
Nevada Test Site. A second conspicuous limitation was the paucity of locality records from the Arizona
portion of the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Since two land cover types predominate in this area, but are
virtually unrepresented in Nevada, the models predicted this area to be largely unsuitable for all four
species. However, this area may indeed contain much suitable habitat for these species. A third
limitation was the coarse precision of many of the occurrence records used in model building. The latter
concern might be reduced by excluding records with the lowest precision.
Next Steps for Improving Models for the Four Target Species
For conservation planning, habitat models with a known level of accuracy will be required. As
suggestions for how to improve currently available habitat models and establish the level of accuracy, we
offer the following general steps for the four species addressed by inductive modeling in the present
study, (a) Evaluate existing occurrence records more closely for accuracy and precision, and redo the
inductive modeling using sets of records with different levels of accuracy/precision, (b) Using the
inductive model as a guide, conduct a field study to assess the accuracy of the model. At the same time,
obtain precise location data to improve the model and identify key habitat characteristics associated with
site occupancy, (c) Obtain or develop spatial datasets for key habitat characteristics identified, either
through interpretation of existing datasets (e.g., satellite imagery, SSURGO) or ground surveys. Consider
additional datasets, such as the climate datasets under development for use in desert tortoise habitat
modeling by USGS (USGS-BRD Western Ecological Research Center, Henderson, Nevada), (d) As new
information is obtained for species occurrence and distribution of habitat characteristics, redo inductive
modeling and accuracy assessment as an iterative process.
38
-------
Implications and Suggestions for Conservation Planning
1. Models are required to depict the distribution of suitable habitat.
Conservation planners need to recognize that some sort of model is necessary to estimate the distribution
and extent of suitable habitat for a species in a region. For many situations, it is not possible to determine
the distribution of the species in all areas. Moreover, even when this is possible, such as taxa with
conspicuous habitat affinities or very localized distributions, it is usually difficult to precisely define the
conditions associated with presence/absence, and it is impossible to know the future distribution of the
species. Thus, a model is required to identify areas with the conditions suitable for the species, which
may reflect where the species indeed occurs now or may occur in the near future.
2. Models developed at a large spatial scale can likely be improved for use at a local scale.
Models developed at large spatial scale (e.g., GAP and SWReGAP) are based on a few environmental
datasets with widespread coverage, and in most cases only one model for a species is applied to the entire
area. In a localized setting, more detailed information for species-habitat associations may be available,
and more detailed information may also be available for the distribution of habitat features. In the present
study, we revised 35 of the 37 SWReGAP models taking into account local conditions, habitat
associations, and datasets available. Ultimately, field studies may fill the key gaps in the large-scale or
general models. For example, for the relict leopard frog (Rana oncd), the conservation team for this
species has identified virtually all potentially suitable habitat in the southern Nevada region by surveying
for conditions stipulated by the model: permanent water below 1000 m elevation that lacks nonnative
fishes, crayfish, and bullfrogs. The SWReGAP model for this species, in contrast, does a poor job of
identifying such habitat because of the lack of accurate coverages for permanent water (e.g., permanent
vs. ephemeral springs), and lack of coverages for the distributions of the nonnative taxa.
3. Limitations of habitat suitability models.
The development of accurate habitat suitability models is limited by the knowledge of species-habitat
associations and by the availability of coverages for the key habitat characteristics. Moreover, models
typically do not address habitat quality, condition, or serai stage. Something that must also be kept in
mind is that models predict distribution of habitat, not species occurrence or abundance. Interpretations
of model predictions must be viewed in context of such limitations.
4. Inductive modeling vs. deductive modeling.
When location data can be obtained, inductive modeling has the potential to yield a more insightful and
accurate model than a deductive model. Inductive models may detect associations beyond those available
from the literature, and the result is a prediction of habitat distribution by probability values rather than
binary representation (i.e., suitable vs. non-suitable). A major concern for inductive modeling, however,
is the precision and number of occurrence locations and their distribution throughout the range of the
species. Also, some points may be inaccurate. Many taxa addressed by the Clark County MSHCP other
than the four addressed in this study would be amenable to inductive modeling.
39
-------
5. Models drive field studies.
Field studies are an essential part of conservation planning to determine species distribution, population
status, habitat associations, life history traits, and other aspects of a species' biology. Existing habitat
suitability models can provide a basis for identifying locations for study, developing a sampling design,
and identifying habitat characteristics to address. Too often, field studies and locality records are
concentrated in areas where a species' abundance is high or habitat conditions are of high quality.
Models can be used to identify other areas that represent the range of suitable habitat available. In studies
designed to address species-habitat associations, it is important to include habitat variables that can be
obtained from existing or derivable datasets. If information for a key habitat characteristic is not
available throughout the range of the species in the area of interest (e.g., Clark County), knowledge of the
species-habitat association may be of little use in mapping suitable habitat for the species.
6. Accuracy assessment.
Models need to have some type of accuracy assessment to be widely accepted. Moreover, a quantified
estimate of a model's accuracy may be important in management decisions or the development of field
studies. For inductive models, a fraction of the records can be withheld from model development and
used to assess the accuracy of the resulting model. For both inductive and deductive models, a field study
can provide the most thorough assessment of accuracy by obtaining new, precise data for both location
and habitat characteristics.
7. Iteration in model development.
For a limited number of species, such as some of those within the MSHCP, it may be financially and
logistically feasible to conduct an iterative modeling effort. In this effort, data from field work in one
year (or other time frame) is used to assess the accuracy of the existing model and to modify this model.
Subsequently, new field work is done to test the revised model, and revise it for further testing and
improvement. This iterative process would allow the models to be refined as knowledge is gained not
only for the presence/absence of the species but also for associations of the species with mappable habitat
characteristics. Such an iterative process would represent adaptive management (Williams et al. 2007).
40
-------
Literature Cited
Boykin, K.G., B.C. Thompson, R.A. Deitner, D. Schrupp, D. Bradford, Lee O'Brien, C. Drost, S.
Propeck-Gray, W. Rieth, K. Thomas, W. Kepner, J. Lowry, C. Cross, B. Jones, T. Hamer, C.
Mettenbrink, K.J. Oakes, J. Prior-Magee, K. Schulz, J. J. Wynne, C. King, J. Puttere, S. Schrader,
and Z. Schwenke. 2007'a. Predicted Animal Habitat Distributions and Species Richness. Chapter
3 in J.S. Prior-Magee, ed. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological
Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. Available on-line at: http://fws-
nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/.
Boykin, K.G., L. Langs, J. Lowry, D. Schrupp, D. Bradford, L. O'Brien, K. Thomas, C. Drost, A. Ernst,
W. Kepner, J. Prior-Magee, D. Ramsey, W. Rieth, T. Sajwaj, K. Schulz, B.C. Thompson. 2007b.
Analysis based on Stewardship and Management Status. Chapter 5 in J.S. Prior-Magee, ed.
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program,
Moscow, ID. Available on-line at: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/.
Crampton, L., J. Krueger, and D. Murphy. 2006. Conservation Management Strategy for Mesquite and
Acacia Woodlands in Clark County, Nevada. Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Ernst, A.E., S. Schrader, V. Lopez, J. Prior-Magee, K. Boykin, B. Thompson, D. Schrupp, L. O'Brien, W.
Kepner, K. Thomas, and J. Lowry. 2007. Land Stewardship. Chapter 4 in J.S. Prior-Magee, ed.
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program,
Moscow, ID. Available on-line at: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/.
Fielding, A.H., and J.F. Bell. 1997. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in
conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24:38-49.
Floyd, T., C.S. Elphick, G. Chisholm, K. Mack, RG. Elston, E. M. Ammon, J.D. Boone. 2007. Atlas of
the Breeding Birds of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, pp. 608.
Guisan, A., and N.E. Zimmermann. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological
Modeling 135:147-186.
Hernandez, P.A. Hernandez, C.H. Graham, L.L. Master, D.L. Albert. 2006. The effect of sample size and
species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods.
Ecography 29:773-785.
Hiatt, H., and J. Boone (editors). 2003. Clark County Multiple Species Manual. Clark County
Department of Comprehensive Planning, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Kepner, W.G., T.D. Sajwaj, D.F. Bradford, and E.J. Evanson. 2005. Nevada Geospatial Data Browser.
EPA/600/C-05/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Las Vegas, Nevada (http://www.epa.gov/nerlesdl/land-
sci/nv_geospatial/nv_geospatial_data_browser.htm).
41
-------
Lowry, J.H., Jr., R.D. Ramsey, K.A. Thomas, D. Schrupp, W. Kepner, T. Sajwaj, J. Kirby, E. Waller, S.
Schrader, S. Falzarano, L. Langs, G. Mam's, C. Wallace, K. Schulz, P. Comer, K. Fobs, W. Rieth,
C. Velasquez, B. Wolk, K. Boykin, L. O'Brien, J. Prior-Magee, D. Bradford and B. Thompson,
2007. Land Cover Classification and Mapping. Chapter 2 in J.S. Prior-Magee, ed. Southwest
Regional Gap Analysis Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow,
ID. Available on-line at: http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap/.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Soil Data Viewer 5.1. US Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 60 p.
NDOW (Nevada Department of Wildlife). 2006. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Nevada Department of
Wildlife, Reno, Nevada.
Phillips, S.J., M. Dudik, and R.E. Schapire. 2004. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution
modeling. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning, Banff,
Canada, 2004. 655-662.
Phillips, S.J., R.P. Anderson, and R.E. Schapire. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species
geographic distributions. Ecological Modeling 190:231-259.
Prior-Magee, J.S., K.G. Boykin, D.F. Bradford, W.G. Kepner, J.H. Lowry, D.L. Schrupp, K.A. Thomas,
and Bruce C. Thompson, Editors. 2007. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Final
Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.
RECON. 2000. Final Clark County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement for Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of 79 Species in Clark
County, Nevada.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Survey Area, State [Online WWW]. Available
URL: "http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov" [Accessed 04/30/2007].
Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 2nd edition, Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 3rd edition, Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Tanner, W.W. and B.H. Banta 1966 A systematic review of the Great Basin reptiles in the collections of
Brigham Young University and the University of Utah Great basin Naturalist XXVI (3-4): 87-
135.
Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the
Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC. International Standard Book Number: 1-411-31760-2.
42
-------
Appendices
43
-------
44
-------
Appendix A.
Datasets Considered in Inductive Modeling
45
-------
46
-------
Datasets considered for inductive modeling.
DATA
VARIABLE
RESOLUTION
SOURCE
Land cover*
Elevation*
Slope*
Aspect*
Distance to Springs
Distance to Streams*
Distance to Lakes
Distance to
Wetlands*
Landform*
8-digit HUCS
Mountain Ranges
Soils
Elevation
Slope
Aspect
Climate
Mines
Mine Shafts
Tunnels and Caves
Soils
Soils*
Precip
Temp Max
Temp Min
PET
PRISM
Mean Daily Max
Air Temp
Mean Daily Min
Air Temp
Daily Total Precip
5 coverages
Percent Sand
Rock Outcrop
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
30-m
10-m
10-m
10-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
1 000-m
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
SWReGAP
Project (SWReGAP)
State Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO)
Clark County
Clark County
Clark County
Mojave Desert Ecosystem Project
MDEP
MDEP
MDEP
Nevada Geospatial Data Browser
NGDB
NGDB
NGDB
MDEP
NGDB
NGDB
MDEP
Soil Survey Geographic Database
SSURGO
(MDEP)
(NGDB)
(SSURGO)
* Datasets used in inductive modeling
MDEP = Mojave Desert Ecosystem Project (http://www.moiavedata.gov/)
SWReGAP = Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/swregap)
NGDB = Nevada Geospatial Data Browser (http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-
sci/nv geospatial/nv geospatial data browser.htm)
STATSGO = State Soil Geographic Database (http://soils.usda.gov/survev/geographv/statsgo/)
SSURGO = Soil Survey Geographic Database (http://soils.usda.gov/survev/geography/ssurgo/)
47
-------
48
-------
Appendix B.
Land Cover Types Mapped within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion
for Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
Land cover types are referred to as ecological systems in SWReGAP. Descriptions for ecological systems
are provided at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/legend_desc.html
49
-------
50
-------
CODE Ecological System Name
S009 Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon
S010 Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland
S011 Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland
S012 Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune
S013 Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land
S015 Inter-Mountain Basins Playa
S016 North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop
S017 North American Warm Desert Badland
S018 North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune
S019 North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland
S020 North American Warm Desert Wash
S021 North American Warm Desert Pavement
S022 North American Warm Desert Playa
S026 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland
S032 Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland
S034 Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland
S036 Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland
S039 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
S040 Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland
S045 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland
S046 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland
S052 Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland
S054 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland
S055 Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland
S057 Mogollon Chaparral
S058 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub
S059 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland
S060 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub
S063 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub
S065 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub
S069 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub
S070 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub
S071 Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe
S075 Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna
S078 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe
S079 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe
S083 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow
S085 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland
S090 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland
S093 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
S094 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
51
-------
CODE Ecological System Name
S096 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat
S097 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
S098 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque
S100 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh
S102 Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow
S114 Sonora-Mojave-Baja Semi-Desert Chaparral
S118 Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
S129 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub
N11 Open Water
N21 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity
N22 Developed, Medium - High Intensity
N31 Barren Lands, Non-specific
N80 Agriculture
D02 Recently Burned
DOS Recently Mined or Quarried
D04 Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
D06 Invasive Perennial Grassland
DOS Invasive Annual Grassland
D09 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland
52
-------
Appendix C.
Project Outputs
53
-------
54
-------
All Data
Description
Online Link
Final Report
Revised Deductive Habitat Models (240-m)
Revised Deductive Habitat Models (30-m)
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/MSHCP.doc
http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-sci/default.htm
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/DeductiveModels_New
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/DedMod30m
Maximum Entropy Models (30-m)
Original Gap Statistics for Clark County and
Mojave Desert Ecoregion
New Gap Analysis Stewardship Statistics for
Clark County and Mojave Desert Ecoregion
(Appendix E)
New Gap Analysis Management Status
Statistics for Clark County and Mojave Desert
Ecoregion (Appendix D)
New Gap Analysis for Clark County
Conservation Management Status for Clark
County (Appendix F)
Maximum Entropy Input Datasets
Table of area of predicted habitat with original
SWReGAP model and revised model
Table with links for digital data
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/Reports
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/FinalPrelimGapAnal.xls
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/FinalStewardAnalysis.xls
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/FinalStatusAnalysis.xls
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/FinalClarkCountyAnalysis.xls
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/lnputDatasets
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/FinalPrePostAnalysis.xls
http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/SpatialData.htm
55
-------
56
-------
Appendix D.
Gap Analysis Statistics for Revised
Models for Management Status
57
-------
58
-------
SWReGAP Common Name
RELICT LEOPARD FROG
RELICT LEOPARD FROG
SOUTHWESTERN TOAD
SOUTHWESTERN TOAD
DESERT TORTOISE
DESERT TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD
LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD
DESERT HORNED LIZARD
DESERT HORNED LIZARD
GILBERT'S SKINK
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN BANDED GECKO
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Rana onca
Rana onca
Bufo microscaphus
Bufo microscaphus
Gopherus agassizii
Gopherus agassizii
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Gambelia wislizenii
Gambelia wislizenii
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Eumeces gilbert!
Eumeces gilbert!
Coleonyx variegatus
Range
Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Management Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4
Description
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Mojave Status 45 28.4 106 67.2 7 4.4 0 0.0
Clark County Status 42 26.1 90 56.7 27 17.0 0 0.1
Mojave Status 0 0.0 3024 30.6 2353 23.9 4489 45.5
Clark County Status 0 0.0 1547 47.7 622 19.2 1075 33.1
Mojave Status 204940 6.7 841820 27.7 1474200 48.5 518600 17.1
Clark County Status 108900 9.0 474050 39.1 487050 40.2 142190 11.7
Mojave Status 99351 4.7 539560 25.5 1021300 48.2 457820 21.6
Clark County Status 54909 6.0 346920 37.6 387590 42.1 132070 14.3
Mojave Status 357420 7.9 1397500 30.8 2126400 46.8 658180 14.5
Clark County Status 219730 13.2 687160 41.1 609750 36.5 153460 9.2
Mojave Status 416860 8.2 1576400 31.1 2385700 47.0 692500 13.7
Clark County Status 244930 13.2 774790 41.9 661540 35.8 167530 9.1
Mojave Status 203370 18.8 415740 38.5 427540 39.6 33711 3.1
Clark County Status 140130 31.3 215220 48.0 88925 19.8 4116 0.9
Mojave Status 314820 7.1 1385300 31.1 2076100 46.6 676810 15.2
Total Status 1 & 2
(ha) (ha) %
158 151 95.6
159 132 82.9
9865 3024 30.6
3244 1547 47.7
3039560 1046760 34.4
1212190 582950 48.1
2118031 638911 30.2
921489 401829 43.6
4539500 1754920 38.7
1670100 906890 54.3
5071460 1993260 39.3
1848790 1019720 55.2
1080361 619110 57.3
448391 355350 79.3
4453030 1700120 38.2
59
-------
SWReGAP Common Name
WESTERN BANDED GECKO
DESERT NIGHT LIZARD
DESERT NIGHT LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE
LONG-NOSED SNAKE
LONG-NOSED SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE SNAKE
SIDEWINDER
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED RATTLESNAKE
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Coleonyx variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma suspectum
Heloderma suspectum
Arizona elegans
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Trimorphodon biscutatus
Trimorphodon biscutatus
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Range
Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Management Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4
Description
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Clark County Status 185020 11.0 705010 41.9 630230 37.5 161520 9.6
Mojave Status 291630 7.8 1246200 33.1 1768100 47.0 455250 12.1
Clark County Status 166380 13.2 584890 46.4 442380 35.1 66296 5.3
Mojave Status 248310 6.8 1255600 34.2 1552300 42.3 615560 16.8
Clark County Status 165000 10.5 663740 42.3 591750 37.7 147690 9.4
Mojave Status 231370 6.9 930580 27.9 1613400 48.3 562330 16.8
Clark County Status 129620 10.2 496830 39.2 498740 39.3 143390 11.3
Mojave Status 138080 6.0 634320 27.4 1134400 49.0 408470 17.6
Clark County Status 72079 7.0 398400 38.5 423250 40.9 139880 13.5
Mojave Status 341150 8.7 1201300 30.7 1814700 46.3 558950 14.3
Clark County Status 212050 12.9 676200 41.0 607650 36.8 153940 9.3
Mojave Status 353490 8.7 1492500 36.6 1606200 39.4 628010 15.4
Clark County Status 264080 14.6 789310 43.6 609030 33.6 148340 8.2
Mojave Status 211990 7.0 836430 27.7 1449900 48.1 517820 17.2
Clark County Status 113890 9.3 477210 39.0 490810 40.1 142980 11.7
Mojave Status 351740 8.0 1444500 32.9 1999400 45.6 589420 13.4
Total Status 1 & 2
(ha) (ha) %
1681780 890030 52.9
3761180 1537830 40.9
1259946 751270 59.6
3671770 1503910 41.0
1568180 828740 52.8
3337680 1161950 34.8
1268580 626450 49.4
2315270 772400 33.4
1033609 470479 45.5
3916100 1542450 39.4
1649840 888250 53.8
4080200 1845990 45.2
1810760 1053390 58.2
3016140 1048420 34.8
1224890 591100 48.3
4385060 1796240 41.0
60
-------
SWReGAP Common Name
SPECKLED RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE
PEREGRINE FALCON
PEREGRINE FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO
YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
VERMILION FLYCATCHER
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus scutulatus
Crotalus scutulatus
Falco peregrinus
Falco peregrinus
Coccyzus americanus
Coccyzus americanus
Athene cunicularia
Athene cunicularia
Athene cunicularia
Athene cunicularia
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Range Management Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4
Description Description
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
K Clark County Status 221440 12.8 740050 42.6 626840 36.1 147360 8.5
K Mojave Status 218380 6.7 887710 27.4 1538100 47.5 593910 18.3
K Clark County Status 120250 9.9 480580 39.5 474390 39.0 142150 11.7
K Mojave Status 454670 10.1 1521800 33.9 1927900 42.9 587290 13.1
K Clark County Status 304400 15.5 821830 41.9 633220 32.3 203390 10.4
B Mojave Status 3398 10.6 5199 16.3 5831 18.2 17530 54.9
B Clark County Status 182 1.7 3520 33.0 1583 14.8 5377 50.4
B Mojave Status 320040 7.8 1290100 31.3 1982900 48.1 526240 12.8
K Mojave Status 50400 7.3 162910 23.5 285710 41.2 194850 28.1
B ClarkCounty 176420 11.1 645070 40.5 591560 37.1 180330 11.3
Status
K Clark County Status 46043 37.8 47826 39.2 22238 18.2 5792 4.8
B Mojave Status 4935 14.4 5062 14.7 6781 19.7 17607 51.2
M Mojave Status 72 34.9 75 36.6 55 26.8 4 1.7
B Clark County Status 246 2.5 3252 33.0 1291 13.1 5053 51.3
M Clark County Status 48 51.1 46 48.3 0 0.0 1 0.6
K Mojave Status 3069 17.5 2744 15.6 3645 20.8 8082 46.1
Total Status 1 & 2
(ha) (ha) %
1735690 961490 55.4
3238100 1106090 34.2
1217370 600830 49.4
4491660 1976470 44.0
1962840 1126230 57.4
31958 8597 26.9
10662 3702 34.7
4119280 1610140 39.1
693870 213310 30.7
1593380 821490 51.6
121899 93869 77.0
34385 9997 29.1
206 147 71.5
9842 3499 35.5
94 94 99.4
17540 5813 33.1
61
-------
SWReGAP Common Name
VERMILION FLYCATCHER
BELL'S VIREO
BELL'S VIREO
BLUE GROSBEAK
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER TANAGER
SUMMER TANAGER
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vireo belli!
Vireo bellii
Guiraca caerulea
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Piranga rubra
Piranga rubra
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Range
Description
K
B
B
B
B
W
B
K
B
K
B
B
B
K
P
B
Management
Description
Clark County Status
Mojave Status
Clark County Status
Mojave Status
Clark County
Status
Mojave Status
Mojave Status
Mojave Status
Clark County Status
Clark County Status
Mojave Status
Clark County Status
Mojave Status
Mojave Status
Mojave Status
Clark County Status
Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4 To(a| Status1&2
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (ha) %
280 5.6 1603 31.9 678 13.5 2464 49.0 5025 1883 37.5
4536 11.6 5461 14.0 9789 25.1 19227 49.3 39014 9997 25.6
132 1.2 3493 33.0 1590 15.0 5377 50.8 10591 3624 34.2
4754 9.8 5698 11.7 8136 16.7 30035 61.8 48624 10453 21.5
296 2.3 3661 28.4 1705 13.2 7238 56.1 12900 3958 30.7
0 0.0 3522 8.7 21517 53.3 15364 38.0 40403 3522 8.7
1372 0.3 32302 6.0 235690 43.5 272170 50.3 541534 33674 6.2
336520 10.2 1182600 35.7 1507900 45.5 288020 8.7 3315040 1519120 45.8
0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0!
222470 13.5 682700 41.4 595310 36.1 150480 9.1 1650960 905170 54.8
3069 14.8 3085 14.9 4307 20.8 10221 49.4 20682 6154 29.8
280 5.6 1612 32.0 678 13.5 2464 49.0 5033 1891 37.6
0 0.0 156870 78.0 37886 18.8 6311 3.1 201067 156870 78.0
359340 8.7 1166400 28.4 1967500 47.9 616330 15.0 4109570 1525740 37.1
99487 23.6 131850 31.3 166820 39.6 22667 5.4 420824 231337 55.0
0 0.0 23298 95.7 967 4.0 70 0.3 24334 23298 95.7
62
-------
SWReGAP Common Name
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
MOJAVE BLACK-COLLARED LIZARD
MOJAVE BLACK-COLLARED LIZARD
COMMON KINGSNAKE
COMMON KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET MOUSE
DESERT POCKET MOUSE
SWReGAP Scientific Range
Name Description
Myotis volans
p
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
p
Myotis evotis
IX
Myotis evotis
p
Myotis evotis
D
Lasionycteris noctivagans
IX
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Crotaphytus bicinctores
Crotaphytus bicinctores
IX
Lampropeltis getula
IX
Lampropeltis getula
IX
Chaetodipus penicillatus
IX
Chaetodipus penicillatus
Management Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4
Description
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
Clark County Status 239520 15.8 645380 42.5 465030 30.6 168020 11.1
Clark County Status 59265 20.9 76241 26.9 134720 47.5 13674 4.8
Mojave Status 83914 17.5 150080 31.3 230920 48.2 13934 2.9
Mojave Status 388 0.6 42767 68.5 12883 20.6 6422 10.3
StatusC°Unty 5894S 43'3 68965 50'7 6606 4'9 1522 11
Clark County Status 1 0.0 8329 92.7 619 6.9 39 0.4
Mojave Status 0 0.0 351740 40.5 362730 41.7 154680 17.8
Mojave Status 401190 12.2 1027000 31.1 1567100 47.5 305290 9.2
Clark County Status 0 0.0 67870 64.8 32513 31.0 4421 4.2
Clark County Status 247350 15.5 629220 39.4 545850 34.2 175190 11.0
Mojave Status 370660 8.4 1414600 31.9 2091600 47.2 557180 12.6
Clark County Status 234a_0 ^ 6goo30 ^A ^^ ^ ^^ y1
Mojave Status 446360 8.4 1669500 31.5 2452200 46.3 724750 13.7
Clark County Status 266980 13.9 819350 42.7 662990 34.5 170470 8.9
Mojave Status 123870 5.6 679500 30.9 1036500 47.1 361000 16.4
Clark County Status 66255 6.5 392270 38.8 416250 41.1 137340 13.6
Total Status 1 & 2
(ha) (ha) %
1517950 884900 58.3
283900 135506 47.7
478848 233994 48.9
62459 43155 69.1
136038 127911 94.0
8988 8329 92.7
869150 351740 40.5
3300580 1428190 43.3
104804 67870 64.8
1597610 876570 54.9
4434040 1785260 40.3
1627110 924580 56.8
5292810 2115860 40.0
1919790 1086330 56.6
2200870 803370 36.5
1012115 458525 45.3
63
-------
SWReGAP Common Name
COMMON CHUCKWALLA
COMMON CHUCKWALLA
DESERT KANGAROO RAT
DESERT KANGAROO RAT
KIT FOX
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT
TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT
TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT
PALMER'S CHIPMUNK
PALMER'S CHIPMUNK
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Sauromalus ater
Sauromalus ater
Dipodomys desert!
Dipodomys desert!
Vulpes macrotis
Vulpes macrotis
Corynorhinus townsendii
Corynorhinus townsendii
Corynorhinus townsendii
Tamias palmeri
Tamias palmeri
Range Management Status 1 Status 2 Status 3 Status 4
Description Description
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
K Mojave Status 157810 10.4 545050 35.8 703780 46.3 114250 7.5
K Clark County Status 118180 19.7 267990 44.7 193780 32.3 19174 3.2
K Mojave Status 952 2.9 6359 19.2 23577 71.2 2242 6.8
K Clark County Status 326 1.3 3367 13.8 19532 79.8 1247 5.1
K Mojave Status 369930 7.7 1456100 30.4 2286800 47.8 671000 14.0
K Clark County Status 221010 13.1 696280 41.3 615360 36.5 153510 9.1
K Mojave Status 0 0.0 1301 2.9 37483 82.8 6472 14.3
K Mojave Status 474880 9.4 1569900 31.1 2282900 45.3 713820 14.2
K Clark County Status 304210 15.6 819080 41.9 632700 32.4 197930 10.1
K Clark County Status 22095 71.4 7672 24.8 859 2.8 309 1.0
K Mojave Status 22069 70.2 8204 26.1 857 2.7 314 1.0
Total Status 1 & 2
(ha) (ha) %
1520890 702860 46.2
599124 386170 64.5
33130 7311 22.1
24471 3692 15.1
4783830 1826030 38.2
1686160 917290 54.4
45257 1301 2.9
5041500 2044780 40.6
1953920 1123290 57.5
30935 29767 96.2
31445 30273 96.3
64
-------
Table Information
Column Name
ITIS Code
SWReGAP Common Name
SWReGAP Scientific Name
Taxa Group
Range Description
Management Description
Status 1
Definition
Integrated Taxonomic Information System number for species
Common name used in SWReGAP
Scientific name used in SWReGAP
Taxa group a=amphibian, b=bird, m=mammal, r=reptile
Range description used in SWReGAP
K=Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
E=Extirpated occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
P=Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
B=Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering
M=Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
W=Known or probable occurrence, winter
Statistics for Mojave Desert Ecoregion or Clark County
An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated
management plan in operation to maintain a natural state within which disturbance events (of
natural type, frequency, intensity, and legacy) are allowed to proceed without interference or are
mimicked through management.
Status 1 (ha)
Status 1 (%)
Status 2
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a mandated
management plan in operation to maintain a primarily natural state, but which may receive uses
or management practices that degrade the quality of existing natural communities, including
suppression of natural disturbance.
Status 2 (ha)
Status 2 (%)
Status 3
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
An area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover for the majority of
the area, but subject to extractive uses of either a broad, low-intensity type (e.g., logging) or
localized intense type (e.g., mining). It also confers protection to federally listed endangered and
threatened species throughout the area.
Status 3 (ha)
Status 3 (%)
Status 4
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
There are no known public or private institutional mandates or legally recognized easements or
deed restrictions held by the managing entity to prevent conversion of natural habitat types to
anthropogenic habitat types. The area generally allows conversion to unnatural land cover
throughout.
Status 4 (ha)
Status 4 (%)
Total (ha)
Status 1 & 2 (ha)
Status 1 & 2 %
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
Total Suitable Habitat
Predicted suitable habitat in ha for Status 1 and 2 lands
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
65
-------
66
-------
Appendix E-1.
Gap Analysis Statistics for Revised Models
for Stewardship (in hectares)
67
-------
68
-------
SWReGAP Common
Name
RELICT LEOPARD
FROG
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
DESERT TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED
LEOPARD LIZARD
DESERT HORNED
LIZARD
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN BANDED
GECKO
DESERT NIGHT
LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-
NOSED SNAKE
LONG-NOSED SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE
SNAKE
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE
RATTLESNAKE
PEREGRINE FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
BELL'S VIREO
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER TANAGER
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Rana onca
Bufomicroscaphus
Gopherus agassizii
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Gambelia wislizenii
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Eumeces gilbert!
Coleonyx variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma suspectum
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Trimorphodon
biscutatus
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus scutulatus
Falco peregrinus
Coccyzus americanus
Athene cunicularia
Athene cunicularia
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vireo belli!
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Piranga rubra
Myotisvolans
Range Code
Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
B
B
K
B
M
K
B
B
B
K
B
B
Managements Description
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
BLM
(ha)
63
0
9466
6
9505
7
1606
70
1821
40
269
1820
80
3194
0
1742
70
9509
7
9434
4
1557
60
1687
70
9436
0
1694
80
9484
2
1698
30
1273
8667
3
6972
8
891
0
456
1273
1273
0
1574
40
456
0
BOR
(ha)
0
0
16101
0
68488
25702
0
30003
0
16555
0
22477
0
26564
0
19433
0
18550
0
10421
0
24835
0
29948
0
16577
0
26236
0
17211
0
33119
0
49
26448
0
0
71
52
122
11
125
0
25228
0
122
0
USFWS
(ha)
0
1073
139530
129120
150700
164310
4116
158380
64437
144700
140640
137270
150860
145400
139940
144970
139210
199000
4376
177090
5672
4052
1
2044
4376
6073
0
146770
2044
70
USFS
(ha)
0
1
8923
8891
12323
13781
2
13781
1688
12553
8935
7430
11651
11045
8935
12536
7443
11220
90
10421
1292
77
0
65
90
90
0
11678
65
0
DOD
(ha)
0
0
6604
0
34498
35264
91825
6428
28332
3230
18223
265
31192
75794
8890
31421
13719
11224
0
24
34736
0
141
42
183
1
183
0
42317
183
0
NFS
(ha)
0
0
57
51
60
110
0
66
23
51
60
57
60
48
60
51
60
404
3
353
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
51
0
0
Native
Americ
an
(ha)
0
2
480
457
500
553
0
540
159
506
482
478
516
504
480
507
480
1140
26
936
91
31
0
28
26
32
0
524
28
0
State
parks
(ha)
0
0
1
0
1
16
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
16
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
State
School
(ha)
89
1259
745250
564600
991240
108240
0
186570
102820
0
848650
973960
763700
637910
988820
104920
0
750360
105050
0
737420
107210
0
2060
956980
44543
1763
0
1025
2050
2131
0
975880
1033
24265
State
Wildlife
(ha)
0
0
28694
28758
29875
30881
0
30879
4397
30153
28781
25165
30204
26621
29065
29555
25490
27539
1134
29632
29
1137
0
482
1134
1363
0
30697
482
0
Other
State
(ha)
0
329
1730
1734
2481
2591
0
2591
7
2532
1736
1730
1474
2530
1074
2526
1735
43789
771
2303
193
1099
0
15
771
771
0
3217
15
0
Reg
Gov
(ha)
0
0
1248
8
1195
0
1342
4
1686
0
6
1467
1
9802
1379
3
1260
3
1236
5
1340
1
1367
4
1254
2
1379
3
1236
9
1663
9
11
1379
5
0
11
0
0
11
11
0
1321
5
0
0
City County
(ha) (ha)
0 0
0 0
0 304
0 292
0 304
0 317
0 0
0 308
0 254
0 292
0 304
0 304
0 304
0 292
0 304
0 292
0 304
1 393
0 0
1 368
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 292
0 0
0 0
TNC
(ha)
7
0
12132
11741
16205
18379
42
17916
4608
17346
12176
11759
16038
16977
12200
17243
11836
17763
180
15307
545
158
0
91
180
180
0
15839
91
0
Private
(ha)
0
0
24
10
26
32
6
32
18
25
28
24
31
25
24
25
24
25
20
29
0
20
0
8
20
20
0
42
8
0
Water
(ha)
0
909
2036
2062
3258
3681
0
3681
0
2981
2040
2034
2651
2975
1959
2981
2060
3343
1418
2587
0
1488
0
520
1418
1418
0
3936
520
0
Total
(ha)
159
3572
12139
29
92321
1
16725
85
18513
47
44838
7
16843
26
12599
55
15707
21
12703
06
10353
48
16513
13
18133
35
12259
65
17382
40
12191
03
20066
33
11434
15956
92
12209
2
10941
94
5040
11362
13672
0
16541
78
5049
24335
69
-------
SWReGAP Common
Name
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED LIZARD
COMMON KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
COMMON
CHUCKWALLA
DESERT KANGAROO
RAT
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
PALMER'S CHIPMUNK
RELICT LEOPARD
FROG
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
DESERT TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED
LEOPARD LIZARD
DESERT HORNED
LIZARD
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN BANDED
GECKO
DESERT NIGHT
LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-
NOSED SNAKE
LONG-NOSED SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE
SNAKE
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE
RATTLESNAKE
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis evotis
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Crotaphytus bicinctores
Lampropeltis getula
Chaetodipus
penicillatus
Sauromalus ater
Dipodomys deserti
Vulpes macrotis
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Tamias palmeri
Rana onca
Bufomicroscaphus
Gopherus agassizii
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Gambelia wislizenii
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Eumeces gilbert!
Coleonyx variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma suspectum
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Trimorphodon
biscutatus
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus scutulatus
Range Code
Description
K
P
K
P
B
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Managements Description
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Clark County Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
BLM
(ha)
1693
80
0
5
29
23
9498
4
1665
70
1822
00
9542
6
8790
9
321
1590
40
1693
30
0
148
4404
1813
600
1252
600
2750
200
3044
800
4973
80
2687
900
2452
800
2228
600
1949
100
1392
300
2343
300
2405
100
1796
600
2704
300
1915
500
BOR
(ha)
26285
0
59296
43439
0
0
32264
0
26032
0
31732
0
98826
10299
0
276
26317
0
33030
0
7516
0
1
12424
12391
16388
18676
2
18676
4269
17447
12436
10934
14954
15115
11999
16581
10946
USFWS
(ha)
163990
13659
1520
39
4402
171940
112470
167080
133870
19173
1115
150750
193870
309
3
0
298130
115020
478650
587120
290750
428780
485130
345690
357500
194600
443990
486140
305530
458210
312090
USFS
(ha)
10180
976
0
1
3246
6570
11780
13781
8900
3291
1495
12304
11208
0
0
20
7803
24
42846
45119
10625
0
9885
37821
5812
20820
267
39424
89781
10760
39090
15994
DOD
(ha)
10541
0
0
66883
0
0
10589
0
34719
64472
328
11704
6
34637
10566
0
22775
0
2
16052
0
57603
22158
0
26893
0
12700
0
22424
0
23304
0
81323
20062
0
96707
20385
0
96488
16195
0
19838
0
16218
0
NPS
(ha)
344
0
0
0
0
349
49
110
51
0
0
57
357
0
85
0
2001
20
1825
70
3388
50
3815
20
3713
6
3703
20
1002
90
3336
50
2078
40
1838
20
2783
10
3232
00
1808
30
3467
00
2008
50
Native
Americ
an
(ha)
1054
15
32
0
19
991
464
555
464
1
2
500
1123
25
0
444
31344
34112
41159
44976
79
44407
16831
42839
37353
26566
42533
40910
37914
31057
34429
State
parks
(ha)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
16
0
0
0
1
1
0
7
32
12559
13222
18904
21749
42
21202
7458
20408
14315
12187
18742
19959
14145
17277
13773
State
School
(ha)
773870
179130
24051
8917
95672
835070
983880
110370
0
617070
359050
17104
100260
0
107930
0
310
0
139
63322
57066
84968
86921
1511
87186
60206
83075
73700
45979
73536
85499
66625
73058
75054
State
Wildlife
(ha)
2430
24410
2
0
0
26278
26027
31145
29434
1127
3612
29872
27290
0
0
909
2264
2205
3731
4382
0
4015
491
3523
2159
2147
2995
3303
2293
3490
2516
Other
State
(ha)
43721
45
0
0
255
38722
2304
2919
2490
297
6
2438
43461
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reg
Gov
(ha)
1399
5
74
70
0
0
1430
7
1097
6
1686
0
1225
4
1850
173
1349
4
1457
4
0
0
0
1
0
1
16
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
City
(ha)
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
59
53
62
113
0
68
22
53
62
59
62
51
62
49
62
County
(ha)
358
0
0
0
0
372
264
319
227
0
0
304
382
0
0
2
479
455
498
552
0
539
157
505
480
477
514
503
479
506
479
TNC
(ha)
10781
6289
38
1
0
16310
16690
18395
11902
11978
365
16185
17298
0
0
0
279
650
922
1109
6
1015
977
797
849
279
979
797
822
382
822
Private
(ha)
0
11
0
0
0
11
24
32
26
0
0
30
29
0
20
3908
436230
389770
540050
564560
20039
553990
361100
507520
460040
348620
452410
512690
425760
495220
492970
Water
(ha)
3298
41
0
0
1442
1906
2876
3764
3330
45
2
3246
3235
0
0
336
2438
2426
3651
4147
0
3825
104
3904
2439
2339
2582
3671
1964
3767
2692
Total
(ha)
15616
62
28394
5
13604
0
8988
10505
8
16363
40
16294
15
19226
70
10145
98
59941
4
24477
16886
28
19974
19
30935
263
10195
30415
73
21201
68
45424
61
50746
91
10801
94
44560
51
37606
97
36751
45
33397
15
23172
84
39181
83
40832
07
30177
35
43880
68
32403
58
70
-------
SWReGAP Common
Name
PEREGRINE FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
BELL'S VIREO
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER TANAGER
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED LIZARD
COMMON KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
COMMON
CHUCKWALLA
DESERT KANGAROO
RAT
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
PALMER'S CHIPMUNK
SWReGAP Scientific
Name
Falco peregrinus
Coccyzus americanus
Athene cunicularia
Athene cunicularia
Empidonax traillii
Empidonaxtraillii
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vireo bellii
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Piranga rubra
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis evotis
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Crotaphytus bicinctores
Lampropeltis getula
Chaetodipus
penicillatus
Sauromalus ater
Dipodomys deserti
Vulpesmacrotis
Corynortiinus
townsendii
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Tamias palmeri
Range Code
Description
K
B
B
K
B
M
K
B
B
B
B
K
B
B
K
K
K
P
B
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
B
K
K
Managements Description
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
Mojave Ownership
BLM
(ha)
2592
600
6482
2530
400
3570
40
7453
40
4071
1080
2
8990
2505
9
2491
20
2019
900
5009
1920
90
2289
600
2669
20
2502
80
5528
g
7002
00
1812
500
2740
700
3185
300
1342
700
9704
60
2383
1
2903
400
3877
7
2933
000
310
BOR
(ha)
12811
91
13205
2715
78
0
66
91
91
0
2691
13051
66
0
14467
976
0
1
3245
6670
16464
18676
12400
4653
1493
16369
0
15496
0
USFWS
(ha)
588150
3233
513610
4325
4630
70
2822
4247
4406
0
797
431700
2822
0
462180
99456
82300
0
0
567130
479110
596720
179160
185640
895
518000
0
599410
7520
USFS
(ha)
13002
0
44
43191
0
182
45
207
1
227
0
877
49950
227
0
12257
0
0
74318
0
0
12319
0
44153
79377
367
18585
8
43208
0
12292
0
23280
DOD
(ha)
21186
0
13
26190
0
0
94
33
110
13
125
0
0
17607
0
110
0
24578
0
74
46542
0
0
25217
0
21735
0
26943
0
86916
79103
179
26120
0
0
26297
0
0
NPS
(ha)
3345
30
2450
2020
60
1354
30
2115
16
1253
2473
2492
0
1418
5
3031
20
1256
269
3625
70
0
1471
2
451
6016
2071
30
3521
70
3850
20
1848
00
1440
50
619
3409
90
0
3657
20
0
Native
Americ
an
(ha)
46226
5065
40169
47
5092
0
1622
4622
9471
0
9908
35717
2066
0
17639
24412
1948
8
1344
37609
38200
50616
34259
7468
3706
41946
0
45430
0
State
parks
(ha)
21128
250
17799
552
226
0
102
218
250
0
2256
16309
133
0
14258
6283
280
1
0
19324
19632
21754
12365
13827
365
19074
0
20825
0
State
School
(ha)
69448
243
62736
21448
249
0
88
532
315
1199
37717
35830
147
5611
75006
0
2210
747
40228
11126
79279
90148
40281
19354
291
86951
3306
81503
0
State
Wildlife
(ha)
3669
1696
2843
293
1772
0
659
1699
1699
0
109
4339
659
0
3819
41
86
0
1447
2258
3384
4473
3690
45
7
3806
0
3611
0
Other
State
(ha)
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Reg
Gov
(ha)
16
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
16
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
City
(ha)
409
8
352
0
5
0
0
8
8
0
0
59
0
0
348
0
0
0
0
349
52
113
58
0
0
60
0
362
0
County
(ha)
1138
26
934
91
31
0
28
26
32
0
0
522
28
0
1053
15
32
0
20
990
463
554
463
1
2
498
0
1121
24
TNC
(ha)
1068
20
986
0
84
0
72
84
84
0
578
403
72
0
1015
12
63
0
187
854
956
1120
288
706
0
985
0
1028
0
Private
(ha)
478020
12328
428390
171840
12389
2
6432
14189
20426
14146
223200
227650
8076
3026
498720
22656
6002
5935
116790
258660
441360
588610
302810
76721
1735
546580
3152
587520
310
Water
(ha)
75867
2179
3300
252
2747
0
1176
2207
2215
3
68
5676
1184
807
74847
45
1
0
1064
60210
3365
5258
3480
450
14
3581
1
74435
0
Total
(ha)
45669
62
34127
41218
77
69403
3
37148
206
18707
41213
50829
40407
54150
6
33202
96
21854
20180
2
41838
73
42088
9
47877
2
62432
87054
2
33601
71
44366
40
52971
85
22040
38
15210
62
33144
47866
49
45236
51153
53
31445
71
-------
Table Information
Column Name
ITIS Code
SWReGAP Common Name
SWReGAP Scientific Name
Taxa Group
Range Description
Management Description
BLM
BOR
USFWS
USFS
DOD
NPS
Native American
State parks
State School
State Wildlife
Other State
Reg Gov
City
County
TNC
Private
Water
Total
Definition
Integrated Taxonomic Information System number for species
Common name used in SWReGAP
Scientific name used in SWReGAP
Taxa group a=amphibian, b=bird, m=mammal, r=reptile
Range description used in SWReGAP
K= Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and
summer
E=Extirpated occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
P=Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
B=Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering
M=Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
W=Known or probable occurrence, winter
Statistics for Mojave Desert Ecoregion or Clark County
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
Total predicted suitable habitat in hectares
72
-------
Appendix E-2.
Gap Analysis Statistics for Revised Models
for Stewardship (in percentage)
73
-------
74
-------
Common Name
RELICT LEOPARD
FROG
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
DESERT
TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED
LEOPARD LIZARD
DESERT
HORNED LIZARD
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN
BANDED GECKO
DESERT NIGHT
LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-
NOSED SNAKE
Scientific Name
Rana onca
Bufo
microscaphus
Gopherus
agassizii
Dipsosaurus
dorsalis
Gambelia
wislizenii
Phrynosoma
platyrhinos
Eumeces gilbert!
Coleonyx
variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma
suspectum
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Range Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
_ ... BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD NPS ..
Clark
County 3Q4 OQ Q1 OQ OQ OQ OQ
Ownership
Clark
County OQ OQ 30Q OQ OQ OQ OQ
Ownership
Clark
C°untyh. 7.8 13.3 11.5 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 1Q3 74 14Q 1Q OQ OQ OQ
Ownership
Clark
£°Unty . 9.6 15.4 9.0 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 9.8 16.2 8.9 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County Q1 36g og OQ 2Q5 OQ OQ
Ownership
Clark
County 1Q8 133 Q4 Q8 Q4 OQ OQ
Ownership
Clark
^OUntyh. 2.5 21.1 5.1 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 11.1 12.4 9.2 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 7.5 14.6 11.1 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County Q1 1Q1 133 Q7 OQ OQ OQ
Ownership
Jts s'choo, Sife ST Go? Ci'V Bounty TNC Private Water
0.0 56.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 25.5
0.0 35.2 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 61.4 2.4 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 61.2 3.1 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2
0.0 59.3 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 58.5 1.7 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 41.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 61.0 1.8 0.2 0.9 °'° 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0
0.0 67.4 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2
0.0 62.0 1.9 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2
0.0 60.1 2.3 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 61.6 2.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2
75
-------
Common Name
LONG-NOSED
SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE
SNAKE
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE
RATTLESNAKE
PEREGRINE
FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
BURROWING
OWL
BURROWING
OWL
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
Scientific Name
Rhinocheilus
lecontei
Trimorphodon
biscutatus
Crotalus
cerastes
Crotalus
mitchellii
Crotalus
scutulatus
Falco peregrinus
Coccyzus
americanus
Athene
cunicularia
Athene
cunicularia
Empidonax
traillii
Empidonax
traillii
Pyrocephalus
rubinus
Range Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
B
B
K
B
M
K
_ ... BLM BOR FWS USFS DOD NPS ..
Clark
£OUnty.. 9.4 15.0 9.1 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 9.3 16.5 8.0 0.6 4.2 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 7.7 13.5 11.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 9.8 15.1 8.3 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
£OUnty . 7.8 14.1 11.4 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 8.5 16.5 9.9 0.6 5.6 0.0 0.1
Ownership
Clark
County 11.1 0.4 38.3 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.2
Ownership
Clark
County 5.4 16.6 11.1 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.1
Ownership
Clark
County 57.1 0.0 4.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Ownership
Clark
County 8.1 0.6 37.0 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.3
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 54.8 0.6 0.0 44.6 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 9.1 2.4 40.6 1.3 3.6 0.0 0.6
*r!fs So, Sife ST Gov -V County TNC Private
0.0 59.9 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 57.9 1.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
0.0 61.2 2.4 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 60.4 1.7 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 60.5 2.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 53.4 1.4 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2
0.0 18.0 9.9 6.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
0.0 60.0 1.9 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 36.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2
0.0 16.1 10.4 10.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 20.3 9.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2
Water
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
12.4
0.2
0.0
13.6
0.0
10.3
12.5
76
-------
Common Name
:if,cName Range Description *£<•£? BL™ B°* ™S USFS °°° NPS J±T-n ££ s'choo, Sife ST SS Ci'^ C°""'V ™C Frivate Water
BELL'S VIREO Vireo belli!
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER
TANAGER
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED
MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED
BAT
SILVER-HAIRED
BAT
Guiraca
caerulea
Phainopepla
nitens
Phainopepla
nitens
Piranga rubra B
Myotis volans B
Myotis volans K
Myotis volans P
Myotis evotis K
Myotis evotis P
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Clark
County 11.2 0.1 38.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2
Ownership
Clark
County 9.3 0.9 44.4 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.2
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 9.5 15.3 8.9 0.7 2.6 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 9.0 2.4 40.5 1.3 3.6 0.0 0.5
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 10.8 16.8 10.5 0.7 6.7 0.0 0.1
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 20.9 4.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 31.9 1.1 0.0 49.2 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 0.0 4.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 5.8 19.7 10.5 0.4 6.5 0.0 0.1
Ownership
0.0 18.0 10.0 6.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.1 10.4
0.0 15.6 10.0 5.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 59.0 1.9 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 10.3
0.0 20.5 9.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 49.6 0.2 2.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
0.0 63.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0
0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4
0.0 91.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.0 51.0 1.6 2.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2
77
-------
Common Name
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED
LIZARD
COMMON
KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
COMMON
CHUCKWALLA
DESERT
KANGAROO RAT
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S
BIG-EARED BAT
PALMER'S
CHIPMUNK
RELICT LEOPARD
FROG
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
DESERT
TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED
LEOPARD LIZARD
DESERT
HORNED LIZARD
Scientific Name
Crotaphytus
bicinctores
Lampropeltis
getula
Chaetodipus
penicillatus
Sauromalus ater
Dipodomys
deserti
Vulpes macrotis
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Tamias palmeri
Rana onca
Bufo
microscaphus
Gopherus
agassizii
Dipsosaurus
dorsalis
Gambelia
wislizenii
Phrynosoma
platyrhinos
Range Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Se^riprT' BLM BOR ™S USFS °°° NPS £±L,n
Clark
County 10.2 16.0 6.9 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 9.5 16.5 8.7 0.7 3.4 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 9.4 9.7 13.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 14.7 17.2 3.2 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 1.3 1.1 4.6 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 9.4 15.6 8.9 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0
Ownership
Clark
County 8.5 16.5 9.7 0.6 5.3 0.0 0.1
Ownership
Clark
County 0.0 24.3 1.0 0.0 73.6 0.0 0.1
Ownership
"Ojave.. 56.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0
Ownership
"Ojave.. 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.4
Ownership
"Ojave.. 59.6 0.4 9.8 0.3 5.3 6.6 1.0
Ownership
"Ojave.. 59.1 0.6 5.4 0.0 2.7 8.6 1.6
Ownership
Mojave 6Q 5 Q4 1Q5 Qg 4g J5 Qg
Ownership
"Ojave.. 60.0 0.4 11.6 0.9 5.3 7.5 0.9
Ownership
P*,r!fs s'choo, Sife ST Gov Ci'V Bounty TNC Private Water
0.0 60.4 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 57.4 1.6 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3
0.0 60.8 2.9 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
0.0 59.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 69.9 14.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2
0.0 59.4 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2
0.0 54.0 1.4 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0
0.3 1.4 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 3.3
0.4 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.1
0.6 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.1
0.4 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.1
0.4 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.1
78
-------
Common Name
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN
BANDED GECKO
DESERT NIGHT
LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-
NOSED SNAKE
LONG-NOSED
SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE
SNAKE
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE
RATTLESNAKE
PEREGRINE
FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
BURROWING
OWL
BURROWING
OWL
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
Scientific Name
Eumeces gilbert!
Coleonyx
variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma
suspectum
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Rhinocheilus
lecontei
Trimorphodon
biscutatus
Crotalus
cerastes
Crotalus
mitchellii
Crotalus
scutulatus
Falco peregrinus
Coccyzus
americanus
Athene
cunicularia
Athene
cunicularia
Empidonax
traillii
Empidonax
traillii
Range Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
B
B
K
B
M
Management
Description
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
BLM
46.0
60.3
65.2
60.6
58.4
60.1
59.8
58.9
59.5
61.6
59.1
56.8
19.0
61.4
51.4
20.1
19.3
BOR
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.0
FWS
26.9
9.6
12.9
9.4
10.7
8.4
11.3
11.9
10.1
10.4
9.6
12.9
9.5
12.5
0.6
12.5
34.1
USFS
9.8
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.0
1.0
2.2
0.4
0.9
0.5
2.8
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.5
21.6
DOD
11.8
5.0
6.2
2.2
6.0
4.2
5.2
2.4
5.4
4.5
5.0
4.6
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.3
16.1
NFS
3.4
8.3
2.7
9.1
6.2
7.9
7.1
7.9
6.0
7.9
6.2
7.3
7.2
4.9
19.5
5.7
7.7
Native
American
0.0
1.0
0.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
0.7
1.1
1.0
14.8
1.0
0.0
13.7
0.0
State
parks
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.0
State
School
0.1
2.0
1.6
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.2
1.7
2.3
1.5
0.7
1.5
3.1
0.7
0.0
State
Wildlife
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
5.0
0.1
0.0
4.8
0.0
Other
State
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Reg
Gov
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
City
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
County
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
TNC
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
Private
1.9
12.4
9.6
13.8
13.8
15.0
11.5
12.6
14.1
11.3
15.2
10.5
36.1
10.4
24.8
33.4
1.1
Water
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.7
6.4
0.1
0.0
7.4
0.0
79
-------
Common Name
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
BELL'S VIREO
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER
TANAGER
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED
MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED
BAT
SILVER-HAIRED
BAT
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED
LIZARD
COMMON
KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
Scientific Name
Pyrocephalus
rubinus
Vireo bellii
Guiraca
caerulea
Phainopepla
nitens
Phainopepla
nitens
Phainopepla
nitens
Piranga rubra
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis evotis
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Crotaphytus
bicinctores
Lampropeltis
getula
Chaetodipus
penicillatus
Range Description
K
B
B
W
B
K
B
B
K
P
K
P
B
K
K
K
K
Management
Description
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
Mojave
Ownership
BLM
21.8
26.2
17.7
62.0
46.0
60.8
22.9
95.2
54.7
63.4
52.3
88.6
80.4
53.9
61.8
60.1
60.9
BOR
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
FWS
15.1
10.3
8.7
0.0
0.1
13.0
12.9
0.0
11.0
23.6
17.2
0.0
0.0
16.9
10.8
11.3
8.1
USFS
1.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.5
1.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
15.5
0.0
0.0
3.7
1.0
1.5
0.0
DOD
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.5
0.0
5.9
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
7.5
4.9
5.1
3.9
NFS
6.7
6.0
4.9
0.0
2.6
9.1
5.7
0.1
8.7
0.0
3.1
0.7
0.7
6.2
7.9
7.3
8.4
Native
American
8.7
11.2
18.6
0.0
1.8
1.1
9.5
0.0
0.4
5.8
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.6
State
parks
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.3
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
State
School
0.5
1.3
0.6
3.0
7.0
1.1
0.7
2.8
1.8
0.0
0.5
1.2
4.6
0.3
1.8
1.7
1.8
State
Wildlife
3.5
4.1
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
Other
State
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Reg
Gov
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
City
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
County
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TNC
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Private
34.4
34.4
40.2
35.0
41.2
6.9
37.0
1.5
11.9
5.4
1.3
9.5
13.4
7.7
9.9
11.1
13.7
Water
6.3
5.4
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
5.4
0.4
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.8
0.1
0.1
0.2
80
-------
Common Name
COMMON
CHUCKWALLA
DESERT
KANGAROO RAT
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S
BIG-EARED BAT
TOWNSEND'S
BIG-EARED BAT
PALMER'S
CHIPMUNK
Scientific Name
Sauromalus ater
Dipodomys
deserti
Vulpes macrotis
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Tamias palmeri
Range Description
K
K
K
B
K
K
E35T BL™ B°R
(%. (%.
"Ojave . . 63.8 0.3
Ownership
"ojave.. 71.9 4.5
Ownership
"Ojave . . 60.7 0.3
Ownership
"Ojave . . 85.7 0.0
Ownership
"ojave . . 57.3 0.3
Ownership
"ojave.. 1.0 o.o
Ownership
FWS USFS DOD NFS ^J™^
(%. (%. (%. (%. (%.
12.2 1.2 5.2 9.5 0.5
2.7 0.0 0.5 1.9 11.2
10.8 0.9 5.5 7.1 0.9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
11.7 2.4 5.1 7.1 0.9
23.9 74.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
State
parks
(%.
0.9
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
State
School
(%.
1.3
0.9
1.8
7.3
1.6
0.0
State
Wildlife
(%.
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
Other
State
(%.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Reg
Gov
(%.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
City
(%)Coun
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
p/.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
TNC Private Water
(%. (%. (%.
0.0 5.0 0.0
0.0 5.2 0.0
0.0 11.4 0.1
0.0 7.0 0.0
0.0 11.5 1.5
0.0 1.0 0.0
81
-------
Table Information
Column Name
ITIS Code
SWReGAP Common Name
SWReGAP Scientific Name
Taxa Group
Range Description
Management Description
BLM
BOR
USFWS
USFS
DOD
NPS
Native American
State parks
State School
State Wildlife
Other State
Reg Gov
City
County
TNC
Private
Water
Total
Definition
Integrated Taxonomic Information System number for species
Common name used in SWReGAP
Scientific name used in SWReGAP
Taxa group a=amphibian, b=bird, m=mammal, r=reptile
Range description used in SWReGAP
K= Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and
summer
E=Extirpated occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
P=Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
B=Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering
M=Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
W=Known or probable occurrence, winter
Statistics for Mojave Desert Ecoregion or Clark County
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
predicted suitable habitat in hectares and percent by owner
Total predicted suitable habitat in hectares
82
-------
Appendix F.
Gap Analysis Statistics for Clark County
Conservation Management Areas
83
-------
84
-------
Common Name
RELICT LEOPARD FROG
SOUTHWESTERN TOAD
DESERT TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED LEOPARD
LIZARD
DESERT HORNED
LIZARD
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN BANDED
GECKO
DESERT NIGHT LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED
SNAKE
LONG-NOSED SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE SNAKE
Scientific Name
Rana onca
Bufo microscaphus
Gopherus agassizii
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Gambelia wislizenii
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Eumeces gilbert!
Coleonyx variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma suspectum
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Trimorphodon biscutatus
Range IMA
Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
(ha)
135
1 ,145
600,450
453,380
874,980
975,570
250,940
881 ,660
681 ,820
830,700
631,360
508,370
860,180
982,230
%
51
32
50
49
52
53
56
52
54
53
50
49
52
54
LIMA
(ha)
19
-
59,612
25,177
103,900
116,850
93,672
79,409
102,700
70,151
72,651
40,003
100,480
133,510
%
7
0
5
3
6
6
21
5
8
4
6
4
6
7
MUMA
(ha)
45
1,327
419,250
319,800
544,330
593,520
98,967
564,000
417 270
524,460
430,310
357,780
542,020
553,970
%
17
37
35
35
33
32
22
34
33
33
34
35
33
31
UMA
(ha)
63
1,071
133,620
123,460
147,850
163,900
5,455
157,720
59,054
143,900
134,990
127,780
148,320
142,120
%
24
30
11
13
9
9
1
9
5
9
11
12
9
8
Total
263
3,542
1,212,932
921,81
1 ,671 ,060
1 ,849,840
449,034
1 ,682,789
1 ,260,844
1,569,211
1,269,311
1,033,933
1,651,000
1,811,830
85
-------
Common Name
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE
PEREGRINE FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
WILLOW FLYCATCHER
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
BELL'S VIREO
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER TANAGER
Scientific Name
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus scutulatus
Falco peregrinus
Coccyzus americanus
Athene cunicularia
Athene cunicularia
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vireo bellii
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla nitens
Phainopepla nitens
Piranga rubra
Range IMA
Description
K
K
K
K
B
B
K
B
M
K
B
B
B
K
B
(ha)
606,610
922,140
611,130
1,039,600
3,100
788,140
93,486
2,881
91
1,223
3,034
3,289
-
871,510
1,228
%
49
53
50
53
29
49
77
29
97
25
28
25
0
53
25
LIMA MUMA
(ha) % (ha) %
61,920 5 422,720 34
104,140 6 565,760 33
66,443 5 410,230 34
151,260 8 578,130 29
100 1 2,544 23
105,380 7 525,470 33
872 1 23,351 19
160 2 2,111 21
3 3 - 0
122 2 1,020 21
91 1 2,547 24
162 1 2,808 21
0 - 0
105,510 6 529,510 32
122 2 1,024 21
UMA
(ha) %
134,500 11
144,730 8
130,310 11
194,840 10
5,105 47
175,620 1 1
4,097 3
4,925 49
j 1
2,532 52
5,105 47
6,828 52
0
145,790 9
2,532 52
Total
1,225,750
1,736,770
1,218,113
1,963,830
10,848
1,594,610
121,807
10,076
94
4,897
10,777
13,086
-
1,652,320
4,905
86
-------
Common Name
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
LONG-EARED MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
SILVER-HAIRED BAT
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED LIZARD
COMMON KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
COMMON CHUCKWALLA
DESERT KANGAROO
RAT
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
PALMER'S CHIPMUNK
Scientific Name
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis evotis
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Crotaphytus bicinctores
Lampropeltis getula
Chaetodipus penicillatus
Sauromalus ater
Dipodomys deserti
Vulpes macrotis
Corynorhinus townsendii
Tamias palmeri
Range IMA
Description
B
K
P
K
P
B
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
(ha)
18,613
788,600
153,520
90,295
2,138
59,092
801,900
875,090
1,014,400
500,670
353,900
4,083
883,230
1,041,100
24,880
%
77
52
54
66
24
57
50
54
53
49
59
17
52
53
80
LIMA
(ha)
-
144,060
-
35,550
-
-
143,360
97,224
136,120
35,302
35,721
10
105,920
144,990
5,058
%
0
9
0
26
0
0
9
6
7
3
6
0
6
7
16
MUMA
(ha)
5,480
452,620
89,557
7,881
6,665
41,663
482,620
529,470
603,300
348,030
187,820
15,727
549,800
578,910
-
%
23
30
31
6
75
40
30
33
31
34
31
64
33
30
0
UMA
(ha)
82
132,590
41,436
2,342
39
3,473
171,190
126,330
166,940
128,930
22,353
4,649
148,150
189,860
1,006
%
0
9
15
2
0
3
11
8
9
13
4
19
9
10
3
Total
24,175
1,517,870
284,513
136,067
8,841
104,228
1,599,070
1,628,114
1,920,760
1,012,932
599,794
24,469
1,687,100
1,954,860
30,944
87
-------
Table Information
Column Name
ITIS Code
SWReGAP Common Name
SWReGAP Scientific Name
Taxa Group
Range Description
Management Description
IMA
IMA (ha)
IMA (%)
LIMA
LIMA (ha)
LMA (%)
MDMA
MDMA (ha)
MDMA (%)
DMA
DMA (ha)
DMA (%)
Total (ha)
Definition
Integrated Taxonomic Information System number for species
Common name used in SWReGAP
Scientific name used in SWReGAP
Taxa group a=amphibian, b=bird, m=mammal, r=reptile
Range description used in SWReGAP
K=Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
E=Extirpated occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
P=Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
B=Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering
M=Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
Statistics for Clark County Conservation Management Areas
Intensively Managed Areas
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
Less Intensively Managed Areas
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
Multiple Use Managed Areas
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
Unmanaged Areas
Predicted suitable habitat in ha
Predicted suitable habitat in category divided by total predicted habitat
Total Suitable Habitat
88
-------
Appendix G.
Comparison between Original SWReGAP Deductive
Models and Revised Deductive Models
89
-------
90
-------
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
ITIS
Code
173457
173457
173490
173490
173490
173490
173856
173856
173856
173921
173921
173924
173924
173943
173943
SWReGAP
Common Name
RELICT LEOPARD
FROG
RELICT LEOPARD
FROG
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
SOUTHWESTERN
TOAD
DESERT
TORTOISE
DESERT
TORTOISE
DESERT
TORTOISE
DESERT IGUANA
DESERT IGUANA
LONG-NOSED
LEOPARD LIZARD
LONG-NOSED
LEOPARD LIZARD
DESERT HORNED
LIZARD
DESERT HORNED
LIZARD
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Rana onca
Rana onca
Bufo
microscaphus
Bufo
microscaphus
Bufo
microscaphus
Bufo
microscaphus
Gopherus
agassizii
Gopherus
agassizii
Gopherus
agassizii
Dipsosaurus
dorsalis
Dipsosaurus
dorsalis
Gambelia
wislizenii
Gambelia
wislizenii
Phrynosoma
platyrhinos
Phrynosoma
platyrhinos
Study
Area
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Range
Description
K
K
K
P
K
P
K
P
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Area by
Range
(ha)
263
159
9544
3758
4564
2318
2960410
157759
1215550
1982497
869941
4485120
1632440
5048090
1838450
Total
Area
(ha)
263
159
13,302
6,883
3,118,169
1,215,550
1,982,497
869,941
4,485,120
1,632,440
5,048,090
1,838,450
Revised Deductive
Model
Area by
Range
(ha)
263
159
9,865
3,244
3,039,560
1,212,190
2,118,031
921,489
4,539,500
1,670,100
5,071,460
1,848,790
Total
Area
(ha)
263
159
9,865
3,244
3,039,560
1,212,190
2,118,031
921,489
4,539,500
1,670,100
5,071,460
1,848,790
Change (Revised -
Original)
Total
(ha)
0
0
(3,436)
(3,639)
(78,609)
(3,360)
135,534
51,548
54,380
37,660
23,370
10,340
Percent
%
0%
0%
-26%
-53%
-3%
0%
7%
6%
1%
2%
0%
1%
91
-------
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
ITIS
Code
173966
1 73966
174041
174041
174092
174092
174113
174113
174202
174202
174261
174261
174267
174267
SWReGAP
Common Name
GILBERT'S SKINK
GILBERT'S SKINK
WESTERN
BANDED GECKO
WESTERN
BANDED GECKO
DESERT NIGHT
LIZARD
DESERT NIGHT
LIZARD
GILA MONSTER
GILA MONSTER
GLOSSY SNAKE
GLOSSY SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-
NOSED SNAKE
SPOTTED LEAF-
NOSED SNAKE
LONG-NOSED
SNAKE
LONG-NOSED
SNAKE
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Eumeces gilberti
Eumeces gilberti
Coleonyx
variegatus
Coleonyx
variegatus
Xantusia vigilis
Xantusia vigilis
Heloderma
suspectum
Heloderma
suspectum
Arizona elegans
Arizona elegans
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Phyllorhynchus
decurtatus
Rhinocheilus
lecontei
Rhinocheilus
lecontei
Study
Area
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
P
Mojave
Clark
Bounty
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Range
Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Area by
Range
(ha)
1545340
508267
2255320
716420
682628
167182
1956530
521876
3157080
1378830
2912720
1232480
706680
375211
133082
29229
Total
Area
(ha)
1,545,340
508,267
2,971,740
849,810
1,956,530
521,876
3,157,080
1,378,830
2,912,720
1,232,480
706,680
375,211
133,082
29,229
Revised Deductive
Model
Area by
Range
(ha)
1,080,361
448,391
4,453,030
1,681,780
3,761,180
1,259,946
3,671,770
1,568,180
3,337,680
1,268,580
2,315,270
1,033,609
3,916,100
1,649,840
Total
Area
(ha)
1,080,361
448,391
4,453,030
1,681,780
3,761,180
1,259,946
3,671,770
1,568,180
3,337,680
1,268,580
2,315,270
1,033,609
3,916,100
1,649,840
Change (Revised -
Original)
Total
(ha)
(464,979)
(59,876)
1,481,290
831,970
1,804,650
738,070
514,690
189,350
424,960
36,100
1,608,590
658,398
3,783,018
1,620,611
Percent
%
-30%
-12%
50%
98%
92%
141%
16%
14%
15%
3%
228%
175%
2843%
5545%
92
-------
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
ITIS
Code
174291
174291
174311
174311
174313
174313
174313
174313
174317
174317
175604
175604
177831
177831
177946
177946
SWReGAP
Common Name
WESTERN LYRE
SNAKE
WESTERN LYRE
SNAKE
SIDEWINDER
SIDEWINDER
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
SPECKLED
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE
RATTLESNAKE
MOJAVE
RATTLESNAKE
PEREGRINE
FALCON
PEREGRINE
FALCON
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Trimorphodon
biscutatus
Trimorphodon
biscutatus
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus
scutulatus
Crotalus
scutulatus
Falco peregrin us
Falco peregrin us
Coccyzus
americanus
Coccyzus
americanus
Athene
cunicularia
Athene
cunicularia
Study
Area
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Range Area by
Description Range
K
K
K
K
K
P
K
P
K
K
K
K
B
B
B
K
(ha)
1410640
458805
2683000
1094968
4111460
235844
1689040
18839
3025120
1187590
3554150
1777740
1237
826
4140720
693351
Total
Area
(ha)
1,410,640
458,805
2,683,000
1,094,968
4,347,304
1,707,879
3,025,120
1,187,590
3,554,150
1,777,740
1,237
826
4,834,071
Revised Deductive
Model
Area by
Range
(ha)
4,080,200
1,810,760
3,016,140
1,224,890
4,385,060
1,735,690
3,238,100
1,217,370
4,491,660
1,962,840
31,958
10,662
4,119,280
693,870
Total
Area
(ha)
4,080,200
1,810,760
3,016,140
1,224,890
4,385,060
1,735,690
3,238,100
1,217,370
4,491,660
1,962,840
31,958
10,662
4,813,150
Change (Revised -
Original)
Total
Percent
(ha) %
2,669
1,351
333
129
37
27
212
29
937
185
30
9
(714,
,560
,955
,140
,922
,756
,811
,980
,780
,510
,100
,721
,836
791)
189%
295%
12%
12%
1%
2%
7%
3%
26%
10%
2483%
1191%
-15%
93
-------
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
ITIS
Code
177946
177946
178341
178341
178341
178341
178371
178371
179003
179003
179145
179145
179145
179877
179877
179877
SWReGAP
Common Name
BURROWING OWL
BURROWING OWL
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
WILLOW
FLYCATCHER
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
VERMILION
FLYCATCHER
BELL'S VIREO
BELL'S VIREO
BLUE GROSBEAK
BLUE GROSBEAK
BLUE GROSBEAK
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
PHAINOPEPLA
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Athene
cunicularia
Athene
cunicularia
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax traillii
Pyrocephalus
rubinus
Pyrocephalus
rubinus
Vireo bellii
Vireo bellii
Guiraca caerulea
Guiraca caerulea
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla
nitens
Phainopepla
nitens
Phainopepla
nitens
Study
Area
Clark
County
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Mojave
Range
Description
B
K
B
M
B
M
K
K
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
K
Area by
Range
(ha)
1589090
121515
50411
409
18039
141
250236
121333
25614
7753
4035120
3377
1653320
29883
314617
1 1 1 0727
Total
Area
(ha)
1,710,605
50,820
18,180
250,236
121,333
25,614
7,753
4,038,497
1,653,320
344,500
1,588,517
Revised Deductive
Model
Area by
Range
(ha)
1,593,380
121,899
34,385
206
9,842
94
17,540
5,025
39,014
10,591
48,624
12,900
40,403
541,534
3,315,040
Total
Area
(ha)
1,715,279
34,591
9,936
17,540
5,025
39,014
10,591
48,624
12,900
581,937
4,966,000
Change (Revised -
Original)
Total
(ha)
(117,225)
(16,436)
(8,338)
(232,696)
(116,309)
13,399
2,838
(3,989,874)
(1 ,640,420)
237,436
3,377,483
Percent
%
-7%
-32%
-46%
-93%
-96%
52%
37%
-99%
-99%
69%
213%
94
-------
Original SWReGAP Revised Deductive
Deductive Model Model
ITIS
Code
179877
179888
179888
179990
179990
179990
179990
179990
179990
179995
179995
180014
180014
180198
SWReGAP
Common Name
PHAINOPEPLA
SUMMER
TANAGER
SUMMER
TANAGER
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-LEGGED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED
MYOTIS
LONG-EARED
MYOTIS
SILVER-HAIRED
BAT
SILVER-HAIRED
BAT
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Phainopepla
nitens
Piranga rubra
Piranga rubra
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis evotis
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
Study
Area
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Clark
County
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Range
Description
K
B
B
B
K
P
B
K
P
K
P
K
P
B
K
B
Area by
Range
(ha)
477790
61781
26915
153947
2988900
344080
19451
1168600
248087
478848
62463
136038
8988
571663
2459330
96223
Total Area by Total
Area Range Area
(ha) (ha) (ha)
1,650,960
61,781 20,682 20,682
26,915 5,033 5,033
3,486,927 201,067 4,731,461
4,109,570
420,824
1,436,138 24,334 1,826,184
1,517,950
283,900
541,311 478,848 541,307
145,026 136,038 145,026
62Q369993 869,150 4,169,730
3,300,580
1,318,873 104,804 1,702,414
'
Change (Revised -
Original)
Total Percent
(ha) %
(41 ,099) -67%
(21,881) -81%
(3,285,860) -94%
390,047 27%
0%
(3.45)
0 0%
1,138,737 38%
383,541 29%
95
-------
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
ITIS
Code
180198
180236
180236
180606
180606
203452
203452
203452
208791
208791
209247
209247
552486
552486
564596
564596
SWReGAP
Common Name
PALMER'S
CHIPMUNK
PALMER'S
CHIPMUNK
DESERT
KANGAROO RAT
DESERT
KANGAROO RAT
KIT FOX
KIT FOX
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
TOWNSEND'S BIG-
EARED BAT
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED LIZARD
MOJAVE BLACK-
COLLARED LIZARD
COMMON
KINGSNAKE
COMMON
KINGSNAKE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
DESERT POCKET
MOUSE
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Tamias palmeri
Tamias palmeri
Dipodomys
deserti
Dipodomys
deserti
Vulpes macrotis
Vulpes macrotis
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Crotaphytus
bicinctores
Crotaphytus
bicinctores
Lampropeltis
getula
Lampropeltis
getula
Chaetodipus
penicillatus
Chaetodipus
penicillatus
Study
Area
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Mojave
Clark
County
Range
Description
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
B
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
Area by
Range
(ha)
1222650
31242
30731
33130
24471
4780780
1706850
34894
3757050
1534590
2886260
1117271
5285430
1915290
2,923,920
1,496,110
Total
Area
(ha)
31 ,242
30,731
33,130
24,471
4,780,780
1,706,850
3,791,944
1,534,590
2,886,260
1,117,271
5,285,430
1,915,290
2,923,920
1,496,110
Revised Deductive
Model
Area by
Range
(ha)
1,597,610
30,935
31,445
33,130
24,471
4,783,830
1,686,160
45,257
5,041,500
1,953,920
4,434,040
1,627,110
5,292,810
1,919,790
2,200,870
1,012,115
Total
Area
(ha)
30,935
31,445
33,130
24,471
4,783,830
1,686,160
5,086,757
1,953,920
4,434,040
1,627,110
5,292,810
1,919,790
2,200,870
1,012,115
Change (Revised -
Original)
Total
(ha)
(307)
714
0
0
3,050
(20,690)
1,294,813
419,330
1,547,780
509,839
7,380
4,500
(723,050)
(483,995)
Percent
%
-1%
2%
0%
0%
0%
-1%
34%
27%
54%
46%
0%
0%
-25%
-32%
96
-------
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
Revised Deductive
Model
Change (Revised -
Original)
ITIS
Code
209247
209247
SWReGAP
Common Name
COMMON
CHUCKWALLA
COMMON
CHUCKWALLA
SWReGAP
Scientific Name
Sauromalus ater
Sauromalus ater
Study
Area
Mojave
Clark
County
Range
Description
K
K
Area by
Range
(ha)
159,424
92,718
Total
Area
(ha)
159,424
92,718
Area by
Range
(ha)
1,520,890
599,124
Total
Area
(ha)
1,520,890
599,124
Total
(ha)
1,361,466
506,406
Percent
%
854%
546%
Table Information
Column Name
ITIS code
SWReGAP Common Name
SWReGAP Scientific Name
Management Description
Range Description
Original SWReGAP
Deductive Model
Revised Deductive Model
Area by Range
Total Area
Area by Range
Total
Change (Revised - Original) Total
Definition
Integrated Taxonomic Information System number for species
Common name used in SWReGAP
Scientific name used in SWReGAP
Statistics for Mojave Desert Ecoregion or Clark County
Range description used in SWReGAP
K=Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and
summer
E=Extirpated occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
P=Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
B=Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering
M=Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
Predicted habitat by range description for that Management Area
Total predicted habitat for species for that Management Area
Predicted habitat by range description for that Management Area
Total predicted habitat for species for that Management Area
Area of predicted habitat from model revised for MSHCP minus predicted
habitat from original SWReGAP in hectares. Calculations are done using Area
of Range if both models predicted these values or by Total Area if not.
Percentage change [(MSHCP-SWReGAP)/SWReGAP]
97
Percent
-------
98
-------
Appendix H.
Revised Deductive Habitat Models for 37 Species
99
-------
100
-------
These revised models are provided at http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/. A description
of the revision is provided in the report for each model at this Web site.
Taxon
Common Name*
Scientific Name*
Birds
Mammals
Southwestern toad**
Relict leopard frog
Glossy snake
Western banded gecko
Sidewinder
Speckled rattlesnake
Mojave rattlesnake
Mojave black-collared lizard
Desert iguana
Gilbert's skink
Long-nosed leopard lizard
Desert tortoise
Gila monster**
Common kingsnake
Desert horned lizard**
Spotted leaf-nosed snake
Long-nosed snake
Common chuckwalla**
Western lyre snake
Desert night lizard**
Burrowing owl**
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Willow flycatcher
Peregrine falcon
Blue grosbeak
Phainopepla
Summer tanager
Vermilion flycatcher
Bell's vireo
Desert pocket mouse**
Townsend's big-eared bat**
Desert kangaroo rat**
Silver-haired bat
Long-eared myotis
Long-legged myotis
Palmer's chipmunk
Kit fox**
Bufo microscaphus
Rana onca
Arizona elegans
Coleonyx variegatus
Crotalus cerastes
Crotalus mitchellii
Crotalus scutulatus
Crotaphytus bicinctores
Dipsosaurus dorsalis
Eumeces gilberti
Gambelia wislizenii
Gopherus agassizii
Heloderma suspectum
Lampropeltis getula
Phrynosoma platyrhinos
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus
Rhinocheilus lecontei
Sauromalus ater
Trimorphodon biscutatus
Xantusia vigilis
Athene cunicularia
Coccyzus americanus
Empidonax traillii
Falco peregrinus
Guiraca caerulea
Phainopepla nitens
Piranga rubra
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Vireo bellii
Chaetodipus penicillatus
Corynorhinus townsendii
Dipodomys deserti
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Myotis evotis
Myotis volans
Tamias palmeri
Vulpes macrotis
101
-------
SOUTHWESTERN TOAD (Bufo microscaphus) ITIS # 173490
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
ed area is predicted distribution based an modeling ftaMal associations will) GIS
procedures in 1he Southwest Regional Gap Analyse Project with modifications
specific to the Mojave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected.
SWRirSVP flaSa li (HDjedod in tusmn C Mural Equal Area win a hKigilude of Cenrta! Mnidlsn 0! .96
FBI lllusSfatKWi purpowa UIA map a pmMflted vrth a lonjiudt of C«nUal Mififtio at -112
Disciam*f Thi» a a modiTied piodudof Ih* anginal SWReGAP haMai mods The use* asaurt»i th» efiu* mk felaisd
to Its use of tills data fof mate mtHiruUKi and lor reEated links see Mtp7/tWs-nmcfwni nn«u eduAibo^un/MSMCPf
0 15 30
120
iKilonwters
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
102
-------
RELICT LEOPARD FROG {Rana onca) ITIS # 173457
Legend
Model Habitat
I I KM
I |K21
K33
California
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
[Shaded area is pfedicleij disfriBuiicm biiefl on modeling haemal asiocialidns wilh'GIS
procedures «Ihe Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
I specific to tne Mojave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
SWSsGAP data & projected in fllaen Conical Equal Area with a Song cude o* Cwitral We JidiBn at -90.
For niusrrwlKinj pmjpoiei lh» map if pi*E*r
-------
GLOSSY SNAKE (Arizona elegans) ITIS # 174202
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area Is predicted aismtxitton rxtsed on modeling hat-jitst associations with as
procedures m me Soutnwest Regional Gap Analysis Protect wiih moddlcaiions
specific to On Molave. Desert Ecoreoion Some errors are expected
SWReGAP data is projected in Mixers Coneal Equal Area with a longitude of Central Meridian a) -96
Tor Riustraliorrs purposes ttvu map e presenln) mtt> a longitude o* Central Meidian at -112
DisdBimer Tnls is a moddted product at tne original SWfteGAP hafetat ixxlel The user assumes Ihe en/tire nsk r«lBt«d
to >ts u« ot the data. For more information antf for related links see httpVAm-nmcfwru.nmsuedsiAbeykinJMSMCP/
Q 15 3D
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
104
-------
WESTERN BANDED GECKO (Coleonyx variegatus) ITIS # 174041
Legend
Model Habitat
K12
k13
~]
I I
k23
k24
k33
k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area s predicted dtstnbulign based on modeling habitat associations with CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
specific to Hie Mojave Desert Ecofegion Some errors are expected
SAReGAPdata « projected «i Afoets Conical Equal Area wflti a tongituito of Cemnl Meridian a) -96
For UuctnitK>n& ipurposet thtt map is presented with a longitude of Central Meridian at -142.
Disdsimer Ttitt rs a modihed predict o4 Bie ongmal SWReGAP haintat model The user a«umes the entire nsk reloSed
to *s use of this data For more information and tor related Inks, see imp Mws-nroc**ru nmsu eduAboyton/MSHCP/
0 15 30
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
105
-------
SIDEWINDER (Crotalus cerastes) ITIS #174311
Legend
Model Habitat
|^| k13
I hn
I IK21
K33
k34
California
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
[Shaded area is pfedicleij disfriBuiicm biiefl on modeling nabial Bssbcuhdns wilfi'GIS
procedures «Ihe Soulhwes! Regkmal Gap Analysis Project with modilicalKjns
speoficlQIhe MojavaDeserlEooregion Eomeenorsam greeted.
D IS 30
iKBnmBters
SWteGAP dala a pro|«ted inAisert Conical Equal Are* with a fengciide at Central Mwidisn at -96
Fra iilusrrwlKinj purpose! lh» map if jKesorflwt wnh • lonflitiid* of Cnmtn! MonOian at -112
Pisclaimof This ** rr>«iFiiN» pnjdiK) gf me original SViTieGAP luiijiial modpi Th«WMf «*twm»*• «rtw M* r»l«nl Modified PfOdUCt Of
«i^d unb. * mtp./^^m^.n^.d^y^s, southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
106
-------
SPECKLED RATTLESNAKE (Crotalus mitchellii) ITIS # 174313
Legend
Model Habitat
^H k13
^j kl4
I Ih21
H|k22
|ii 1 K23
_; k33
•• k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area Mend^i 31-112
Disclaim; This is a modified product of 1he original S'JVRsGAP Habitat model The user assumes ihe entire nsK relaled
to its u» of this data For more "ifwrnaimn and for netated links, tee hrttp jlifws-rtrncfWni.nmau.«ttifl(boykmrMSHCP'
0 t5 30
M
120
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
107
-------
MOJAVE RATTLESNAKE (Crotalus scutulatus) ITIS # 174317
Legend
Model Habitat
I Known or profcabte occurrence
breeding, wintering
I Known or probable occurrence
brewing, summering
I Known or probafate occurrence,
breeding and non-breeding,
winler and summer
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
California
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on m«lel«o habH.nl sssocanioris wMh CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project will) modifications
specific lo the Majavc Desert Eooreflioir Some errors arc expected
SWReGAP data is projected n> Alters Conical Equal Area with a longitude of CeJilraH Meridian at -08
For inustrauons puijrases this map is presented wth a longnude ol Central Mendnsn si -112
Disclaimer This cs a modiNed product at the orignai SfJVKeQAP hatalal model the user assumes the entire nsk rela.1e4
to its use o< tins dala For more inforrrabon and te related links, see Mtp-«nvB-nmc*imj nmsu etiuAtSKnktntMSHCPt o_ *n_ .ir^__A_ _n-^
bouthwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
Modified Product of
108
-------
MOJAVE BLACK-COLLARED LIZARD (Crotaphytus bicinctores) ITIS # 208791
Legend
Mode! Habitat
Blk12
^H*13
|K21
Hx^2
I 1*23
^|k24
Hk33
^•kM
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on model«o habH.nl sssoxsalioris wMh CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project will) modifications
specific lo the Majavc Desert Eooreflioir Some attots are expected
SWReGAP data rs projected in Albers Conical Equal Area witti a longitude of CenlrM Meridian at -98
For NusttUiona purjra&es vhra map is presented wth a longnude ol Central Mcndun si -112
Disciaimer This rs a rmxtified product at the ongnvai SWReOAP hataul model the user assumes the entire nsk rela.1e4
to its use at tins dala For rnwe infofrradon and te related links, see Mtp-^/nvB-
120
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
109
-------
DESERT IGUANA {Dipsosaurus dorsalis) ITIS # 173921
Legend
Model Habitat
k13
I I
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert EC ore g ion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations m1h GIS
procedures in the Soulhwesl Regional Gap Analysis Project wflh modifications
to Ine Mojave Desert Ecoregion Same errors are expected
SWReGAP uaia is |MO|frL-t«d in Altefs Coiueal Equal files wa> » loitr^ude ai CaKirm Merxiuin at S9
For iiiussraiic-ii puipoas* this map A presenteo wilh a tongitiHle ol Cetitral Mmdian at - 1 1 2
0 15 30
120
This •» a rmdrNxi product of the ordinal SWReGAP habun model The user a»iu*ne» Via entwa nsk r*as*d
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
110
-------
GILBERT'S SKINK {Eumeces gilberti) ITIS # 173966
Legend
Model Habitat
k14
K21
K22
K23
k24
k33
K34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Caiifomia
I Shaded area is predicted diMrtbuliw) based on modefing tiatxlal associations with GIS
procedures in line Southwesl Regional Gap Analysis Project wilh nioddicalioiis
I specific to 1FiB Mojave Descn Ecoregion Some errors are expected
0 15 30
60
120
• Kilometers
s'j it proffdod in AJtxn Conical Equal Ami wtlh a kwgifiide o1 Contra' Meretian ai -06.
fis pu«pot«i 0i« map it pr»s«ntcd with i kwgilude o! Central Mcnsiirn a; -112
Th.s « a mod '193 producl o( lie ordinal SWR«OAP haMot motfel Th« user assunws the entire ns* related Mod ifJBCl PfOdUCt Of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
111
-------
LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD (Gambelia wislizenii) ITIS # 173924
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area Is predicted aismtxitton OAs«d on modeling rut-jitst associations with as
procedures m me Soutnwesi Regional Gap Analysis Protect wiih modifications
specific to On Molave. Desert Ecoreoion Some errors are expected
SWReGAP data is projected in ARxers Coneal Equal Area with a longitude of Central Meridian a) -96
Tor Riustraliorrs purposes ttvu map e presenln) mtt> a kHigituda o* Central Meidian at -112
Disclaimer Tnls is a mcxMleO produc! at tne original SWfteGAP hafetat model The user assumes Ihe erttire nsk related
to >ts use ot the data. For more information and for related links see
D 15 3D
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
112
-------
DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus agassizii) ITIS #173856
Legend
Model Habitat
H k1 3
k14
1(22
k33
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
California
StodKt area is predicted dntributlon based on modeling habitat associations with CIS
procedures in trie Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Protect with
specific to the Moiave Desert Ecoregiw Some errors are expected
SYW«QAP data a projected m AlDcrs Conical Equal Ares wnh a locgituoe of C*r.ir*t Menditn ar -56
For llluitrotioro purpows thti map * ixetentco with a loi*gitu<3e c-1 Cenlral Mrndian a( -112
OwdniTwr This i* a modiAtd product o< in* ongmal SiWeGAP h»b«at mcxXI Tht inv otsum« 1h» »r*u*
-------
GILA MONSTER (Heloderma suspectum) ITtS # 174113
Legend
Model Habitat
|^| K13
\2 ' *2i
h24
h34
f
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
California
Shaded area Is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associa1»ons wilh CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project wilh modifications
specific to the Mojave Desert Ecoregian. Some errors are expected.
SWReGAP data is projected in AlBera Conical Equal Area with a longitude of Central Mendian at -96
For Illustrations purpose;. Ihii map .a prei«ited wtri a longitude ol Central Meridian at -112
Disclaimer Thins » mcdiFwt product of Ctw original SWReGAP habtut model Th« utur ntumn lha vntn
to «i UM d »KS data For more informabon and for ratat«t links, tw http //tws-nmdviini nmsu •duMjoylun.'MSHCP/
D 15 JO
80
120
iKilcwneters
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
114
-------
COMMON KINGSNAKE (Lampropeltis getula) ITIS # 209247
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more Information.
[Shaded area .-s predicted distribution based on modeing habtfal associations with GIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
I spftdftc. to the Moiavc Dcstrt Ecoreqion. Some amins are ejected
SWR«GAP data
-------
DESERT HORNED LIZARD {Phrynosoma platyrhinos) ITIS #173943
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on m«lel«o habH.nl sssoxsalioris wMh CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project will) modificalions
specific IQ the Mnjavc Desert Eooreflioir Some attots are expected
SWReGAP data rs projected in Albers Conical Equal Area witti a longitude of CenlrM Mercian at -98
For NusttUiona puijra&es this map is presented wth a longnude ol Central Meridun si -112
Disclaimer This rs a rmxtified product at the ongnvai SWReOAP hataut model the user assumes the entire nsk relsteit
to its us* at tins dala For rnaf e inforrration and te related links. s« Mtp-^/nvB-
120
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
116
-------
SPOTTED LEAF-NOSED SNAKE (Phyllorhynchus decurtatus) ITIS # 174261
Legend
Model Habitat
|k21
K24
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Eeorcgion.
See model report for
more information.
ra is predided disffibul ran based on modeling habi!a1 assaofllsons with GIS
procedures In the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
speaSc lo the Mojavo DftMrt Ecofagtort Some mroa «r» expected.
SWReGAP (Jjln a projected m AJbAis C
-------
LONG-NOSED SNAKE (Rhinocheilus lecontei) 1TIS # 174267
Legend
Model Habitat
K12
k13
~]
I I
k23
k24
k33
k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area s predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations with CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
specific to Hie Majave Desert Ecofegion Some errors are expected
SWReGAP data « projected «) Albets Conical Equal Area with a longitude o( Certlral Meridian at -96
For HucirBtjons purpose* this map is prerontod with a longitude of Central Meridian at -142.
Disclaimer Ttitt is a modified product o4 Bie onginal SWReGAP habitat model The user a«umes the entire nsk related
to its uw ot this data For more mformalxm and tor retatea tm'ra, see nHp I'ltws-nmrfwru nmsu eduAboytonrMSHCP/
0 15 30
120
|K9ometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
118
-------
COMMON CHUCKWALLA (Sauromalus ater) ITIS # 564596
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area Is predicted distribution based on modeling turoitat associations with as
procedures m the Soutnwesl Regional Gap Analysis Proiecl with moddlcalions
specific to On Molave Desert Ecoreoion Some errors are expected
SWHeGAP data is projected in ABwrs Concal Equal Ares with a longitude a) Central Mendian a) -96
Tor iBustraftions purposes ttvu map e presenln) mtt> a longitude o* Central Meidian at -112
Disdnmer THIS IB a mwMied pradurt or tne original SWReGAP hatxat model The user assumes me enSire nsk wlated
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
119
-------
WESTERN LYRE SNAKE (Trimorphodon biscutatus) ITIS #174291
Legend
Model Habitat
k14
K21
K22
k23
k24
k33
k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Caiifomia
I Shaded area is predicted diMrtbulitMi based on modefing tiatflal associations with GIS
procedures in line Southwesl Regional Gap Analysis Project wilh nioddicalioiis
I specific to 1fiB Mojave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
0 15 30
60
120
• Kilometers
SWR«GAP as'j it proffdod in AJtxn Conical Equal AJVI wtlh a kwgifiide o1 Contra' Meretian ai -06.
For IUirttr»hOfis pu«pot«i 0i« map it pr»s«ntcd with i longitude o! Central Mcnsiirn a; -112
Disci*m«r Th.s « a mod '193 pmjucl o( lie oc^inal SWFtaGAP haMot moisel Th« user assumes the entire ns* related M Od iff6 d PfOdUCt Of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
120
-------
DESERT NIGHT LIZARD {Xantusia vigilis) ITIS # 174092
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area Is predicted aismtxitton OAs«d on modeling rut-jitst associations with as
procedures m me Soutnwesi Regional Gap Analysis Protect wiih modifications
specific to On Molave. Desert Ecoreoion Some errors are expected
SWReGAP data is projected in ARxers Coneal Equal Area with a longitude of Central Meridian a) -96
Tor Riustraliorrs purposes ttvu map is presented mtt> a kHigituda o* Central Meidian at -112
Disclaimer Tnls is a mcxMleO produc! at tne original SWfteGAP hafetat model The user assumes Ihe erttire nsk related
to >ts use ot the data. For more information and for related links see
D 15 3D
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
121
-------
BURROWING OWL {Athene cunicularia) ITIS # 177946
Legend
Model Habitat
k13
I I
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert EC ore g ion.
See model report for
more information.
California
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations m1h GIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
Bpecirk. to Ine Mojave Desert Ecoregion Same errors are expected
SWReQAP uaia i» |KO|tL-t«d in Alu-cfa Coiueal Equal Afes wat a \onftvae of Camrai MerxhJn at S9
For iiiussraiic-ii puipoas* this map A presented wilh a longitude ol Cental Mendian at -112
Disclaimer This a a modified product of the original SWReGAP nabun model The user assumes the enure nsk reiasad
to its use Ol tills dais For more inlorrralion and tor related fcnks. tee MtpHtm-nmctHTu nrmu edtuVDoylunMSHCP/
0 15 30
120
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
122
-------
YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO (Coccyzus americanus) ITIS # 177831
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
'Shaded area is pred.cted dislribulian based on modeling haMal assM.iahons wild GlS
procedures «Ihe Soultwes! Regional Gap Analysis Project with rrodilicalions
specific to the Mojava Desert Ecorpgion Some errors are expected
SwSeGAP data & projected inABert Conical Equal Area with a tonacude ot Central Weiidian at -S&.
Fra MlusrnilKirn pyrfwsn lh» rmp If pcHWlM wflh • lorifltfiid* a' Cnmtnl MonOian «t -112
D IS 30
iKiameters
Thi* 4 « moOifiwt pttKlud <}! Hlo original SWIleGAP iMbiial modri The VHf jiMumc* IfiB eniiri> iqj<
to Hi us* et Efv4 a«a Fei m»« «itofmalicn »nd lor ictotod hula
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
123
-------
WILLOW FLYCATCHER (Empidonax traillii) ITIS # 178341
Legend
Model Habitat
^H K12
^B k13
~]K14
I IhZl
BHk22
|^| k23
• k24
k33
k34
V
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations with CIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
speanc to trie Mojave Desert Ecoregsn Some errors are expected
SWReGAP data « projected «) Aloets Conical Equal AIM wflti a tongitude of Cemnl Mendian a) -96
For UuctnitK>n& ipurposet thtt irop is presented with a longitude of Central Meridian at -112.
Disdsimer Ttitt rs a nxiditied predict o* Bie onginal SWReGAP ha&itat model The user a«umes the entire nsk reloSed
to its uw ot this data For more inlormabon and tor retated knits, see imp Mws-nroofmru nmsu eduAboyton/MSHCP/
0 15 30
120
|K9ometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
124
-------
PEREGRINE FALCON (Faico peregrinus) ITIS # 175604
Legend
Model Habitat
^H K13
^j kl4
I Ih21
H|k22
|ii 1 K23
_; k33
•• k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area Mend^i 31-112
Disclaim; This is a modified product of 1he original S'JVRsGAP Habitat model The user assumes ihe entire nsK relaled
to its u» of this data For more "ifwrnaimn and for netated links, tee hrttp jlifws-rtrncfWni.nmau.«ttifl(boykmrMSHCP'
0 t5 30
M
120
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
125
-------
BLUE GROSBEAK (Guiraca caerulea) ITIS # 179145
\S3
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling hab*lat assooalions with GIS
procedures in line Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project wilh nioddications
speafic to 1Mu Moiave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
0 15 30
60
120
s'j it proffdod in AJtxn Conical Equal Ami wtlh a kwgifiide o1 Contra' Meretian ai -06.
ns pu«pot«i 0i« map is pr»s«ntcd with 9 longitude o! Central Mcnsiirn a; -112
Th.s « a mod '193 producl o( lie oc^inal SWR«OAP haMot motfel Th« user assunws the entire ns* related Mod ifJBCl PfOdUCt Of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
126
-------
PHAINOPEPLA {Phainopepla nitens) ITIS # 179877
Legend
Model Habitat
k14
K21
K22
k23
k24
k33
k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Caiifomia
I Shaded area is predicted diMrtbuliw) based on modefing tiatxlal associations with GIS
procedures in line Southwesl Regional Gap Analysis Project wilh nioddicalioiis
I specific to 1FiB Mojave Descn Ecoregion Some errors are expected
0 15 30
60
120
• Kilometers
s'j it proffdod in AJtxn Conical Equal Ami wtlh a kwgifiide o1 Contra' Meretian ai -06.
fis pu«pot«i 0i« map it pr»s«ntcd with i kwgilude o! Central Mcnsiirn a; -112
Th.s « a mod '193 producl o( lie ordinal SWR«OAP haMot motfel Th« user assunws the entire ns* related Mod ifJBCl PfOdUCt Of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
127
-------
SUMMER TANAGER (Ptranga rubra) ITIS # 179888
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling habttai associations with BIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional (Sap Analysis Project wilii modiiicaiwns
specific lo the Mojave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
SMteCAP Sitfl is prpj«a
-------
VERMILION FLYCATCHER (Pyrocephalus rubinus) ITIS # 178371
Legend
Model Habitat
k74
k33
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
inaaea area is preoiaetl aisimution Dased on modeling mcnw
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
specific lo (he Mojave Dese-rt Ecoregion Some errors aic
I is plodded in Alters Conical Equal Area vwtft a longitude of Central Mendian at -96 iiEIiiCIiiiiiiiM^^I^zijiiiiiiii Kilometers
For lllustralionB purposes BBS map is presented witn a longitude of Central Mendian at -112
Disclaimor Tint » • modrfiiMl product of the anginal SVJfleGfP twtfulM moiW The UIM asiumes 1he «nt«e nsk related Modified PTOdlJCt Of
b»uM«MM. FVnmmnmrte.miiornMMIM,.»« wp^^mc^^^boyK^MSHCpy Soutnwest RegjOnal Gap Analysis Project
129
-------
BELL'S V1REO (Vireo belli!) ITIS # 179003
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling hab*lat associations with GIS
procedures in line Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project wilh inodrfications
specific to 1Mu Moiave Dust'rt Ecoregion Some errors are expected
0 15 30
60
120
• Kilometers
SWReGAP as'j it proftclod in AJtxn Conical Equal Am wtlh a kwgifiide o1 Contra' Metxtun «C -06.
For llliffitratian$ pwpoMt 0i« map it pr»s«ntcd with a kwgilude oi Central Mcnsiirn a; -112
Disci*m«r Th.s « a mod '193 producl o( lie ordinal SWR«OAP haMot motfel Th« user assumes the entire ns* related M Od iff6 d PfOdUCt Of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
130
-------
DESERT POCKET MOUSE (Chaetodipus penicillatus) ITIS # 552486
Legend
Model Habitat
Modified SWReGAP model for
Wlojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded SKI s predicted wwtbution t^sed on modeling rwwsn HHCHMH wrtn GI §
procedures In the Southwest Regional Gup Analysis Project with
specific la the Mojave Oesefl Ecoregion Some errors are expecjed
SiWeGAP data is projected in Albere Conical Equal Area «*i a Isngrlue* al Cenirsi Meridian at -96
FOJ NluEtraliortf puipoces Pus map is pretfnted wtn a longflude g) Cvntrat Mwidian at -112.
D&ciaumr Trii*Bt a mwfcfwd prodyd of Irt* ongm^l SWR*GAP habitat nwdfli Th* (#MT gM^nw in* »r
-------
TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT (Corynorhinus townsendii) ITIS # 203452
Legend
Model Habitat
I |kH
- k21
California
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
ShadwJ area is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations with CIS
procedures in the Soutlwrest Regional Gap Analysis Projea with modificaliofls
Som« anws are c^pgcted
SWKtGff daia « prajected MI fJtan Conical Equal Area wt» a temgrtuOft or Csnlrsi Menddiv ae -96
Fw iBjswiujni |Kjr(w5« Itm rmp it prsse^od wtti a longitude of C«rtr»l M«nilnin it -112
DtwUlnw Tha it a modified pmttufl of Itit anginal SS'iKeQAP tia«al model Th* uwf sssumei lhe *fflir» m* wtotett
to 4i us* ot Bm dali For rnor* mtormrton end lor reidcd
D 15 30
50
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
132
-------
DESERT KANGAROO RAT (Dipodomys deserti) ITIS # 180236
Legend
Model Habitat
! D"14
I Ifc21
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area ts predicted distribution based on modeling habrta! assooatinns with GIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
specific lo the Mcjave Desert Eceregion Some errors are enpecteij
SWReOAP oata «i projected tn AJbers Conical Equal Area v«ilii a longitude or Cenlral Meridian at -96
For llluittati&ns purposes this map a presented with a l&ng.tijde at Central Meridian at -112.
Dudaiiror This it a mgdtfad product 0' th« onginil SVW«<>AP habitat madeil The usi?t astumej (ho entire nsk .•*«(«(
120
Modified PrOdUCt Of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
133
-------
SILVER-HAIRED BAT (Lasionycteris noctivagans) ITIS # 180014
Legend
Model Habitat
k12
_
| k21
k24
k33
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Storied OK a & [jr«iideo disinpgtion based on modeling nawa associations WIQI CIS
pfocedures m me $outdwes» Regional Gap Analyst Project w«h rnodiftcallons
speofc to (he Mojave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
SfftfGAP iOf 15 projected in Atwn Conical Equal Area mtfi a kmgnude of Central Mwidian *>
For HlusB«tp«it purposes iha map a presented with t longtud* ol Cenlr*! M»rKMn at -112
DisdmiT»r Thi« a * moaillwl product ot B» ongm»t SWReGAP habttl model The use* «siume» Ih« «flt»* n»k retolea
to its use ol this data For mote mlormalxjn and lor i«(at«d links. s«* nctp (ffws.nmcfwiu n
0 15 30
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
134
-------
LONG-EARED MYOTIS (Myotis evotis) ITIS # 179995
Legend
Model Habitat
k12
_
| k21
k24
k33
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
Storied OK a & [jr«iideo dismpgtion uas«i on mooelng naCMa) aswciations WIQI CIS
pfocedures m me $outdwes» Regional Gap Analyst Project w«h rnodiftcallons
speofc to (he Mojave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
SfftfGAP iOf 15 projected in Aaron Conical Equal Area mtfi a longitude of Central Mwidian *> -X
For lllusB«tp«it purposes iha map a pfesented with a UjngtoDt ol Cenlf*! M»rKMn at -112
Disclaimer Thi> a • moditlxl ptoduct of live oiiginitl 5WR»GAP habttii mode) The uiet
-------
LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS (Myotis volans) ITIS # 179990
Legend
Model Habitat
H k1 3
k14
1(22
k33
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
California
StodKt area is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations with CIS
procedures in trie Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Protect with
specific to the Moiave Desert Ecoregion Some errors are expected
SVW«QAP data a projected m AlDcrs Conical Equal Ares wnh a locgituoe of C*r.ir*t Menditn ar -56
For llluitrotioro purpows thti map * ixetentco with a loi*gitu<3e c-1 Cenlral Mrndian a( -112
OwdniTwr This i* a modiAtd product o< in* ongmal SiWeGAP h»b«at modd Tht u»w otsum« 1h» »r*u*
-------
PALMER'S CHIPMUNK (Tamias palmeri) ITIS #180198
Legend
Model Habitat
Arizona
Modified SWReGAP mode! for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion,
See model report for
more information.
Shaded area H predicted distribution based on modelAQ ha&lMi associations win Gls
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project will) roadificalions
specific 10 me Moiaw Desert Eeoreoiori. Some errors are expected
SWReGAP data rs projectHf in Albers Conical Equal Area witti a longitude of CenlrM Mercian at -98
For NusttUiona puijra&es Ihra map is presented wth a longnude ol Central Meridun si -112
Disclaimer This rs a mxjified product at the ongnvai SWReOAP hataut model the user assumes trie entire nsk rela.1e4
to its use o< tins dala For rnwe inforrration and te related links, see Mtp-«*ws-
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
137
-------
KIT FOX (Vulpes macrotis) ITIS # 180606
Legend
Model Habitat
^^ k12
^Bk13
^| K20
[ | k21
K22
k23
k24
k33
k34
Modified SWReGAP model for
Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
See model report for
more information.
California
Shaded area is predicted distribution based on modeling habitat associations with GIS
procedures in the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project with modifications
specific to the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Some errors are expected.
SWReGAP data is projected in Albers Conical Equal Area with a longitude of Central Meridian at -96.
For Illustrations purposes this map is presented with a longitude of Central Meridian at -112.
Disclaimer: This is a modified product of the original SWReGAP habitat model. The user assumes the entire risk related
to its use of this data. For more information and for related links, see http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/kboykin/MSHCP/
0 15 30 60 90
120
I Kilometers
Modified Product of
Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project
138
-------
Model habitat codes
Code Description
k!2 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, wintering
k!3 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, summering
k!4 Known or probable occurrence, breeding, winter and summering
k21 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
k22 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, wintering
k23 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, summering
k24 Known or probable occurrence, non-breeding, winter and summer
k34 Known or probable occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
p!3 Potential occurrence, breeding, summering
p21 Potential occurrence, non-breeding, migratory
p22 Potential occurrence, non-breeding, wintering
p34 Potential occurrence, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
x21 Extirpated, non-breeding, migratory
x22 Extirpated, non-breeding, wintering
x34 Extirpated, breeding and non-breeding, winter and summer
139
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/R-08/117
October 2008
www.epa.gov
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
V
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |