ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Hualapai - Cerbat Linkage Design Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Dan Majka 2008 HUALAPAI - CERBAT LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P, E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Hualapai-Cerbat Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... VII INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ............................................................................................................................... 1 A STATEWIDE VISION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HUALAPAI-CERBAT LINKAGE ............................................................................ 2 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................................... 3 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ...................................................................................................................................... 7 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 10 TWO ROUTES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE ................................................................ 10 LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND COVER, AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ........................... 10 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................ 15 Mitigation for Roads ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Existing Crossing Structures on Interstate 40 ..................................................................................................... 22 Existing Crossing Structures on Route 66 ........................................................................................................... 23 Existing Crossing Structures on Highway 68 ...................................................................................................... 23 Existing Crossing Structures on County Highway 10 .......................................................................................... 24 Existing Rail lines in the Linkage Design ............................................................................................................ 24 Recommendations for Highway and Railroad Crossing Structures .................................................................... 30 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .............................................................................................. 31 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area ........................................................................................................ 32 Mitigation for Urban Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 36 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS .................................................................................................. 38 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 38 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ............................................................................................................................... 39 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES .................................................. 40 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................... 40 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 43 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ...................................................................................................................................... 44 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 44 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 45 SPECIES MODELED BY BEST BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 48 BADGER (TAXIDEA TAXUS) ........................................................................................................................................ 49 BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT (LEPUS CALIFORNICUS) ................................................................................................ 53 GILA MONSTER (HELODERMA SUSPECTUM) .............................................................................................................. 57 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU) .................................................................................................................................... 61 KIT FOX (VULPES MACROTIS) .................................................................................................................................... 65 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR) ........................................................................................................................ 69 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) ..................................................................................................................... 73 SPECIES MODELED BY PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 77 BLACK BEAR (URSUS AMERICANUS) .......................................................................................................................... 78 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI) ............................................................................................. 82 ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS) ............................................................................................................................................ 86 PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA) .................................................................................................................. 90 Arizona Missing Linkages i Hualapai – Cerbat Linkage Design APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED................................................................... 94 APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN .......................................................................................... 96 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES .......................................................................... 97 APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 100 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................... 105 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Hualapai – Cerbat Linkage Design List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR HUALAPAI-CERBAT LINKAGE ..................................................................... VIII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER FOUND WITHIN LINKAGE DESIGN. .................................................................... 11 TABLE 3: CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKE SPECIES VULNERABLE TO THE THREE MAJOR DIRECT EFFECTS OF ROADS (FROM FORMAN ET AL. 2003). ............................................................................................................................. 16 TABLE 4: HIGHWAYS AND RAILROADS (BOLD) AND OTHER ROADS IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ...................................... 22 TABLE 5: HABITAT