ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Ironwood–Picacho Linkage Design Paul Beier, Daniel Majka, Todd Bayless submitted June 2006 last revised May 24, 2007 IRONWOOD – PICACHO LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Dr. Cecil Schwalbe, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Jim Heffelfinger, Don Swann, Mark Dimmitt, Trevor Hare, and Jance Przybyl 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., D. Majka, and T. Bayless. 2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: Ironwood-Picacho 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.......................................................................................................................................................V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ...............................................................................................................................1 A STATEWIDE VISION.................................................................................................................................................1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IRONWOOD-PICACHO LINKAGE .........................................................................2 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS...................................................................................................................3 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................................................................4 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................6 TWO ROUTES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE ..................................................................6 LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND COVER, AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN .............................6 REMOVING AND MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .........................................................................................11 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................11 Mitigation for Roads............................................................................................................................................11 Existing Roads and Rail Lines in the Linkage Design Area ................................................................................15 Existing Crossing Structures on I-10...................................................................................................................16 Recommendations for Interstate 10 .....................................................................................................................19 IMPACTS OF CANALS ON WILDLIFE ..........................................................................................................................21 Canals in the Linkage Design Area .....................................................................................................................21 Mitigation for Canals ..........................................................................................................................................21 RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE AS A BARRIER TO MOVEMENT .........................................................24 Mitigation for OHV Use ......................................................................................................................................24 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT..............................................................................................26 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area........................................................................................................26 Mitigation for Urban Barriers.............................................................................................................................27 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS..................................................................................................28 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ......................................................................................................................................28 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ...............................................................................................................................28 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES..................................................30 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS .......................................................................................................31 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................32 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH......................................................................................................................................33 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................34 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES ..........................................................................................35 BADGER (TAXIDEA TAXUS) ........................................................................................................................................39 BLACK-TAILED JACKRABBIT (LEPUS CALIFORNICUS)................................................................................................42 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS NELSONI)..............................................................................................45 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU) ....................................................................................................................................49 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS).....................................................................................................................52 BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE (CROTALUS MOLOSSUS) ............................................................................................55 DESERT TORTOISE (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII) ................................................................................................................58 SONORAN DESERT TOAD (BUFO ALVARIUS) ..............................................................................................................62 SONORAN WHIPSNAKE (MASTICOPHIS BILINEATUS) ..................................................................................................65 TUCSON SHOVEL-NOSED SNAKE (CHIONACTIS OCCIPITALIS KLAUBERI).....................................................................68 Arizona Missing Linkages i Ironwood-Picacho Linkage CACTUS FERRUGINOUS PYGMY-OWL (GLAUCIDIUM BRASILIANUM CACTORUM)........................................................71 APPENDIX C: FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED............................................................................................73 APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN ..........................................................................................75 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES ..........................................................................76 APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................85 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Ironwood-Picacho Linkage List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR THE IRONWOOD-PICACHO LINKAGE. ........................................................... VII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER FOUND WITHIN LINKAGE DESIGN.......................................................................7 TABLE 3: MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN. .......................................................................15 TABLE 4: HABITAT SUITABILITY SCORES AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR EACH SPECIES. SCORES RANGE FROM 1 (BEST) TO 10 (WORST), WITH 1-3 INDICATING OPTIMAL HABITAT, 4-5 SUBOPTIMAL BUT USABLE HABITAT, 6-7 OCCASIONALLY USED BUT NOT BREEDING HABITAT, AND 8-10 AVOIDED. ............................................................36