The Nature Conservancy S Mojave Desert Eco Regional Assessment 2010

! ! ! !
M
M
o
o
i
i
o
o
:
:
.
.
D
D
.
.
s
s
.
.
r
r
t
t

E
E
c
c
o
o
r
r
.
.
.
.
:
:
o
o
r
r
o
o
i
i
A
A
s
s
s
s
.
.
s
s
s
s
.
.
r
r
t
t

! ! ! !
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!

$eptember 2010

The Nature Conservancv ot Calitornia
201 Mission $treet. +th Floor
$an Francisco. CA 9+105

Planning Team
lohn M. Randall
$ophie $. Parker
lames Moore
Brian Cohen
Laura Crane
Bill Christian
Dick Cameron
lason B. Mackenzie
Kirk Klausmever
$cott Morrison

Ti. M:ss:or o/ Ti. Notur. Cors.r:orc :s to tr.s.r:. ti.
tiorts. or:ois orc roturoi cour:t:.s tiot r.tr.s.rt
ti. c::.rs:t o/ i:/. or Eorti o trot.ct:r. ti. iorcs orc
uot.rs ti. r..c to sur:::..

Cover photographs bv lames Moore and
Bill Christian 2010
4'-#33'05'5!6/+%+/#07!!

Randall. l. M.. $.$. Parker. l. Moore. B. Cohen. L. Crane. B. Christian. D. Cameron. l. MacKenzie. K.
Klausmever and $. Morrison. 2010. Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment. Lnpublished
Report. The Nature Conservancv. $an Francisco. Calitornia. 106 pages appendices.
Available at. http.conserveonline.orgworkspacesmojavedocumentsmojavedesert
ecoregional2010view.html.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
///!
8%?1'!#C!6#0+'0+)!

D/)+!#C!8%?1') EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE&/
D/)+!#C!F/.;*') EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE &//
2-G0#H1'5.'3'0+) EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE &///
,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*< EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE /I
B!J0+*#5;-+/#0EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE B
1.1 Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment Purpose and Approach............................................. 3
1.1.1 Overview ot the Ecoregional Assessment Approach......................................................... +
1.1.2 Distinguishing Areas ot Conservation Value.................................................................... 5
1.1.3 Climate Change Adaptation Analvsis............................................................................... 8
1.2 Limitations on this Assessment................................................................................................ 8
1.3 Products ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment.......................................................... 9
@!89'!=+;5<!2*'%EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE BA
2.1 Ecoregion Boundaries and $ubregions .................................................................................. 10
2.1.1 Transboundarv Connectivitv.......................................................................................... 10
2.2 Ecological Historv and Current Vegetative Communities..................................................... 10
2.3 Oeomorphologv...................................................................................................................... 13
2.+ Current Climate..................................................................................................................... 1+
2.5 Hvdrologv ............................................................................................................................... 1+
2.6 LandLse Historv.................................................................................................................... 16
2.7 Current Land Ownership....................................................................................................... 17
2.8 Conservation Management $tatus ............................................................................................ i
K!6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE @K
3.1 Ecological $igniticance ot the Mojave Desert ........................................................................ 23
3.2 Animal Diversitv and Rare and Listed $pecies ...................................................................... 23
3.3 Plant Diversitv and Rare and Listed $pecies .......................................................................... 2+
3.+ $oil Biota and the Vital Importance ot $oil Integritv ............................................................ 27
3.5 Landscape Context................................................................................................................. 27
3.5.1 Intactness vs. Fragmentation........................................................................................... 27
3.5.2 Climate Change Adaptation........................................................................................... 28
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !
3.6 Landscapescale Ecological Processes...................................................................................... 28
3.6.1 Ecological Integritv. Connectivitv. and Ecosvstem $ervices............................................ 28
3.6.2 Water. Watersheds. and Oroundwater to $urtace Water Linkages................................ 29
3.6.3 Aeolian Processes. $and $ources. and $and Deposition ................................................ 29
3.6.+ Fire Regimes.................................................................................................................... 30
3.7 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 32
M!,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!,CC#*+) EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE KK
+.1 Federal Lands ......................................................................................................................... 33
+.2 $tate Lands ............................................................................................................................. 33
+.3 Native American Lands.......................................................................................................... 35
+.+ Regional Conservation Plans ................................................................................................. 36
+.5 Nongovernmental Organization Lands................................................................................. 38
+.6 Private Lands .......................................................................................................................... 38
+.7 Conservation Management Challenges ................................................................................. 39
+.7.1 Multiple Mandates and Constraints ............................................................................... 39
+.7.2 Lack ot Coordinated Management ................................................................................. 39
+.7.3 $ingle$pecies Focus ........................................................................................................ +0
+.7.+ Knowledge Oaps and Public Misconceptions ................................................................. +0
+.8 Restoration Ettorts ................................................................................................................. +1
+.9 Mitigation Programs............................................................................................................... +2
N!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.') EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MK
5.1 LandLse Changes.................................................................................................................. ++
5.1.1 Lrban Expansion and Proliteration................................................................................ ++
5.1.1.1 Housing and Commercial Development ................................................................. ++
5.1.1.2 Transportation Intrastructure.................................................................................. +6
5.1.2 Electrical Oeneration and Transmission......................................................................... +8
5.1.2.1 Ditterences in Impacts ot Proposed Technologies................................................... +8
5.1.2.2 Transmission Lines and Ltilitv Corridors............................................................... 51
5.1.2.3 Other Related Intrastructure ................................................................................... 51
5.1.3 Oroundwater Pumping. Water Diversions. and $treambed Moditications ................... 53
5.1.+ Recreational Otthighwav Vehicle Lse............................................................................ 55
5.1.5 Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... 56
5.1.6 Livestock Orazing ............................................................................................................ 56
5.1.7 Mining............................................................................................................................. 57
5.1.8 Militarv Activities ............................................................................................................ 58
5.1.9 Waste Disposal ................................................................................................................ 58
5.2 Invasive Nonnative $pecies ................................................................................................... 60
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
/&!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !
5.3 Deposition ot Air Pollutants .................................................................................................. 62
5.+ Moditied Fire Regimes ........................................................................................................... 6+
5.5 Collection ot Plants and Animals .......................................................................................... 66
5.6 Disease.................................................................................................................................... 67
5.7 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 67
O!4');1+)!#C!+9'!2))'))3'0+ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE P@
6.1 Anthropogenic Disturbance................................................................................................... 72
6.2 Conservation Values .............................................................................................................. 72
6.2.1 Current Land Ownership Patterns ................................................................................. 76
6.2.2 Areas with High Conservation Value that are not Fullv Protected ................................ 79
6.3 Landscape Resilience.............................................................................................................. 79
P!L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE QA
7.1 Conservation Objectives ........................................................................................................ 80
7.2 Conservation $trategies.......................................................................................................... 81
7.2.1 Protection through Redesignation................................................................................. 82
7.2.2 Protection through Acouisition...................................................................................... 83
7.2.3 Protection through Enhanced Management and Restoration........................................ 83
7.2.+ Protection through Enhanced Collaboration................................................................. 8+
7.2.5 Addressing Intormation Oaps and Lncertaintv ............................................................. 86
7.3 Application ot the Assessment to Regional Planning............................................................ 88
7.3.1 Intorming Development and Intrastructure $iting Decisions ........................................ 88
7.3.2 Intorming Mitigation Decisions...................................................................................... 89
7.3.2.1 The Mitigation Hierarchv and the Ecoregional Assessment.................................... 90
7.3.2.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 90
7.+ Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 92
4'C'*'0-') EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE RK
Appendix A Methods tor Conducting the Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment .................... A1
Appendix B Methods tor Calculating the Landscape Resilience Index.........................................B1
Appendix C List ot Experts Interviewed....................................................................................... C1
Appendix D Expert Interview Intormation Table......................................................................... D1
Appendix E Acronvms Lsed.......................................................................................................... E1
Appendix F Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment (2001) Expert Polvgons ............................... F1!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
&!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !
D/)+!#C!8%?1')!

8%?1'! S%.'!
Table 11 Conservation Value Categories 6
Table 21 Land Ownership within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion 17
Table 31 Federallvlisted Threatened and Endangered Animals in the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion
2+
Table 32 Federallvlisted Threatened and Endangered Plants in the
25
Table +1 Federal Agencv Mandates 3+
Table +2 Calitornia $tate Agencv Mandates 35
Table 61 Conservation Value ot Lands Held bv Ditterent Landowners 76
Table 62 Proportional Ownership ot Land in each Conservation Categorv 77
Table 63 OAP $tatus ot Lands in each Conservation Value Categorv 79
Table 71 The Mitigation Hierarchv (+0 CFR. $ec 1508.20) 91
Table A1 $ources ot Data Lsed in the Assessment A2
Table A2 Conservation Value Categories A15
Table A3 Conservation Targets ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion A26
Table C1 Experts Interviewed in 2009 and 2010 C1
Table D1 Expert Interview Intormation Table D1
Table E1 Acronvms Lsed E1

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
&/!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !
D/)+!#C!F/.;*')!

F/.;*'! S%.'!
Figure 21 Mojave Desert Ecoregion 11
Figure 22 Hvdrologv and $ubregions 12
Figure 23 Land Lse 19
Figure 2+ Land Ownership 20
Figure 25 Lands Lnder Conservation and Management 21
Figure 26 OAP $tatus 22
Figure 31 Rare or Threatened Plant $pecies Distribution 26
Figure +1 Existing Multiple $pecies Habitat Conservation PlansPrograms
and Resource Management Plans
37
Figure 51 Lrban and Rural Expansion +5
Figure 52 Roads and Railroads +7
Figure 53 Proposed Electricitv Oeneration +9
Figure 5+ Current Electricitv Oeneration and Transmission 52
Figure 55 Amargosa Hvdrologv 5+
Figure 56 Militarv Expansion 59
Figure 57 Nitrogen Deposition in Calitornia 63
Figure 58 Fires in the Mojave Desert 65
Figure 59 Climate Change Predictions tor the Mojave Desert 69
Figure 61 Anthropogenic Disturbance 73
Figure 62 Mojave Desert Conservation Value 7+
Figure 63 Mojave Desert Conservation Value and Calitornia $tatewide
Essential Habitat Connectivitv
78
Figure A1 Illustration ot the Methods used to Assign Disturbance
Categories
A18
Figure B1 Mojave Desert Landscape Resilience B3
Figure F1 Conservation Value and 2001 Porttolio Areas F1
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
&//!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !
2-G0#H1'5.'3'0+)!

This project was a joint ettort ot The Nature Conservancv's Calitornia. Nevada. and Ltah chapters
and it was intormed and enhanced bv expert input trom manv individuals representing a varietv ot
organizations. agencies. institutions. and private consulting tirms. A complete list ot people we
interviewed can be tound in Appendix B. Their knowledge and enthusiasm tor the Mojave Desert
is trulv inspiring. and we thank them tor sharing their time. We hope that this assessment will be
usetul to them and their partners in their ettorts to protect the Mojave Desert.

We thank the external reviewers ot an earlier dratt ot the assessment whose insighttul comments
helped to improve and strengthen the tinal product. These included lett Aardahl. Alice Bond.
Catherine Darst. and Kim Deltino. Thev provided us with additional intormation and other usetul
teedback that has been incorporated throughout the document.

We also thank other Nature Conservancv statt members who provided valuable review ot earlv
dratts ot the document. These include $usan Abele. Bob Barnes. Chris Basilevac. Robin Cox. loe
Kiesecker. Mark Kramer. Elizabeth O'Donoghue. Charlotte Pienkos. Rebecca $haw. loel Tuhv.
lohanna Ward. and Elaine York.

We thank lodi McOraw who was instrumental in preparing this document. and in readving earlv
dratts ot this assessment tor review. Her meticulous eve tor detail proved essential in integrating all
ot the disparate pieces ot the assessment into a cohesive tinal product.

Finallv. this assessment would not have been possible without the spatial data collected bv scores ot
individuals. and in the work ot various agencies. institutions. and organizations that house the
data and make them available to the public. We would like to thank the Calitornia Native Plant
$ocietv. the L$ Fish and Wildlite $ervice. the Lnited $tates Oeological $urvev. the Bureau ot
Land Management. the Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame. $C Wildlands. the Lniversitv
ot Calitornia at Riverside. the Calitornia Natural Diversitv Database. the Nevada Department ot
Wildlite. the Ltah Division ot Wildlite Resources. Nature$erve. the Landscape Fire and Resource
Management Planning Tools Project (LANDFIRE). Catherine Darst. Oen Oreen. Tanva
Anderson. Lisa Benvenuti. Kristina White. Roger lohnson. and Esther Rubin tor generouslv
providing OI$ and other data used in this assessment.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
&///!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! /I! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*<!

Ti. Moio:. D.s.rt ioroors c:st:rct::. orc .troorc:ror:i r:ci o:oio.:coi c::.rs:t. Eouoii .troorc:ror :s ti.
/oct tiot ior.. tort:ors o/ ti. Moio:. r.o:r osti urc:sturo.c o iuor oct:::t:.s orc corst:tut. or. o/ ti.
iost .r.ot u:ic.rr.ss or.os :r ti. Lr:t.c Stot.s. Ti. r.iot::. ioci o/ c:sturoorc. :s o/ .r.ot :tortorc..
o.cous. ti. Moio:.'s or:c ci:ot.. c.i:cot. so:is. orc siou toc. o/ .coio.:coi succ.ss:or r.rc.r :t .c..c:r.i
/ro.:i. orc siou to r.co:.r ui.r c:sturo.c. Prot.ct:r. ti.s. :rtoct iorcscot.s u:ii o. .ss.rt:oi :/ ti. /uii
coti..rt o/ rot::. st.c:.s orc cour:t:.s or. to t.rs:st :rto ti. /utur.. D.:.iot.rt tr.ssur.s cort:ru.
to ourt. iou.:.r. orc toco ti. Moio:. :s ot o crossroocs. Ti:s .cor..:oroi oss.ss.rt cioroct.r::.s ti.
c:str:out:or o/ o:oc::.rs:t cors.r:ot:or :oiu.s ocross ti. Moio:. D.s.rt. to i.it :r/or c.c:s:or oi:r.
r..orc:r. r..:oroi iorcus. orc cors.r:ot:or :r:.st.rt.

The Mojave Desert Ecoregion is home to a surprisinglv diverse biota and includes one ot the
nation's last great wilderness areas. The Calitornia portion alone is inhabited bv at least +39
species and subspecies ot vertebrates including 1+ endemic to the Mojave and 29 that are tederallv
listed as threatened or endangered. The tlora is similarlv rich. with a large varietv ot shrubs and
some 250 species ot annual herbaceous plants. at least 80 ot which are endemic. Manv ot these
plants reveal themselves onlv during spring blooms tollowing particularlv heavv winter rains. With
its great topographic diversitv and varied geologv and soils. the Mojave also supports a wide varietv
ot plant communities and ecological svstems. trom rare subalpine mesic meadows and isolated
mesouite bosoues. to widespread creosote bushwhite bursage desert scrub. patches ot desert
pavement. and isolated sand dunes. Perhaps most surprisinglv. the ecoregion supports large
numbers ot aouatic animals and plants. manv endemic to a single isolated svstem ot springs. This
is spectacularlv illustrated at Ash Meadows in southern Nevada which teatures 2+ animals and
plants tound nowhere else in the world.

Another distinctive aspect ot the Mojave Desert is its land ownership pattern. a great majoritv ot
the ecoregion is in tederal ownership. This poses both opportunities and challenges tor
conservation. Biodiversitv conservation is a primarv management objective ot onlv a subset ot
agencies managing tederal lands. and other mandates and uses ot resources mav not be compatible
with conservation objectives. Despite substantial investments in land protection and conservation
management across the Mojave. kev species such as the desert tortoise continue to decline. This
underscores not onlv the need tor additional conservation commitments and actions. but also the
challenges ot conservation in a landscape with manv competing stakeholder interests.

Recent decades have seen an intensitication ot pressures on the lands and waters ot the Mojave
Desert tor residential. recreational. militarv. and other uses. Human land uses can have dramatic
direct and indirect ettects on desert ecosvstems. with lasting and pervasive impacts. Conversion ot
native habitat to human land uses results in habitat loss. but it also tragments the remaining
habitat and exposes it to tactors that can degrade it. such as invasion bv weeds and disruption ot
kev ecological processes. Currentlv. proposals to develop the Mojave's considerable solar. wind.
and geothermal energv resources are creating perhaps the most intense pressures on the
ecoregion's lands and waters. Especiallv because the development ot renewable energv generation
and transmission tacilities in the desert is in part motivated bv a desire to reduce the threat that
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*<! !
global climate change poses to biodiversitv. it is incumbent that development not compromise the
conservation values ot the desert. Intormed landuse decision making in the Mojave Desert
reouires a current and comprehensive assessment ot the distribution ot. and threats to. its
biodiversitv.

Here. we present the results ot an analvsis to characterize the distribution ot conservation values
across the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Lsing an ecoregional planning approach tollowed worldwide
bv The Nature Conservancv and its partners. we identitied a suite ot conservation targets (521
species. ++ ecological svstems. and seeps and springs are the tocus ot the plan) and set ouantitative
conservation goals tor each target. We also characterized landuse impacts across the desert. such as
roads. urban areas. and agricultural uses. We then used Marxan conservation planning sottware to
help identitv and map the relative conservation value ot lands across the region tor meeting the
stated conservation goals. Marxan is designed to identitv the most etticient contiguration ot places
needed to protect a given set ot conservation targets and to achieve a given set ot conservation
goals. It can also incorporate intormation on the distribution ot threats to conservation targets and
the relative importance ot selecting sites that are clustered together to minimize the areato
perimeter ratio. versus selecting isolated sites that contain conservation targets regardless ot the
resultant areatoperimeter ratio.

Our analvsis involved dividing the entire Mojave Desert Ecoregion into onesouaremile (259
hectare) planning units. svnthesizing spatiallvexplicit intormation on the conservation targets and
anthropogenic disturbance tound in each planning unit. and then using this intormation to
identitv the relative value ot each planning unit in meeting our conservation goals. High
conservation value was attributed to areas with low levels ot disturbance and unioue conservation
target occurrences or high concentrations ot target occurrences.

We characterized conservation values in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion using tour categories.
1. Ecologicallv Core. These lands ot highest conservation value are largelv undisturbed and
untragmented. and support the conservation targets (species. ecological svstems. springs
and seeps) selected tor this analvsis. Their tull protection is critical tor longterm
conservation ot biodiversitv in the Mojave Desert.
2. Ecologicallv Intact. These lands ot high conservation value are largelv undisturbed and
untragmented and support conservation targets. Thev butter Ecologicallv Core lands and
reouire levels ot protection that will allow them to remain relativelv undisturbed to
preserve ecological processes and to provide viable habitat and connectivitv tor native
animals. plants. and communities. Most Ecologicallv Intact lands are tunctionallv
eouivalent to Ecologicallv Core lands and mav contain manv ot the same conservation
targets. including sensitive species. However. thev mav have been classitied as Ecologicallv
Intact because thev support more widespread ecological svstems. are at higher risk ot
degradation. or support conservation targets tor which the conservation goals have alreadv
been met on Ecologicallv Core lands.
3. Moderatelv Degraded. These lands are tragmented bv roads or ottroadvehicle trails. or are
in close proximitv to urban. agricultural. and other developments. Thev otten maintain
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
I!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*<! !
ecological tunctionalitv (e.g.. maintain groundwater intiltration and tlow. serve as sand
sources. provide connectivitv) or provide habitat tor native species including the
conservation targets selected tor this analvsis.
+. Highlv Converted. These urban. suburban. and agricultural lands are heavilv altered.
While some can support important conservation targets. their ecological context is highlv
compromised.

Figure 62 depicts the spatial distribution ot land within the tour conservation value categories
across the entire 32.1millionacre Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Ecologicallv Core lands comprise
37% ot the ecoregion and Ecologicallv Intact lands comprise another +9%. Thus. 86% ot the
ecoregion retains high conservation value. Despite a long historv ot human occupation and use.
the Mojave Desert remains one ot the least disturbed ecoregions in the Lnited $tates. On the
other hand. Moderatelv Degraded lands comprise 10.+% ot the ecoregion and Highlv Converted
lands comprise another 3.7% tor a total ot 1+.1% ot the Mojave Desert.

It is noteworthv that the Bureau ot Land Management owns and manages more land classitied as
Ecologicallv Core (++.8%) and Ecologicallv Intact (52.7%) than anv other landowner in the region.
The National Park $ervice is second in both categories with 27.+% and 19.1%. respectivelv. The
Department ot Detense also holds more than 10% ot the lands in each ot the two high
conservation value categories. In contrast. private landowners hold onlv about 8% ot the lands in
the highest conservation value categories. but nearlv halt (+6.5%) ot the Moderatelv Degraded
land. and the great majoritv ot the Highlv Converted land (8+.8%).

In our preliminarv analvsis ot how well our categorization captured areas that mav be ot
importance tor the survival ot species as the climate changes. we tound that Ecologicallv Core and
Ecologicallv Intact lands include 95% ot the areas with highest landscape resilience-areas with
phvsical teatures that mav butter the impacts ot projected climate change and provide retuge tor
species. The Ecologicallv Core areas are particularlv important because thev capture 53% ot the
areas ot highest landscape resilience while covering onlv 37% ot the ecoregion.

This assessment identities areas that are important tor the continued survival ot the tull suite ot
the Mojave's biological diversitv. As such it tocuses on areas that support a broad range ot rare and
common species. as well as areas that remain relativelv undisturbed. Oiven this tocus. it is
important to note that it is intended to complement-not replace or supersede-other biodiversitv
assessments and models (e.g.. habitat conservation plans. recoverv plans) that tocus more
speciticallv on the recoverv ot a single species. a more limited number ot tocal species. or the
conservation ot a smaller geographic area. Also. because ot the scale and resolution ot this analvsis.
tinerscale and sitespecitic assessments will be necessarv tor decision making regarding specitic
projects or sitescale planning.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
I/!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! !!!!!!!,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*<!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owl shead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Mojave Desert
Conservation Value
Figure 6 2
Produced bv The Nature Conservancv
Calitornia $outh Coast e Deserts Program
Map Date. lulv 1. 2010
$ee Table A.1 tor sources
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Mojave Desert
Conservation Value
Land with low levels ot anthropogenic
disturbance which support conservation
targets and whose protection is critical tor
the longterm conservation ot the ecoregion's
biological diversitv
disturbance or which supports conservation
targets and which reouires a level ot protection
that will enable it to continue to support
ecological processes and provide connectivitv
Land tragmented bv roads. ottroadvehicle
trails or in close proximitv to urban.
agricultural and other developments
Land in urban and agricultural areas that is
tragmented and most impacted bv human uses
Highlv Converted
Moderatelv Degraded
Ecologicallv Intact
Ecologicallv Core
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
! I//
"#$%&'!(')'*
!
89'!:%+;*'!
+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*<!
6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
I///!
B
management that ensures the longterm viabilitv
e

In support o

A
vision. Thev include protecting high conservation
lands and ac
restoration ot public lands. promoting collaborati
intormation gaps and uncertaintv. and promoting ad
u

ased on our tindings. we propose a vision tor the Mojave Desert ot enhanced protection and
ot its native species. natural communities. and
cological processes. This vision can be realized bv.
x expanding the network ot core protected areas to sateguard underprotected species and
svstems.
x buttering this network with areas that are permeable to native plants and animals and
managed sustainablv.
x maintaining corridors essential to migration ot wideranging species. and
x ensuring protection ot wetlands. springs. higherelevation lands. and other areas most likelv
to provide habitat to vulnerable species. especiallv as climates change.
t this vision. we propose objectives tor land in each conservation value categorv.
x Ecologicallv Core. Protect the large. intact habitat blocks comprising Ecologicallv Core
lands to conserve irreplaceable conservation targets. support the ecological processes thev
depend upon. and maintain habitat connectivitv. Prevent tragmentation ot these areas
caused bv development and roads. and prevent degradation caused bv invasions ot exotic
species. uncharacteristic (treouent) tire regimes. excessive groundwater withdrawals. and
other direct and indirect human impacts.
x Ecologicallv Intact. Promote land uses and management practices that maintain or improve
landscape integritv and protect conservation targets. Promote restoration ot habitat
connectivitv. natural vegetation communities. and ecological processes (e.g.. sand transport
and watertlow regimes).
x Moderatelv Degraded. Encourage sustainable land uses that minimize impacts to native
species and communities and other natural resources. allow protection ot sensitive species
and isolated high value native ecosvstems. and maintain landscape permeabilitv to wildlite
movement.
x Highlv Converted. Encourage clustering ot new land uses in areas alreadv converted tor
human uses and encourage siting ot developments selected to minimize impacts to
conservation targets and other biological resources. Focus conservation and management
ettorts within Highlv Converted lands on existing open spaces. riparian habitats. and
canvons that support local wildlite. improve air and water oualitv. recharge and prevent
overdratts ot groundwater aouiters. and otherwise improve human oualitv ot lite. Promote
management ot agricultural lands and urban landscapes that supports wildlite.
varietv ot strategies mav be reouired to meet these objectives and achieve this conservation
value lands through redesignation ot public
ouisition ot private and state school lands. enhancing the management and
ve conservation among stakeholders. addressing
aptive learning that puts new intormation to
se to improve and enhance the ettectiveness ot all ot these strategies.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I'-;+/&'!=;33%*<!
!
The results ot this assessment can help intorm regional conservation and landuse planning ettorts
bv the responsible agencies and stakeholders including industrv and the conservation communitv.
We suggest that landuse decisions adhere to the principles ot the mitigation hierarchv. tirst. avoid
harm to resources. it harm cannot be whollv avoided. damages should be minimized or resources
restored or damage reduced over time. tinallv. compensatorv mitigation tor anv remaining harm
must then be provided. Oenerallv. damage can be avoided bv guiding potential impacts awav trom
areas ot high conservation value on Ecologicallv Core and Ecologicallv Intact lands where
development is likelv to cause tragmentation and other damage to conservation targets. and
towards other more appropriate areas in Highlv Converted lands and perhaps portions ot
Moderatelv Degraded lands. However. important conservation values mav occur in these areas. so
tocused and tinerscale assessments are alwavs warranted. Where damage cannot be avoided. this
assessment mav also have utilitv in helping direct compensatorv mitigation tunds and actions to
high value landscapes and activities.

The tull Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment report and associated Map $ervice products which
can be used to intorm decision making in a OI$ environment are available at ConserveOnline.
http.conserveonline.orgworkspacesmojavedocumentsmojavedesertecoregional
2010view.html.

osiuo tr.. (Yucca brevitolia). R.c Roci Coror Not:oroi Cors.r:ot:or Ar.o. N.:oco
(Pioto.roti o o.s Moor.)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
I/&!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! B! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
B!! J0+*#5;-+/#0!

The Mojave Desert harbors an extraordinarv varietv ot plants. animals. and other organisms
capable ot surviving some ot the harshest conditions on Earth. Although portions have been
degraded or converted to intensive land uses. large expanses ot the 32.1millionacre Mojave Desert
Ecoregion are mostlv undisturbed and constitute one ot North America's last great wilderness
areas. At the same time. the arid climate. delicate soils. and naturallv slow pace ot soil
development. plant growth. and ecological succession render the Mojave Desert extremelv tragile
and slow to recover when it is disturbed. Even apparentlv minor actions can cause longterm ettects
on soils and ground water and longlasting conseouences tor plant and animal populations and
communities. This is ot particular concern because habitat losses and disturbance due to human
use and development have increased rapidlv in recent decades and interest in developing the
Mojave Desert's renewable energv resources has greatlv accelerated in the past tew vears. This
combination ot biological richness. large relativelv undisturbed areas. susceptibilitv to disturbance.
and accelerating pressures tor development makes conservation ot the Mojave Desert both
important and highlv urgent.

The Mojave Desert's multitaceted conservation values include surprisinglv high numbers ot plant
and animal species. a large subset ot which are endemic-tound nowhere else on earth ($ection 3).
Ot particular note in this arid region are the numerous endemic aouatic animals and plants. manv
tound onlv in a single isolated svstem ot springs. This is spectacularlv illustrated at Ash Meadows
National Wildlite Retuge in Nevada. which supports 2+ animals and plants tound nowhere else in
the world including the Devil's Hole puptish (Ctr:rocor c:oooi:s). Ash Meadows Amargosa puptish
(Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s :or.ct.s). Ash Meadows speckled dace (Ri:r:citis oscuius r.:oc.rs:s). Ash
Meadows naucorid. (Aorsus oor.osus. an aouatic beetle). and plants such as the spring loving
centaurv (C.rtour:u rooti:iu). The Mojave Desert also supports a wide varietv ot natural
communities and ecological svstems. trom rare subalpine mesic meadows and isolated mesouite
bosoues. to widespread creosote bushwhite bursage desert scrub. patches ot ancient desert
pavement. and isolated sand dunes. National databases (e.g. LANDFIRE and ReOAP) describe
nearlv a hundred ditterent ecological svstems in the Mojave Desert.

Remarkablv. the Mojave Desert remains perhaps the region least tragmented bv roads. urban
development. and other intense land uses in the contiguous Lnited $tates. According to a report
on habitat loss and degradation bv the World Wildlite Fund. roughlv halt ot the Mojave Desert
remains as intact habitat (Ricketts et al. 1999). Yet all ot this varietv and conservation value is
tound in what is sometimes thought ot as a desert wasteland" bv people who do not realize the
biological richness it actuallv holds.

Important conservation investments have alreadv been made in the Mojave Desert. with an
emphasis on public lands ($ection +). With over 85% ot its area in nonprivate status. the Mojave
Desert has more public land than anv other ecoregion in the Lnited $tates. These public lands
include two large National Parks (Death Vallev and loshua Tree) and the Mojave National
Preserve. plus National Wildlite Retuges. Wilderness Areas. and other speciallvdesignated public
lands dedicated at least in part to biodiversitv conservation. It has also been the site ot tocused
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@!
ettorts to recover state and tederallvlisted species. with the Mohave ground souirrel (St.roti:ius
oio:.rs:s |svnonvm. X.rost.roti:ius oio:.rs:sl) and desert tortoise (Goti.rus o.oss::::) the most
prominent. Lntortunatelv. these investments have not vet been enough to stave ott declines ot
these and other species and communities. highlighting the need tor additional conservation
commitments and actions.

Although the Mojave Desert retains large areas ot intact habitat. it has experienced a long historv
ot human use and sutters a varietv ot threats to its biodiversitv ($ection 5). The ecoregion hosts
manv uses that lead to habitat loss and disturbance. including recreational otthighwav vehicle
(OHV) use. militarv testing and training. irrigated agriculture. mining. grazing. urban
development. transportation intrastructure. and the generation and transmission ot electrical
energv. And there are growing pressures to expand the area available tor manv ot these uses.

The past decade has seen a marked increase in understanding and concern over the projected
ettects ot climate change in the Mojave Desert. Projections tor Calitornia's deserts are severe. with
the tvpical summer maximum temperatures bv the end ot the centurv reaching levels that are
hotter than the most extreme vear documented in the last 100 vears. The majoritv ot climate
models also indicate that the Mojave Desert will become even more arid. with a projected mid
centurv decrease ot an average ot 1.6 inches ot alreadv sparse annual precipitation. These changes
are likelv to engender increases in other threats. tor example promoting invasions bv nonnative.
disturbancetolerant. and tirepromoting plants. and increasing the treouencv and intensitv ot
wildtires in areas that have historicallv not experienced tire and whose species are not adapted to
it.

The past decade has also seen a great surge in interest in tapping the renewable energv resources ot
the Mojave Desert. which receives some ot the highest levels ot solar radiation in the Lnited $tates
and otters signiticant wind and geothermal resources as well. This surge has been tueled in part bv
tederal and state incentives and reouirements to generate electricitv trom renewable sources
designed to help address climate change bv reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example. the
tederal American Recoverv and Reinvestment Act ot 2009 (i.e.. economic stimulus tunding)
provides strong economic incentives tor the development ot renewable energv tacilities. In
addition. the $tate ot Calitornia has adopted a Renewables Porttolio $tandard that reouires that
power companies generate 20 percent ot their electricitv trom renewable sources bv 2010. with a
Oovernor's Executive Order to meet a goal ot 33 percent bv 2020. As a result. the submission ot
permit applications has preceded comprehensive plans tor siting these new industrial tacilities in
locations compatible with conservation priorities. As ot lanuarv 2010. permit applications. in
various phases ot the review process. covered over one million acres ot public lands in Calitornia's
portion ot the Mojave and adjacent $onoran deserts. These permit applications range in size trom
2.000 to 60.000 acres tor wind projects and trom 3.000 to 10.000 acres tor solar projects
1
capable
ot generating 1.000 megawatts
2
. Most solar tacilities need relativelv small amounts ot water tor
periodic cleaning ot their mirrors. but some solarthermal tacilities also reouire large amounts ot

1
The acreage identitied in a permit application does not necessarilv indicate the proposed tootprint ot a project.
2
One megawatt provides enough power tor about +00 to 900 average homes. Residential electricitv consumption
varies widelv bv region.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
water tor cooling. New major and minor electricitv transmission lines would also be necessarv tor
some ot the proposed installations. particularlv those distant trom electricitv demand centers (e.g.
metropolitan Los Angeles and Las Vegas) and existing transmission lines with excess capacitv.

Largescale renewable energv production tacilities could have signiticant negative impacts on desert
habitats it thev are inappropriatelv sited. place unsustainable demands on water. are located in
sensitive areas. or are inadeouatelv mitigated. Associated transmission lines and utilitv corridors
also pose both direct and indirect threats. The access and service roads that accompanv manv
power lines and pipeline corridors directlv disturb land. mav be intensivelv used without
authorization bv ot OHV enthusiasts. and can tacilitate the invasion ot nonnative plants.
Transmission line towers provide plattorms tor native predatorv birds such as ravens and hawks
that use them as energvsaving vantage points tor scanning the desert below tor prev. allowing them
to kill signiticantlv larger numbers ot small native mammals and reptiles. including juvenile desert
tortoises. than would otherwise be possible.

In sum. the biodiversitv ot the Mojave Desert will likelv be threatened bv rapid climate change. and
it will be important to be mindtul ot how landuse and management decisions can either enhance
the capacitv tor species and svstems to adapt. or undermine it. With its extraordinarv solar. wind.
and geothermal energv resources. the Mojave Desert could also plav a role in mitigating climate
change. Therein lies a conservation paradox ot our dav. The diversitv ot the Mojave is threatened
bv climate change. but it can also be threatened bv ettorts to address that change bv tapping its
renewable energv resources. The challenge tor landuse decisionmakers is to ensure that. as
resources are harnessed in the desert to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it does not come at the
expense ot the distinctive and important conservation values ot the Mojave Desert.

1.1 Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment Purpose and Approach

The purpose ot this assessment is to produce a current and comprehensive svnthesis ot the
distribution ot biodiversitv conservation values in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. and present a
vision tor the ettective protection and management ot those values. This intormation is needed tor
a varietv ot regional landuse and wateruse decisions. conservation planning. and prioritvsetting
exercises. including those aimed at ensuring that the harvest ot renewable energv does not come at
the expense ot the Mojave Desert's biodiversitv.

This assessment tocuses on identitving areas that are important tor the continued survival ot the
tull arrav ot biodiversitv in the Mojave Desert. including both common and rare species. Oiven the
sensitivitv ot desert ecosvstems. we generallv prioritize areas that are relativelv undisturbed and
untragmented. This assessment is theretore designed to complement-and not replace or
supersede-other biodiversitv assessments and plans that have been completed or are being
prepared. For example. state and tederal agencies and other stakeholders have produced and
continue to retine analvses and models ot the ecologv. distribution. and threats taced bv important
Mojave Desert species. such as the desert tortoise and the Mohave ground souirrel. These analvses
provide more species andor spatiallvspecitic intormation tor managing population viabilitv and
recovering populations ot threatened and endangered species. While this assessment mav be
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
K!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
M!
helptul in identitving svnergies between those plans and opportunities to protect the larger arrav ot
species and natural communities. even the tull implementation ot the conservation vision
proposed here might not meet speciesspecitic viabilitv goals.

The Nature Conservancv and partners completed an earlier
Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment in 2001 titled
Ecoregionbased Conservation in the Mojave Desert."
3
That
assessment was conducted to help set priorities tor investing
scarce conservation resources and identitied a porttolio ot
367 sites which. it ettectivelv conserved. would protect the
tull range ot biodiversitv in the Mojave. However. it used
inputs that are no longer current. and it did not vield a
comprehensive svnthesis ot the distribution ot biodiversitv
conservation values across the ecoregion necessarv to intorm
broader land and wateruse decisions as presented here.

1.1.1 Overview ot the Ecoregional Assessment Approach

We used the approach and methodologv outlined in D.s:.r:r. o G.o.roti o/ Hot.: Gu:c.i:r.s /or
Ecor..:orBos.c Cors.r:ot:or (The Nature Conservancv 1997. 2000). described in more detail bv
Oroves (2003) and turther retined in the process ot developing other regional conservation
trameworks (e.g. Conservation Biologv Institute 2009) in recent vears. Appendix A provides a
detailed description ot the methods we used.

The conservation targets were selected to represent the ecoregion's biodiversitv (see Table A3 in
Appendix A tor a tull list). Thev include 521 species (122 animals and 399 plants). and ++
ecological svstems and communitv tvpes (hereatter reterred to collectivelv as ecological svstems
+
).
All seeps and springs were also selected as conservation targets because thev serve both as vital
habitat tor manv aouatic and wetland animals and plants. and as water sources critical to the
survival ot manv upland animals in this otherwise parched environment.

Quantitative goals were set tor each ot these conservation targets. tollowing guidelines established
in previous ecoregional planning processes and generallv based upon the global raritv ot each
target (Appendix A). The goal tor each target should be considered an initial hvpothesis ot the
minimum reouirement to ensure the target's viabilitv. As more detailed and specitic intormation
becomes available regarding the needs ot targets. it mav be necessarv to adjust some ot the
conservation goals and to adapt the overall analvsis accordinglv.

3
The 2001 assessment. Ecor..:oroos.c Cors.r:ot:or :r ti. Moio:. D.s.rt" is available tor download at
http.azconservation.orgdownloadsmulticategorvecoregional_assessment
+
We selected ecological svstems" as the generic term to cover communitv tvpes. land cover tvpes. and ecological
svstems collectivelv because it can reter to svstems distinguished bv and named tor the distinctive torm ot vegetation ot
dominant plants. as well as those distinguished based on geomorphic or edaphic characteristics. such as plavas. sand
dunes. and desert pavement. which are nearlv devoid ot macrovegetation.
Soi.tr.. (Psorotiorus st:rosus) Vosi
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
1.1.2 Distinguishing Areas ot Conservation Value

We characterized the distribution ot
conservation values in the Mojave
Desert using a tourcategorv scheme that
classities all areas ot the ecoregion as
either Ecologicallv Core (greatest
conservation value). Ecologicallv Intact.
Moderatelv Degraded. or Highlv
Converted (Table 11. see Appendix A
tor more detail). We used Marxan
conservation planning sottware to help
intorm that classitication and map the
relative conservation value ot lands
across the region tor meeting the stated
conservation goals. Marxan is designed
to identitv the most etticient
contiguration ot places needed to
encompass a given set ot conservation
targets and achieve a given set ot
conservation goals. It can also
incorporate intormation on the
distribution ot threats to conservation
targets and the relative importance ot
selecting sites that are clustered together
and maximize the areatoperimeter ratio
versus selecting isolated sites that
contain conservation targets regardless
ot the resultant areatoperimeter ratio.
Conservation areas with low areato
perimeter ratios mav be more subject to
edge" (or spillover) ettects trom
adjacent areas which can degrade their
oualitv. Over the past decade. Marxan
has been widelv adopted tor use in
svstematic conservation planning around
the world bv governments and non
governmental organizations. including
The Nature Conservancv.
T'0'*%1!=+'>)!#C!+9/)!2))'))3'0+!
('C/0'!=+;5<!2*'%. and delineate its boundaries.
J5'0+/C<!8%*.'+). Identitv a set ot species.
communitv tvpes and other conservation teatures
that represent the biodiversitv ot the ecoregion
and that will serve as the tocus ot the assessment.
These conservation targets were selected trom a
range ot scales (e.g.. species to communities to
ecological svstems) and trom ditterent taxa (e.g..
tish. mammals. plants) to comprehensivelv intorm
biodiversitv conservation.
"%>!8%*.'+!(/)+*/?;+/#0). Oather data and map
the distributions ot the conservation targets.
,0);*'!4'>*')'0+%+/#0. $tratitv. or subdivide. the
region. so as to ensure representation ot the
important variation within and among
conservation target populations and occurrences.
='+!T#%1). $et. tor each conservation target.
ouantitative goals that represent the level ot
protection estimated to be sutticient to allow the
target to maintain ecological variabilitv. evolve.
and persist within the ecoregion as conditions
change over the coming decades.
,&%1;%+'!89*'%+). Identitv and map threats to
conservation targets.
J5'0+/C<!6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;'). Evaluate the
distribution ot conservation targets and threats to
identitv the conservation value ot lands across the
ecoregion based on their potential to contribute to
the conservation goals. Lse a tourcategorv svstem
to create a preliminarv map ot the distribution ot
conservation value.
4'&/)'!"%>. Visuallv compare the preliminarv
conservation value map with recent aerial and
satellite imagerv to locate areas more or less
disturbed than indicated in the data used in the
analvsis. and then update the map accordinglv.
J5'0+/C<!6#0)'*&%+/#0!U>>#*+;0/+/'). Identitv
conservation objectives and opportunities tor
lands in each ot the tour conservation value
categories.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
N!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
8%?1'!BVB!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!&%1;'!-%+'.#*/')!
6%+'.#*<! ,I>1%0%+/#0!
Ecologicallv
Core
These lands have the highest conservation value. Thev are largelv undisturbed and
untragmented. support conservation targets (species. ecological svstems. springs
and seeps). and were identitied as critical to tullv protect tor the longterm
conservation ot the ecoregion's biological diversitv. Despite the high inherent
value ot Ecologicallv Core lands. thev do not stand alone. their conservation value
is highlv dependent on the connections between them and the buttering that the
Ecologicallv Intact and even some ot the Moderatelv Degraded lands around them
provide. It signiticant portions ot surrounding Ecologicallv Intact and Moderatelv
Degraded lands are disturbed. developed. or otherwise compromised or turther
degraded in the tuture. then the conservation value ot nearbv Ecologicallv Core
lands will diminish as well.

Ecologicallv
Intact
These lands are relativelv undisturbed and untragmented and support
conservation targets. Thev reouire levels ot protection that will allow them to
remain relativelv undisturbed and to continue to support ecological processes and
provide habitat and habitat connectivitv tor native animals. plants. and
communities within and between ecoregions. The majoritv ot Ecologicallv Intact
lands are tunctionallv eouivalent to Ecologicallv Core lands and mav contain
manv ot the same conservation targets. including sensitive species. There are a
number ot reasons these lands mav have classitied as Ecologicallv Intact rather
than Ecologicallv Core. including. but not limited to. the tollowing.
x Ecologicallv Intact lands mav support more widespread ecological svstems (e.g..
creosotescrub) that have lower conservation goals.
x Ecologicallv Intact lands mav be located in closer proximitv to Moderatelv
Degraded and Highlv Converted lands and. theretore. are at higher risk ot
degradation due to edge ettects or expansion ot human disturbance.
Areas that contain isolated conservation targets are more likelv to be classitied as
Ecologicallv Core. as thev are needed to attain the conservation goals.

Moderatelv
Degraded
These are lands tragmented bv roads or OHV trails. or are in close proximitv to
urban. agricultural and other developments. Moderatelv Degraded lands are
partiallv to moderatelv compromised bv tragmentation and other human impacts
such as rural development. agriculture. OHV use. and militarv use. Thev otten
maintain ecological tunctionalitv (e.g.. maintain groundwater intiltration and
tlow. serve as sand sources. provide connectivitv). provide habitat tor native
species. or are known to have conservation target occurrences. The potential tor
Moderatelv Degraded lands to provide longterm conservation value and to be
restored is greater where thev are located adjacent to Ecologicallv Intact lands
rather than Highlv Converted lands. Without protection and perhaps restoration.
the abilitv ot Moderatelv Degraded lands to maintain tunctionalitv and sustain
conservation targets will be reduced.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
O!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
P!
8%?1'!BVB!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!&%1;'!-%+'.#*/')!
6%+'.#*<! ,I>1%0%+/#0!
Highlv
Converted
Lrban. agricultural and suburban lands were classitied as Highlv Converted.
These lands are heavilv altered. $ome can support important conservation targets.
although the ecological context ot these targets is compromised. There are a tew
conservation targets. such as Burrowing Owls. a varietv ot migratorv birds. and
bats that use or congregate in these heavilv moditied landscapes. Highlv
Converted lands also subsidize predatorv species such as covotes and Ravens that
can have detrimental ettects on conservation targets such as the desert tortoise.

Our analvsis involved dividing the entire Mojave Desert planning area into one souaremile (259
hectare). hexagonal planning units. svnthesizing spatiallvexplicit intormation on the conservation
targets and anthropogenic disturbance tound in each planning unit. and hen using this
intormation to identitv the relative value ot each planning unit in meeting the stated conservation
goal. High conservation value was attributed to areas with low levels ot disturbance and unioue
target occurrences or high concentrations ot target occurrences. Appendix A provides additional
intormation on Marxan and the analvsis.

An important teature ot this assessment is that. rather than identitv onlv the highest prioritv areas
tor conservation. we categorized the entire ecoregion into one ot tour categories. The rationale tor
this approach is that the ecological context in which conservation targets are embedded matters.
Oood conservation reserve design reouires that core areas be buttered and connected. tor example.
The categories ot conservation value are also usetul bins tor categorizing threats and strategies.

Fundamental to our thinking is that large. intact landscapes are more resilient to adverse changes.
maintain important ecological tunctions. and are easier and more etticient to manage and thus.
should be the tocus ot protection and conservation resource investments. The more altered
categories should not be misconstrued as having little or no conservation value. however. $ites in
all categories. even Highlv Converted lands. mav have important roles to plav in protecting the tull
suite ot the Mojave Desert's diversitv. For example. specitic sites-especiallv those containing water
or unioue soil tvpes-within highlv impacted areas mav be important tor the protection ot a local
population ot a rare plant. or tor wildlite corridors between protected areas.

The categorization results are provided in $ection 6. while $ection 7 discusses their utilitv. $ection
7 also presents conservation objectives tor each ot the tour conservation value categories and a
varietv ot strategies tor realizing these objectives. In some cases. enhancing the ettectiveness ot
conservation protection and management will relv on the independent actions ot individual
agencies and landowners. but in other cases. it will be best accomplished bv improving
coordination and collaboration among stakeholders.

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
1.1.3 Climate Change Adaptation Analvsis

We conducted an analvsis to identitv sites most likelv to be resilient to climate change in the
Mojave Desert-that is. sites whose phvsical teatures mav butter the impacts ot projected climate
change locallv. and therebv tacilitate the abilitv ot species that now occur in or nearbv these areas
to persist through the next several decades. We then evaluated whether areas ot relativelv high
resilience were well represented in lands in the higher conservation value categories (Ecologicallv
Core and Ecologicallv Intact). $ection 6 presents these results. while our methods used are
described in Appendix B.

1.2 Limitations on this Assessment

We encountered signiticant gaps in data. and inconsistencies in databases across states. the
tollowing lists some examples.
x Ircoti.t. iroui.c.. orc coto or ti. c:str:out:or orc stotus o/ cors.r:ot:or tor..ts. Locations ot
all occurrences ot manv Mojave Desert species are not known. and manv occurrences that
have been recorded have not vet been uploaded into publiclv available databases. In
addition. spatiallvexplicit data on migratorv routes and other movement pathwavs tor birds
were unavailable tor the entire region or too coarse to be included in this analvsis. Much ot
the Mojave Desert has been onlv lightlv surveved and remains incompletelv known. at best.
For example. it has been estimated that nearlv 10% ot the plant taxa in the Calitornia
deserts have not vet been described and scientiticallv named (Andre and Hughson 2009).
x Stot:oi r.soiut:or o/ st.c:.s occurr.rc. coto c://.rs :r ti. /our stot.s. In Calitornia and Nevada.
occurrence records are mapped at various levels ot accuracv. with less accurate records
mapped as large polvgons. Precise locations ot species in Arizona and Ltah are masked bv
being tuzzed" into a blockv shape ot roughlv 2.2 souare miles (Arizona) or roughlv 100
souare miles (Ltah). so as to complv with state privacv protection laws.
x Stot:oii.ti:c:t coto or tir.ots suci os :r:os::. tiort c:str:out:or or. rot o:o:iooi. /or ti. uioi.
.cor..:or.
x Stot:oii.ti:c:t coto or :tortort .rourcuot.r :r/:itrot:or or.os orc o.oi:or sorc trorstort or.os
or. rot o:o:iooi.. oti.r tior /or o /.u. i::t.c ..o.roti:c or.os.
x S:.r:/:cort :rcors:st.rc:.s .:st :r ti. cot..or::ot:or orc ott:r. o/ roturoi cour:t:.s orc
.coio.:coi sst.s o ti. o:o:iooi. sourc.s. For example. areas mapped as $parselv Vegetated
and Barren within one data source (i.e.. LANDFIRE data) are mapped in 73 ditterent
ecological svstems in another (i.e.. ReOAP data). In each ot the available data sources we
also tound areas that were clearlv incorrectlv categorized. as discerned through inspection
ot available imagerv.
The methods we used to overcome some ot these limitations are described in Appendix A.

All ot the data used in this assessment were aggregated into hexagonal planning units that were
one souare mile in area. Thus. the results are appropriate tor viewing and analvses onlv at a scale ot
1.250.000 or coarser. Because manv gaps exist in the regionalscale data used in this assessment it
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Q!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! J0+*#5;-+/#0!
!
is essential that sitespecitic assessments be conducted tor all projectscale planning and landuse
decisions. In manv cases. state or local databases that we were unable to use because our
assessment crossed these jurisdictions will be available tor tinerscale assessments. For example.
tiner scale. spatiallvexplicit analvses ot land ownership. landscape condition. species occurrences.
kev threats. and climate change retugia mav reveal the sites and strategies best suited to accomplish
specitic conservation goals.

1.3 Products ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment

The primarv products ot this assessment are.
x This report. teaturing.
o A map showing the distribution conservation values across the ecoregion (Figure 62)
o A vision tor the ettective protection and management ot these values ($ection 7)
o A compilation ot historic and current data on biodiversitv and threats in the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion ($ections 2 through 5).
x A Map $ervice which likewise depicts the distribution ot conservation values across the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion. and can be used to intorm decision making in a OI$
environment.
This report and the Map $ervice are available at ConserveOnline.
http.conserveonline.orgworkspacesmojavedocumentsmojavedesertecoregional
2010view.html

Etroorc:ror succui.rt tiort cour:t or Biu. D:oorc H:ii :r R.c Roci
Coror Not:oroi Cors.r:ot:or Ar.o. N.:oco (Pioto.roti o B:ii Cir:st:or)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
R!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@!! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!

2.1 Ecoregion Boundaries and $ubregions

The Mojave Desert as detined in this report encompasses over 32 million acres. covering a
signiticant portion ot southeastern and central Calitornia and smaller parts ot southern Nevada.
southwestern Ltah and northwestern Arizona. It is the smallest ot the tour American deserts and
lies within the Intermountain $emiDesert and Desert Province as delineated bv Bailev et al.
(199+). The Mojave Desert Ecoregion is bounded bv the $ierra Nevada Mountains to the west. the
Oreat Basin Ecoregion to the north. the Apache Highlands Ecoregion and the Colorado Plateau
Ecoregion to the east. the $onoran Desert Ecoregion to the southeast and south. and the
Calitornia $outh Coast Ecoregion to the southwest (Figure 21).

While the Mojave Desert Ecoregion covers 32.1 million acres (13.013.215 hectares). the planning
area tor this assessment is larger. at 32.8 million acres (13.286.509 hectares). This is because the
planning area includes manv individual hexagonal planning units that extend bevond the Mojave
Desert Ecoregional boundarv. Results reported tor the assessment are based on analvses ot the
larger 32.8 million acre planning area.

Due to the size ot the Mojave Desert and the signiticant vegetative. climatic (temperature and
precipitation). and associated genetic and other biologicallv signiticant ditterences among species
and natural communities across the vast reach ot the ecoregion. we subdivided it into six sub
regions depicted in Figure 22. Appendix A outlines the rationale and the criteria tor delimiting
the subregions.

2.1.1 Transboundarv Connectivitv

$pecies movement occurs both within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. and across its boundaries
with adjacent ecoregions. Transition zones between ecoregions are otten speciesrich. as the plant
and animal communities characteristic ot each region abut one another. and species interact in
novel combinations. Connectivitv. both within the Mojave Desert and between ecoregions. is
important in the tace ot global climate change. as some species mav need to move in order to track
shitts in the locations ot areas with suitable temperature and raintall regimes.

2.2 Ecological Historv and Current Vegetative Communities

Over geologic time. the Mojave Desert Ecoregion has undergone changes in climate that have
stronglv intluenced the air temperature and the availabilitv ot water across the landscape. Plants
and animals have responded to these tluctuations in climate bv moving into and within the
ecoregion. adapting. or going locallv extinct as suitable habitat expanded. contracted. or
disappeared. As a result. novel combinations ot species and unioue communities have emerged
and dissolved within the ecoregion over time. Cooler and wetter conditions during the last ice age
tostered plant communities in the vallev bottoms that can onlv exist at higher elevations todav.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Mt.Whitney
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
62
!"
160
!"
127
!"
190
!"
40
!"
14
!"
395
!"
58
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
! BB
Figure 2 1
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
0 20 +0 10
Miles
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
75
Elevation. meters
3633
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
Beatty
Tecopa
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
iv
e
r
Mojave
R
iv
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
a
s
h
A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y

R
i
v
e
r
Owens
Lake
Palmdale
Ridgecrest
Pahrump
Kingman
Twentynine
Palms
Vi ctorvi lle
Barstow
Las
Vegas
St.
George
Laughlin
Lake Mead
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Northern
Mojave
Western
Mojave
South-Central
Mojave
Central
Mojave
South-Eastern
Mojave
Eastern
Mojave
Hvdrologv e $ubregions
Figure 2 2
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Raod
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
$tream Course
Canal or Ditch
Pipeline
Lake
Pond
Plava
Marsh
Reservoir
Industrial Water
$eep or $pring #
Mojave Desert $ubregion
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
B@!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
At the same time. more copious raintall connected waterwavs and allowed interaction between
aouatic species. This slowlv gave wav to isolation in more restricted streams. springs. pools. and
seeps as the climate has graduallv warmed since the last ice age. Oeographic isolation has acted as
an ecological doubleedged sword in the Mojave Desert. On one hand. it has allowed tor speciation
and an increase in the biodiversitv ot the region. such as that seen bv the proliteration ot puptish
species in various isolated aouatic svstems throughout the ecoregion. However. isolation has also
made these same species vulnerable to extinction bv reducing the size ot the population and
restricting the areas where thev naturallv occur.

Currentlv. a total ot 130 natural plant alliances have been documented within the Mojave Desert
(TNC 1999). $imilarlv. national databases (e.g.. LandFire and ReOAP) describe nearlv a hundred
ditterent ecological svstems in the ecoregion. Creosote bush scrub. succulents. and vucca
blackbrush communitv tvpes dominate the Mojave with dominant species including creosote bush
(Lorr.o tr:c.rtoto). white bursage (Aoros:o cuoso). tourwinged salt bush (Atr:ti. cor.sc.rs).
Mojave vucca (Yucco sci:c:..ro). blackbrush (Coi.o.r. rooss:ss:o) and loshua tree (Yucco
or.::/oi:o). Lpper elevation communitv tvpes occur as 'skv islands' on mountains that rise to more
than 11.000 teet in elevation. These areas contain some ot the ecoregion's most isolated
communities and species and harbor high levels ot endemism.

2.3 Oeomorphologv

The Mojave Desert Ecoregion overlaps two geomorphic provinces. the Basin and Range Province.
and the Mojave Desert Province. The Basin and Range Province includes the northern portion ot
the ecoregion. and has a characteristic topographv that includes steep. elongate mountain ranges
interspersed bv long. tlat. drv desert vallevs. Within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. elevation ranges
trom 282 tt (86 m) o.iou sea level in Death Vallev to over 11.000 teet in the $pring Mountains ot
Nevada and Panamint Range in Calitornia. Manv ot these mountain ranges are oriented north
south along long taults that resulted trom stretching and tolding ot the Earth's crust and upper
mantle. As rockv mountain ranges torm in the Mojave Desert. thev become subject to weathering
and erosion. and exposed bedrock is bombarded bv liouid water. ice. wind. and large tluctuations
in temperature. Eroded rocks. sand. and clav wash down mountainsides. torming large alluvial tans
and bajadas and sometimes burving smaller ranges.

The Mojave Desert Oeomorphic Province lies within the southern
portion ot the ecoregion. and includes isolated mountain ranges
separated bv vast expanses ot desert plains. The topographv ot the
region is controlled bv two important tault trends. a dominant
northwest to southeast trend. and a secondarv eastwest trend. The
province is wedged in a sharp angle between the Oarlock Fault
and the $an Andreas Fault. where it bends east trom its northwest
trend. Most ot the region has interior enclosed drainages and
manv plavas. The northern boundarv ot the Mojave Oeomorphic
Province is separated trom the Basin and Range Oeomorphic
Province bv the eastern extension ot the Oarlock Fault.
R.c Roci Coror NCA
(Pioto.roti o B:ii Cir:st:or)
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
2.+ Current Climate

The climate ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion is shaped bv global weather patterns and regional
topographv. The ecoregion has tour distinct seasons and experiences large seasonal and diurnal
tluctuations in temperature. The lowest and hottest place in North America is located within the
Mojave Desert. Death Vallev. where the temperature can surpasses 5+ C (130 F) in late lulv and
earlv August at the lowest elevations. Low humiditv throughout the ecoregion during the summer
can draw moisture northward trom the Oult ot Mexico. creating thunderstorms in the late
summer months. Despite these isolated monsoons. raintall in the Mojave Desert is predominantlv
bimodal. with most rain (82%) talling during widespread winter storms. and the small remainder
talling during the summer. Raintall during the cool season (October 15 through April 15) averages
95 mm. with a range ot 27 to 2+9 mmseason. Mav and lune are consistentlv drv. while
precipitation between lulv + and October 1+ averages 35 mm. with a range ot 0.5 to 125
mmseason (L$O$ 200+).

The $ierra Nevada Mountains block coastal moisture trom moving east into the region. resulting
in the Calitornia portion ot the Mojave Desert being the hottest and driest portion. In some ot the
driest sites. annual raintall mav average less than 50 mm (2 inches). Intense sunshine and high
temperatures lead to rapid evaporation ot this limited moisture. In the winter. temperatures can
dip below 7 C (20 F) in the vallevs. and below 18 C (0 F) at higher elevations. Winter storms
trom the northern Pacitic Ocean can bring rain to the region. but the rain shadow ot the $ierra
Nevada otten blocks the movement ot moisture into the desert. resulting onlv in clouds and windv
conditions. Raintall tapers ott through the spring. and it is rare tor Pacitic storms to reach the
region atter Mav. Wind is a signiticant and common torce throughout the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion. and high winds are common in mountain passes along the ecoregional boundarv as
cooler air trom the coast pushes into the Mojave Desert. During $anta Ana wind events. the
prevailing wind direction shitts. and hot air trom the desert blows toward the coast.

2.5 Hvdrologv

$urtace waters are scarce within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. with snow and ice constituting the
rarest torm ot water. Oenerallv. the higher elevations ot the ecoregion receive snow during
intreouent winter storms. which melts ouicklv except on the highest mountain peaks in the region.

The majoritv ot the water within the ecoregion exists belowground. Oroundwater basins. or
aouiters. hold treshwater hundreds ot teet below the Earth's surtace. The Mojave Desert contains
several large aouiters. the Mojave River and Morongo aouiters together encompass about 2.+00
souare miles ot the Mojave Desert in Calitornia (L$O$ 2009a). Limited sources ot permanent
surtace water have led to signiticant groundwater pumping and artiticial recharge activities. altering
natural tlows ot ground and surtace water throughout the ecoregion. Aouiters are naturallv
recharged when water tlowing primarilv trom higher elevations in the mountains reaches low
elevation. alluviumtilled vallevs and percolates into the ground (Calitornia $tate Parks 2005).
When an aouiter is tilled bevond its storage capacitv. it overtlows and creates a spring.!$prings are
classitied according to the amount ot water thev discharge. their temperature. the geologic
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
tormation ot the rock surrounding the water source. and the torce causing the spring (gravitv or
artesian tlow). Permanent spring oases are supported where there are tissures in the bedrock.
allowing groundwater to pool near the surtace. With enough tlow. spring water can support a
perennial stream.

$treams are ted bv springs. snow melt. and raintall. Manv Mojave Desert streams are ephemeral or
seasonallv intermittent and tlow belowground much ot the time. $tream and river svstems support
and shape a varietv ot waterdependent habitats. such as riparian torests. marshes. desert washes.
ephemeral plavas. and even sand dunes. The raritv ot surtace waters underscores their importance
to biodiversitv within the ecoregion. Riparian and spring svstems provide habitat tor 75% ot desert
animal species. and these rare water resources allow them to use adjacent drv areas (Bunn 2007).
River corridors provide not onlv water but rare riparian vegetation that serves as vital habitat tor
numerous species. The ecoregion's major river svstems include the Mojave and the Amargosa
rivers. which tlow inland into undrained desert basins. and the Muddv River. which tlowed into
the Virgin River prior to the building ot the Hoover Dam but now tlows into Lake Mead. The
Virgin River is a tributarv ot the Colorado River. and a portion ot the river in Ltah has received
Wild and $cenic River designation. Due to natural interannual variabilitv in raintall and
increasing human use ot water. however. rivers in the
Mojave Desert tvpicallv experience periods when thev
do not tlow aboveground over their entire length. In
the Mojave and Amargosa rivers. surtace water tlows
down the length ot the riverbed onlv once everv 6 to
10 vears. and 25 to 50 vears. respectivelv.

Rocks and pebbles crushed along the course ot rivers
create deposits that are lett behind once tloodwaters
recede. $tratitied clav. silt. sand. and salts are
discharged bv rivers into the lowest part ot undrained
desert basins to torm drv. vegetationtree. tlat areas
known as plavas. Ephemeral lakes torm in these areas
during wet periods. but once the lakes drv out. the
sand. sediments and salts on the surtace ot the plava are subject to movement bv wind. These
plavas. along with the sandv river washes that lead into them. then become a primarv source ot
sand tor dune svstems throughout the desert. For example. sand trom the Mojave River sink ($oda
Drv Lake) is the source ot the Kelso Dunes and Devils Plavground in the Mojave National
Preserve.
Aor.oso Coror :r Coi:/orr:o

During the last glacial period. manv ot the areas that are now plavas were lakes and marshes vear
round. One ot these great Pleistocene Lakes was Lake Manix. which included what are now the drv
lake basins ot Atton. Trov. Covote. Harper. and Cronese. Lake Manix dried up completelv 8.000
vears ago. Rivers also carried more water and had perennial surtace tlow during the last ice age.
The Mojave River. tor example. at one time tlowed north until it merged with the Amargosa River
betore draining into Lake Manlev in Death Vallev. Todav the terminal point ot the Mojave River is
$oda Lake.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
2.6 LandLse Historv

The Mojave Desert remains one ot the least populated areas ot the western Lnited $tates. with
large contiguous areas ot undisturbed. native habitat. While the majoritv ot the landscape remains
undeveloped. humans have used the region tor millennia. Native American people now known as
Mohave. $hoshone. Paiute. $errano. Chemehuevi. and Kawaiisu. as well as others. occupied and
used areas throughout the Mojave Desert in a varietv ot wavs. with tlexible boundaries among
tribal groups. In general. these groups consisted ot small. mobile social units ot related tamilies
who traveled to established summer and winter locations where water and tood resources were
available (National Park $ervice 200+. Pavlik 2008).

The Old $panish Trail that runs trom $anta Fe to Los Angeles established a path tor movement.
however arduous. through the Mojave Desert as earlv as 18291830. The trail was used extensivelv
bv pack trains trom 1830 until the mid1850s. However. westerners avoided settling in the Mojave
Desert during this time. as most viewed the inhospitable desert landscape as merelv an obstacle
between the established communities ot northern New Mexico and southern Calitornia.

Following the discoverv ot gold along the Amargosa River at the toot ot the Avawatz Mountains in
18+9. prospectors were drawn to the Mojave Desert trom around the world. $ubseouent mining
has extracted not onlv gold. but also silver. lead. copper. iron. molvbdenum. lead. tungsten. zinc.
borates. talc. and other materials trom the region. In addition. the ecoregion contains Calitornia's
largest openpit mine. which is also the largest borax mine in the world. Both active and retired
openpit and underground mines can be tound throughout the ecoregion.

Throughout the latter halt ot the 1800s. small numbers ot livestock ranchers settled in the region.
using large BLMdesignated livestock allotments to graze cattle and sheep on public land. Most
allotments are not activelv grazed todav. either due to the economics ot grazing livestock in a
desert. or because conservation programs tor the desert tortoise have provided tunds to purchase
and retire the allotments trom willingseller ranchers.

Orowth in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion remained slow until the late 1800s and earlv 1900s. when
the desert became connected to other areas bv road and rail. The Burlington Northern and $anta
Fe Railwav. completed in 1883. runs eastwest along the southern boundarv ot what is now the
Mojave National Preserve trom the town ot Mojave to Needles. The $an Pedro. Los Angeles and
$alt Lake Railroad was completed in 1905 and passed directlv through what is currentlv the
Mojave National Preserve. The Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad (TeT) was built in 1907 and
extended through remote areas ot the desert trom Ludlow. Calitornia in the south. up through
Amargosa Canvon. and terminating at the mining camps ot southwestern Nevada. With the
exception ot the TeT. these rail lines continue to tunction todav.

Development and extraction ot local water resources. the building ot aoueducts. and later. the
invention ot attordable and reliable air conditioning in homes. businesses. and vehicles. has
changed the desert trom a seasonal destination or specialized work location. to a place ot vear
round occupancv. Lrban expansion associated with the Los Angeles Basin and Las Vegas Vallev
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
metropolitan areas has resulted in the construction ot hundreds ot thousands ot new homes
within the Mojave Desert during the past 20 vears. Water availabilitv in the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion has also allowed tor a continual growth in irrigated agriculture in various locations. The
most common crops include altalta. carrots. and cotton. The Mojave Desert also contains a
signiticant number ot dairv cattle teedlots (Figure 23). In addition to urban growth and
agriculture. other signiticant land uses in the Mojave Desert include militarv maneuvers. ott
highwav vehicle (OHV) recreation. tourism. and more recentlv. renewable energv development.

2.7 Current Land Ownership

The Mojave Desert has a large number ot land owners. including tederal. state. and local
governments. Native American tribes. nongovernmental land trusts. and numerous private entities
(Table 21. Figure 2+). The majoritv (85%) ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion is publiclv owned.
primarilv bv state and tederal government. The BLM is the region's largest land manager. with
about 1+.6+7.163 acres (+6% ot the region. Figure 2+). The Department ot Detense (DOD)

8%?1'!@VB!!D%05!UH0'*)9/>!H/+9/0!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0! !! !!
8<>'! ,0+/+<! W'-+%*')! 2-*')!
S'*-'0+!
#C!8#+%1!
Oovernment Armv Corps ot Engineers 5 12 0.01
Bureau ot Indian Attairs 56.315 139.15+ 0.+3
Bureau ot Land Management 5.927.625 1+.6+7.163 +5.55
Bureau ot Reclamation 20.510 50.681 0.16
Los Angeles Department ot Water and Power 30.500 75.366 0.23
CountvCitvRegional Lands 253 62+ 0.01
CountvCitvRegional Parks and Preserves 369 912 0.01
Department ot Detense
1
1.537.509 3.799.18+ 11.82
Department ot Energv 173.+12 +28.501 1.33
Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
1
338.900 837.+22 2.60
National Park $ervice 2.609.99+ 6.++9.29+ 20.06
Other $tate 1.136 2.807 0.01
$tate Dept. ot Parks and Recreation +0.389 99.800 0.31
$tate DFO +.072 10.061 0.03
$tate Trust 208.071 51+.1+3 1.60
Lnited $tates Forest $ervice 1++.285 356.528 1.11
$ubtotal. Oovernment 11.093.3++ 27.+11.652 85
Private Nongovernmental organizations (NOOs) +.1+6 10.2+5 0.03
Private 1.915.552 +.733.330 1+.72
$ubtotal. Private and NOOs 1.919.698 +.7+3.57+ 15
Orand Total 13.013.0+2 32.155.227 100
1
Acreage values were derived trom BLM landstatus databases tor CA. AZ. NV and LT. Thev assign roughlv halt
ot the 1.6 million acre Desert National Wildlite Retuge to the Department ot Detense. which operates the
western portion ot this area as part ot the Nellis Air Force Test and Training Range.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
administers 3.799.18+ acres (12%) including Fort Irwin. Naval Air Weapons $tation China Lake.
Twentvnine Palms Marine Corps Base. Edwards Air Force Base. and Nellis Air Force Base. The
National Park $ervice administers 6.++9.29+ acres (20%). including Death Vallev National Park.
Mojave National Preserve. loshua Tree National Park. and Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

The Department ot Energv administers the Nevada Test $ite. which covers +28.501 acres (1.3%).
The L.$. Forest $ervice oversees 356.528 (1.1%) acres. primarilv in the HumboldtToivabe
National Forest in Nevada. Other tederal lands are administered bv the L.$. Fish and Wildlite
$ervice and the Bureau ot Reclamation. $tate landowners include the Calitornia Department ot
Parks and Recreation. the Nevada Division ot $tate Parks. the Calitornia Department ot Fish and
Oame. and the Calitornia $tate Lands Commission. Nongovernmental organizations such as The
Nature Conservancv and land trusts own less than 1% ot the land in the ecoregion. Private lands
and Native American tribal lands represent +.7+3.57+ (1+.7%) and 139.15+ (0.+3%) acres ot the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion. respectivelv (Figure 25).

2.8 Conservation Management
$tatus!
GAP Status 6%+'.#*/')!
=+%+;)!B7 An area having permanent protection trom
conversion ot natural land cover and a mandated
management plan in operation to maintain a natural
state within which disturbance events (ot natural
tvpe. treouencv. and intensitv) are allowed to proceed
without interterence or are mimicked through
management.
=+%+;)!@7 An area having permanent protection trom
conversion ot natural land cover and a mandated
management plan in operation to maintain a
primarilv natural state. but which mav receive use or
management practices that degrade the oualitv ot
existing natural communities.
=+%+;)!K7 An area having permanent protection trom
conversion ot natural land cover tor the majoritv ot
the area. but subject to extractive uses ot either a
broad. lowintensitv tvpe or localized intense tvpe. It
also conters protection to tederallv listed endangered
and threatened species throughout the area.

Natural resource management and
land conversion risk can be
characterized within the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion using the Lnited
$tates Oeological $urvev Oap Analvsis
Program (L$O$ 2008a. Figure 26).
The OAP program uses a scale ot 1 to
+ to categorize the degree ot
maintenance ot biodiversitv tor each
distinct land unit. A status ot '1'
denotes the highest. most permanent
level ot maintenance. while '+'
represents no biodiversitv protection
or areas ot unknown status. The OAP
program generallv recognizes
categories 1. 2. and 3 as being under
permanent protection. Our analvsis
recognizes the current-but not
necessarilv permanent-protection
status granted to these primarilv
publiclvowned and managed
landscapes with the exception ot
those in categorv 1. which are
permanentlv protected via an otticial
designation as National Park or
Monument or Wildlite Retuge.
=+%+;)!M7 Lack ot irrevocable easement or mandate to
prevent conversion ot natural habitat tvpes to
anthropogenic habitat tvpes. Allows tor intensive use
throughout the tract. Also includes those tracts tor
which the existence ot such restrictions or sutticient
intormation to establish a higher status is unknown.
$ource.
http.www.gap.uidaho.eduportalstewardshippadus_nowat
er_metadata.htm (accessed August 2010)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
$ %
$ %
!
!
!
!
!
!
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
uddy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St. George
Las Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
! BR
Land Lse
Figure 2 3
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Mining Activitv
#
Land Lse
Lrban or Rural Development
Agriculture
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Major River
$olar Facilitv
Wind Facilitv
$ %
Oeothermal Facilitv
$ %
Large $cale Mining &'
Ott Highwav Vehicle Area
!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
Laughlin
Nellis
AFB
Ash
Meadows
NWR
Mesquite
Needles
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
iv
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
lle
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
R
i
v
e
r
Edwards
AFB
China Lake
NAW$
Death Vallev
National Park
Nevada
Test $ite Desert
National Wildlite
Retuge
$pring
Mountains
National
Conservation Area
Nellis
AFTR
Lake Mead
National Recreation Area
Mojave
National Preserve
Fort Irwin
NTC
China Lake
NAW$
Twentvnine Palms
AOCC
loshua Tree
National Park
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
Owens
Lake
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Land Ownership
Figure 2 +
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Land Ownership
Private Conservation
Local lurisdiction
$tate Lands
L$ Bureau ot Indian Attairs
L$ Bureau ot Land Management
L$ Department ot Detense
L$ Department ot Energv
L$ Fish and Wildlite $ervice
L$ Forest $ervice
L$ National Park $ervice
Private Land

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@A!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
Laughlin
Ash
Meadows
NWR
Mesquite
Needles
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
iv
e
r
Moj av
e
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
lle
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
R
i
v
e
r
Palmdale
Ridgecrest
Pahrump
Kingman
Twentynine
Palms
Victorvil le
Barstow
Las Vegas
St. George
Death Vallev
National Park
Desert
National Wildlite
Retuge
Lake Mead
Mojave
National Preserve
loshua Tree
National Park
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
Owens
Lake
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Lands Lnder
Conservation Management
Figure 2 5
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Hvdrologv
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Project Area
Mojave Desert
Land Ownership ot
Management Areas
Management $tatus
Wilderness
Wilderness $tudv Area
National Conservation Area
National Monument
National Wildlite Retuge FW$
Transportation
Major Road
Other Road
L$ Forest $ervice
$tate Lands

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@B!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!89'!=+;5<!2*'%!
Laughlin
Nellis
AFB
Ash
Meadows
NWR
Mesquite
Needles
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
iv
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
lle
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
R
i
v
e
r
Palmdale
Ridgecrest
Pahrump
Kingman
Twentynine
Palms
Victorvil le
Barstow
Las Vegas
St. George
Edwards
AFB
China Lake
NAW$
Death Vallev
National Park
Nevada
Test $ite Desert
National Wildlite
Range
$pring
Mountains
Nellis
AFTR
Lake Mead
Mojave
National Preserve
Fort Irwin
NTC
China Lake
NAW$
Twentvnine Palms
AOCC
loshua Tree
National Park
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
Owens
Lake
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
OAP $tatus
Figure 2 6
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
OAP $tatus
3. Current Protection
subject to extractive (e.g. mining
or logging) or OHV use
2. Current Protection
natural disturbance events
suppressed
1. Permanent Protection
natural disturbance events
allowed to proceed
+. No known mandate
tor protection
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@@!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! @K! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
K!! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!

3.1 Ecological $igniticance ot the Mojave Desert

The Mojave Desert is known tor its great varietv ot plants. animals and other organisms capable ot
surviving some ot the harshest conditions on Earth. With large expanses ot the landscape
untragmented and undisturbed bv urban development. roads. or intensive land use. the Mojave
Desert remains one ot the last great wilderness areas in the +8 contiguous Lnited $tates and even
in the whole ot the North American continent. Together. this rich biological diversitv and
relativelv high levels ot intactness comprise the conservation values ot the ecoregion.

3.2 Animal Diversitv and Rare and Listed $pecies

The Mojave Desert supports a surprisinglv large varietv ot animals. There are +39 vertebrate species
that inhabit the Calitornia portion ot the Mojave Desert during at least some point in their lite cvcle.
These include 252 species ot birds. 101 mammals. 57 reptiles. 10 amphibians. and 19 tishes. 1+ ot
these species are endemic to the Mojave Desert Ecoregion (Bunn et al. 2007) and 29 taxa are
tederallv listed as threatened or endangered (Table 31). $everal sites within the region have been
designated as Oloballv Important Bird Areas" or as Important Bird Areas" bv the American Bird
Conservancv and Audubon Calitornia. respectivelv. Invertebrates are tvpicallv ditticult to
enumerate. but within the Calitornia portion ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion there are 29
invertebrate taxa that are included on the $pecial Animals List. This includes 19 described species
ot arthropods and 10 mollusks. 22 species ot invertebrates are endemic to the ecoregion (Bunn et
al. 2007).

Most ot the animals tound in the Mojave Desert have morphological. phvsiological. or behavioral
adaptations that allow them to survive its hot. arid conditions. $ome. such as desert bighorn sheep
and mountain lions. range across diverse habitats in response to varving seasonal and
environmental conditions. while others relv on a particular vegetation communitv or a narrow set
ot environmental parameters. For example. vucca night lizards (Xortus:o ::.:i:s ::.:i:s)!live in the
thatch along the trunks ot living and dead loshua trees. while tringetoed l::orcs (Lo :rorroto) are
restricted to sand dunes. $ome branchiopods (e.g.. tairv shrimp) and desert puptish are even
turther limited in their distribution bv aouatic
characteristics (e.g.. water oualitv. ouantitv. and
temporal availabilitv) ot their unioue habitats
(ephemeral plavas and permanent pools.
respectivelv). Manv sand dunes. including the
Kelso Dunes ot the Mojave National Preserve.
support a number ot endemic invertebrate species.
including the Kelso Dunes giant sand treader
(Mocrooo.r.t.s i.iso.rs:s). the Kelso Dunes
lerusalem cricket (Aot.iotus i.iso.rs:s).
mvdid tlv (Rioti:o:cos torsoi:s). and the Kel
a giant
so
Dunes shieldback katvdid (Er.ot.c.s i.iso.rs:s).
Moio:. c.s.rt torto:s. :r B:rc Str:r.s Voii..
N.:oco (Pioto.roti o o.s Moor.)
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
!
8%?1'!KVB!F'5'*%11<V1/)+'5!89*'%+'0'5!%05!,05%0.'*'5!20/3%1)!/0!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!
,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!0%3'! 6#33#0!0%3'!
89*'%+'0'5!X8Y!#*!
,05%0.'*'5!X,Y!
Bu/o :croscotius coi:/orr:cus arrovo toad E
Roro ouroro crotor:: Calitornia redlegged trog T
Ciorocr:us oi.orcr:rus r::osus Western $nowv Plover T
Et:coro tro:ii:: .t:us $outhwestern Willow Flvcatcher E
Foico t.r..r:rus Peregrine Falcon E
P:t:io cr:ssoi:s .r.oti:ius Invo Calitornia Towhee T
Roiius ior.:rostr:s uor.rs:s Yuma Clapper Rail E
Str: occ:c.rtoi:s iuc:co Mexican $potted Owl T
V:r.o o.ii:: tus:iius Least Bell's Vireo E
Cr.r:citis oo:i.: oo:i.: White River springtish E
Cr.r:citis oo:i.: .rorc:s Hiko White River springtish E
Ctr:rocor c:oooi:s Devils Hole puptish E
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s :or.ct.s Ash Meadows Amargosa puptish E
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s t.ctoroi:s Warm $prings Amargosa puptish E
Ctr:rocor roc:osus Owens puptish E
Et.tr:citis iotos iotos Pahrump pooltish E
G:io o:coior oio:.rs:s Mohave tui chub E
G:io o:coior src.r: Owens tui chub E
G:io ctio humpback chub E
G:io .i..ors bonvtail E
G:io roousto iorcor: Pahranagat roundtail chub E
G:io s.:ruco Virgin River chub E
Mooto cor:oc.o Moapa dace E
Pio.ott.rus or..rt:ss:us woundtin E
Ri:r:citis oscuius r.:oc.rs:s Nevada speckled dace E
Xrouci.r t.orus razorback sucker E
M:crotus coi:/orr:cus sc:rt.rs:s Amargosa vole E
M:crotus .:corus iuoito:.rs:s Hualapai Mexican vole E
Goti.rus o.oss:::: Mojave desert tortoise T

3.3 Plant Diversitv and Rare and Listed $pecies

The Mojave Desert. which is one ot the most arid habitats on Earth ($ection 2.+). presents plants
with unioue survival challenges that have resulted in a diversitv ot torms and lite historv
strategies. Nonetheless. the ecoregion has a rich tlora. For example. although the Calitornia
portions ot the Mojave and $onoran deserts collectivelv make up 28% ot Calitornia's landmass.
thev contain a disproportionate 37% ot its native plant taxa (Andre and Hughson 2009). $ome ot
the midelevation areas in the eastern Mojave support 60 to 70 species ot shrubs per hectare.
placing them among the highest shrub diversitv areas in North America (Andre and Hughson
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@M!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
!
2009). The ecoregion is even richer in herbaceous annual plants. most ot which reveal themselves
onlv during spring blooms (or tollowing raintall in other times ot vear) in vears ot suitable
precipitation and temperature conditions. $hreve and Wiggins (196+) reported that the Mojave
Desert contains 250 ephemeral plants. approximatelv 8090 ot which are endemic. During
tavorable vears. the report continues. the region supports more endemic plants per souare meter
than anv other location in the Lnited $tates.

In addition. the wide varietv ot habitat tvpes and
microclimates. including shitting sand dunes.
streambeds and tloodprone washes.
intermittentlv tlooded plavas. natural desert
pavement. marshes. canvon bottoms and
adjacent terraces. seeps and springs. rockv
mountain slopes. and skv islands have resulted
in a wide varietv ot vegetation tvpes.

Endemic plants are tound throughout the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion and most are tightlv
associated with specitic substrates such as
alkaline tlats (e.g.. N:trotiiio oio:.rs:s).
limestone clitt taces (e.g.. M:uius oio:.rs:s). exposed gvpsum outcrops (e.g.. Arcto.cor
coi:/orr:co). rhvolite beds (e.g.. Astro.oius /ur.r.us). sand dunes (e.g.. P.rst.or oiooor.:rotus). and
plava edges (e.g.. Pioc.i:o tor:si::) (Table 32. Figure 31).
Moio:. ucco or c.s.rt to:..rt

8%?1'!KV@!!F'5'*%11<V1/)+'5!89*'%+'0'5!%05!,05%0.'*'5!S1%0+)!/0!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!
,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!0%3'! 6#33#0!0%3'!
89*'%+'0'5!X8Y!#*!
,05%0.'*'5!X,Y!
Arcto.cor iu:i:s dwart bearpawpoppv E
Astro.oius oio.rs Cushenburv milkvetch E
Astro.oius otuiior:o:c.s $hivwits milkvetch E
Astro.oius ioi.r.r:oru Holmgren milkvetch E
Astro.oius tr:cor:rotus tripleribbed milkvetch E
C.rtour:u rooti:iu springloving centaurv T
Erc.i:ots:s ruc:coui:s var. corru.oto Ash Meadows sunrav T
Er:..ror tor:si:: Parish's daisv T
Gr:rc.i:o /ro:rotrot.rs:s Ash Meadows gumplant T
I:.s:o i:r.:: var. .r.:co Ash Meadows ivesia T
M.rt:.i:o i.ucotiiio Ash Meadows blazingstar T
N:troti:io oio:.rs:s Amargosa nitrophila E
O.roti.ro co.st:toso ssp. cr:r:t. caespitose evening primrose E
P.c:ococtus s:i.r: $iler pincushion cactus T
Pioc.i:o or.isor:: Aven Nelson's phacelia E
Suoii.r:o oi.orcro. Eureka Vallev dune grass E
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@N!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St. George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Rare or Threatened
Plant $pecies Distribution
Figure 3 1
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Major River
$pecies Distribution
Planning Lnit that contains
a recorded Rare or Threatened
plant species occurrence
! @O
&&
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@P!
3.+ $oil Biota and the Vital Importance ot $oil Integritv

T
soils and allowing them to retain the
animal species throughout the ecoreg
staving in pl
mineral soil together to c
(Bowker et al. 2007). These crusts include mosses.
organisms. Bv holding soil particles to
temperatures. biological soil crusts en
Lange et al.199+. Kidron and Yair 1997). The
in the Mojave Desert. which rival those ot torest or
the carbon tixation activitv ot biological soil cr
arid lands cover +0% ot the Earth's land surtace.
c

I
such as sand dunes reouire a reliable source ot
d

$
and anv change in land use that involves dist
destruction ot soil biolo
soils can be
barriers that prevent natu
natural processe
loss ot tertile topsoil. reduced intiltration ot rare
ot native plant and animal species. These ettects in
Thus. intact and tunctional soi
a

L
portions ot the Mojave Desert remain relativelv
other land uses that trag
blocks ot un
loss and degradation bv the World Wildlite Fund.
intact habitat (Ricketts et al. 1999). N
p
he integritv ot soils is critical to the maintenance ot biodiversitv in the Mojave Desert. Protecting
ir natural characteristics ensures the survival ot plant and
ion. In manv desert habitats. soil integritv relies on soils
ace. Fragile soil biological crusts constitute the protective skin. binding particles ot
reate a thin. cohesive horizontal laver along the surtace ot the ground
lichens. liverworts. cvanobacteria. and other
gether and moderating water runott. tertilitv. and soil
hance soil oualitv and integritv (Evans and Ehleringer 1993.
measured annual rates ot net ecosvstem CO
2
uptake
grassland ecosvstems. have been attributed to
usts (Wohltahrt et al. 2008). Oiven that deserts and
this tinding suggests that crusts are crucial
omponents ot ecosvstem health and have global importance.
n contrast to svstems where soil biological crusts provide the basis tor soil integritv. other svstems
sand and uninterrupted windborn transit to the
une. These svstems are discussed in detail in $ection 3.6.3.
oil integritv can be degraded bv a varietv ot human activities. The use ot OHVs. livestock grazing.
urbance ot the soil leads to the degradation and
gical crusts and a loss ot soil integritv ($ection 5). The integritv ot dune
compromised bv humaninduced stabilization ot windblown sand or the creation ot
ral aeolian processes. Following soil disturbances or the disruption ot
s that maintain soils. desert ecosvstems are prone to invasion bv nonnative species.
precipitation. increases in tire treouencv. and loss
turn lead to a decline in native biodiversitv.
ls underlie the conservation value ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion
nd become the indicator bv which ecosvstem health can be evaluated.
3.5 Landscape Context
3.5.1 Intactness vs. Fragmentation
evels ot tragmentation. and ot its inverse. intactness. varv across the Mojave Desert. Large
intact. with tew roads. human developments. or
ment and degrade habitat. The ecoregion retains some ot the largest
tragmented land in the contiguous Lnited $tates. According to a report on habitat
roughlv halt ot the Mojave Desert remains as
otable blocks ot relativelv intact habitat include the eastern
ortion ot the Mojave Desert within Calitornia trom Death Vallev past the southern edge ot the
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@Q!
ecoregion south ot the Mojave National Preserve. and the northeast corner ot the ecoregion in
Nevada
5
.

Other portions ot the ecoregion are much more tragmented. Habitat loss has primarilv resulted
trom urban and suburban expansion and proliteration northward and eastward trom Los Angeles
into the western Mojave and around Las Vegas in the central Mojave. as well as the increasing
demand tor landtill space. agricultural development along the Colorado River. grazing. ottroad
vehicles. and militarv activities (Ricketts et al. 1999). $ome ot the most impacted areas include
Antelope Vallev in the West Mojave. the area between Lancaster and Victorville along the north
slope ot the $an Oabriel Mountains. the area around Barstow. and the Las Vegas urbansuburban
complex.

3.5.2 Climate Change Adaptation

$pecies attected bv climate change that have the abilitv to disperse at. or taster than. the rate ot
change mav adapt in this wav it there are large intact and interconnected landscapes. However.
such species will be at increased risk ot extinction it their movements are blocked bv tragmenting
tactors. Because large areas ot the Mojave Desert remain relativelv intact. this ecoregion has the
potential to provide species and communities with the space and interconnectedness thev mav
need to adapt to climate change. Depending on how the climatic zones ot North America shitt in
the tuture. the intactness ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion mav allow tor largescale shitts in species
ranges and habitats. Meso and microhabitat teatures ot these landscapes mav also provide critical
climate retugia tor some species adapted to cooler conditions.

3.6 Landscapescale Ecological Processes

A number ot ecological processes shape the phvsical conditions ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion
and thus are integral to maintaining its vegetation communities and species. Conservation and
management ettorts must theretore recognize that tunctional. landscapescale processes transcend
jurisdictional and ownership boundaries as well as phvsiographic teatures. Indeed. maintaining the
integritv ot this landscape. both within the desert itselt and through connections to adjacent areas.
is critical tor longterm survival ot the ecosvstem.

3.6.1 Ecological Integritv. Connectivitv. and Ecosvstem $ervices

Landscapes with high ecological integritv (i.e.. low habitat tragmentation). mav be better able to
maintain intact ecosvstem services. which include provision ot clean air and water. regulation ot
carbon seouestration. maintenance ot scenic and recreational resources. and preservation ot
biodiversitv. Thev mav also be more resilient to disturbance events and surrounding landuse
changes. and better able to accommodate longterm changes such as those associated with climate
change.

5
The intactness or low tragmentation evaluated here does not necessarilv eouate to a healthv native ecosvstem. as the
same northeast Nevada portion ot the ecoregion is heavilv compromised bv invasive nonnative grasses such as red
brome. and as such has burned extensivelv in recent vears.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
Because habitat patch size suitabilitv varies among species. it is important to maintain landscape
integritv at multiple scales. For example. bighorn sheep live primarilv in habitat islands" ot
mountainous terrain surrounded bv tlat terrain. Fringetoed lizards occupv patches ot sand dunes.
Least Bell's Vireo (V:r.o o.ii:: tus:iius) and other rare and endangered birds occupv patches ot
riparian habitat surrounded bv arid lands. and puptish survive in isolated pools in various
locations throughout the ecoregion. Conserving connections between these species' preterred
habitats allows individual movements and multigenerational dispersal. therebv increasing long
term species viabilitv. For species that are not able to move tar. such as puptish or narrowlv
endemic plants. protecting adjacent habitat can be critical to their survival because activities on
surrounding lands can disrupt or alter the ecosvstem processes that support them.

Maintaining landscape integritv across elevational gradients and transition zones. such as where
the desert merges with montane communities ot the $ierra Nevada or Transverse Ranges. also
increases the ecosvstem's resilience to longterm environmental changes. such as changing
temperatures and precipitation levels. Conserving wide swaths ot protected areas that span the
complete range ot elevations will allow some desert species to shitt their distributions in response
to a changing climate (Pitelka et al. 1997. Warren et al. 2001).

3.6.2 Water. Watersheds. and Oroundwater to $urtace Water Linkages

$urtace and groundwater shape desert communities in manv wavs. including some that are not
immediatelv apparent. For example. sand dunes are indirectlv dependent on water when their
sand source is a river bed. Mesouite bosoues are sometimes located miles trom surtace water and
entirelv dependent on subsurtace water. $moke trees and other inhabitants ot desert drv wash
woodlands are dependent on periodic tlooding and scouring tor recruitment ot new individuals.

Numerous aouatic habitats. such as puptish ponds and cienagas. are dependent on intact
groundwater svstems. Resources in Calitornia's Mojave Desert are adapted to the unioue
hvdrologic regimes ot the area. and natural hvdrologic processes are associated with high integritv
watersheds (Pott et al. 1997). In addition. desert communities relv on intact watersheds and
groundwater basins tor clean and adeouate water supplies. Theretore. maintaining the integritv ot
watersheds is critical to ettective conservation ot all aouatic and semiaouatic habitats and the
isolated species that inhabit them.

3.6.3 Aeolian Processes. $and $ources. and $and Deposition

The Mojave Desert Ecoregion contains several areas that satistv the prereouisites tor dune
tormation. 1) a source ot sand. otten trom a drv lake or river bed devoid ot vegetation. 2) wind that
can litt and transport this sand. and 3) an area where the wind loses momentum due to
topographv or some other obstacle. causing the sand particles to settle. collect. and torm sand
dunes. Active sand dunes are dvnamic. their shapes and locations are continuallv changing as a
result ot a continuous sand source and reliable wind patterns. Other dunes accumulated during
past climates. where and when water sources dried out and exposed sediments to wind erosion.
$and dune characteristics depend on the geologv ot the sand source. as this determines the size.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
@R!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
shape. and color ot the sand particles. and on the speed and direction ot the wind. Thev are thus a
direct product ot the aeolian svstem that created them and their existence depends on
replenishment ot windblown sand. $ocalled star dunes" have three or more directional sources
ot sand and thus are more resilient to
disruption ot anv one directional source.

$and dune areas are scattered throughout the
Mojave Desert. $ome are alreadv protected.
such as the Kelso Dunes within the Mojave
National Preserve. and the Eureka.
Panamint. and Mesouite Flat Dunes in
Death Vallev National Park. The Kelso
Dunes. which rise more than 600 teet above
the desert tloor. are one ot the largest sand
dunes remaining in the Lnited $tates and the largest tield ot aeolian sand deposits in the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion. $and dunes account tor onlv 6% ot the surtace area ot North American deserts
but thev provide habitat tor a number ot uniouelvadapted plant and animal species tound
nowhere else on Earth ($ections 3.3 and 3.+).
B:. Dur. :r Aor.oso Voii.
(Pioto.roti court.s o/ Bos:rorcror..uotci.or.)

3.6.+ Fire Regimes

Fires were historicallv intreouent and small in the desert $outhwest (Humphrev 19+9. Rogers
1986. Brown and Minnich 1986). The occurrence ot tire in the Mojave Desert is largelv controlled
bv tuel continuitv. tuel tvpe. and ignition sources (Brooks and Minnich 2006). Fires cannot spread
tar bevond their ignition points it tuels are discontinuous or do not burn readilv. and most ot the
native vegetation tvpes tound within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion produce tuels that tit into one
or both ot these categories.

While the desert lacks trees with tire scars or suitable lakes with charcoal deposits that researchers
can use to reconstruct the past. prehistoric tire regimes ot the Mojave Desert can be interred
indirectlv trom studies ot vegetation (Brooks and Minnich 2006). Fossil packrat middens also
contain a wealth ot intormation about the vegetation tound in the Mojave since the beginning ot
the Holocene epoch (10.000 vears ago). It appears that during this period. the ecoregion's
vegetation has remained relativelv static. with pinvon juniper woodlands at higher elevations and
scrub andor perennial grasslands at lower elevations (Van Devender and $paulding 1979.
Koehler et al. 2005). This suggests that. throughout the Holocene epoch. the Mojave Desert has
had long tire intervals and lowintensitv. patchv tires in the lowelevation vallevs where tuels are
sparse. Middle to high elevation zones could have supported enough vegetation to allow stand
replacing tires. as occur in pinvonjuniper woodlands todav. The current climate conditions tound
in the Mojave Desert have remained constant since about 1.++0 vears ago (Koehler et al. 2005).
lending turther support to the idea that tire regimes changed little in the region until the late
1800s. which brought sweeping changes in human land use and invasion bv nonnative annual
grasses such as bromes (Brous spp.) and tluttgrass (Er:or.uror tuici.iio).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
Orazing bv cattle and sheep mav have reduced vegetation cover and prevented tires in the earlv
davs ot livestock operations in the Mojave Desert. but deliberatelvset tires were likelv used to
promote the growth ot native grasses as torage during this time as well (Brooks et al. 2003).
Periodic tires occurred in the area that is now loshua Tree National Park between the late 1880s
and 19+2 (Minnich 2003. Heretord et al. 2006). A midcenturv drought resulted in a reduction in
tires between 19+2 and 1977 (Brooks and Minnich 2006). Atter 1977. tires became larger and
more treouent. and their spread was tacilitated bv the nonnative annual grasses red brome (Brous
ruo.rs) and cheat grass (Brous t.ctoru). Analvsis ot tire agencv data trom 1980 to 1995
demonstrates that. throughout the Mojave Desert. increased tire treouencv is due to an increase in
humancaused tires. since the number ot tires ignited bv lightning strikes has remained constant
(Brooks and Esoue 2002). Another probable contributing tactor was the aboveaverage raintall that
occurred throughout the Mojave Desert Ecoregion between 1976 and 1998 (Heretord et al. 2006)
which. coupled with soil disturbances associated with past livestock operations. likelv turthered the
spread ot tine tuels in the torm ot nonnative annual grasses.

Todav. invasions ot nonnative plant
species otten result in a continuous
blanket ot tuel within native desert plant
communities. allowing tires to spread
more readilv and contributing to tvpe
conversion trom shrub communities to
grassdominated communities ($ections
5.2 and 5.+). Increased ignition rates and
tuels have also resulted in more treouent
and more extensive tires ($ection 5.+).
The high raintall totals ot the 200+2005
wet season were tollowed bv the largest
tires on record within the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion. Nearlv a million acres burned
in the Mojave Desert during the summer
ot 2005. 92% ot the area burned was in
Nevada. Arizona. and Ltah (Brooks and
Minnich 2006).
Burr.c iorcscot. u:ti succui.rts :r R.c Roci Coror NCA
siou:r. r.c oro. :r:os:or or. .or tost/:r..

It has been suggested that desert plants are not tireadapted (Rogers 1986). and that even rare tires
mav have longterm impacts on the structure and composition ot communities such as creosote
bush scrub and the succulent communities (Brown and Minnich 1986). $everal studies have
demonstrated that recoverv mav depend on tire intensitv and season (e.g.. Rogers and $teele 1980.
O'Learv and Minnich 1981. Brown and Minnich 1986). For example. mortalitv and resprouting
rates among creosote bush appears to be related to tire intensitv. duration. and season ot burning
(Brown and Minnich 1986). In general. however. longlived perennials such as creosote bush.
catclaw acacia. teddvbear cholla. and loshua tree recover slowlv (or not at all) while shortlived
shrubs such as brittlebush mav recover more ouicklv and persist tollowing tire (Brown and
Minnich 1986). Vegetation communities such as chaparral and torest communities tound at the
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KB!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!
edges ot the desert appear to be more tire
adapted than true desert communities (Brown
and Minnich 1986). Historicallv. tires moving
through these communities would stop when
thev reached desert communities such as
creosote bush scrub. presumablv due to limited
tuels. with the possible exception ot vears
tollowing high raintall and high biomass
production bv annuals (Brown and Minnich
1986). This resulted in long tiretree periods in
these communities. permitting the re
establishment ot longlived perennials (Brown
and Minnich 1986).

Burr.c osiuo tr.. orc scorci.c iorcscot. :r R.c
Roci Coror NCA. N.:oco

3.7 Cultural Resources

U*/./0!#C!+9'!Z#*5!["#$%&'\!
The word "#$%&' (or Mohave) is
derived trom the Native American
phrase 29%!3%-%&'. The word oio
means water". and oco:. means
along or beside". The Mojave
people reter to themselves as Aio
oco:. people who live along the
water (or river). Thev are the
northernmost ot three culturallv
related groups historicallv residing
along the lower Colorado River
($herer 1967).
Although this report tocuses on the natural biodiversitv ot the Mojave Desert. it is important to
acknowledge the rich cultural resources that exist in
this region. Humans have lived in this region tor
centuries. calling it home and making use ot its manv
natural resources. People have also intluenced and
manipulated the desert in a varietv ot wavs ($ection
2.6). Manv historical and archeological sites. such as
Native American village sites and traditional areas
important to Native Americans. are tound in
association with the natural resources that are the tocus
ot this report. retlecting the close ties that Native
American cultures had with the desert and its natural
communities. Because ot the close geographic
association ot cultural sites with conservation targets
chosen tor our assessment. conservation ettorts
intended to protect natural resources mav also help
protect culturallv important sites.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
K@!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! KK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
M!! ,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!,CC#*+)!

More than 85% ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion is in public ownership. administered and
managed bv a diverse set ot government agencies carrving out a varied arrav ot landuse mandates.
conservation ettorts. and management protocols (Table 21. $ection 2.7). Private individuals.
corporations and organizations own and manage much ot the remaining land. This diversitv ot
land ownership has the potential to tragment the landscape. and produce management
inetticiencies or contlicts detrimental to the regional conservation values. Lnderstanding how the
various landgoverning entities work together is essential to establishing an ettective conservation
and management tramework tor the Mojave Desert. In this section. we outline the varied
conservation goals and approaches ot these public and private entities to document the existing
management and conservation landscape in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion.

+.1 Federal Lands

The majoritv ot tederal lands in the studv area are administered bv the Bureau ot Land
Management (BLM). while other tederal land managers include the Department ot Detense
(DOD). National Park $ervice (NP$). the L.$. Forest $ervice (L$F$). and the Fish and Wildlite
$ervice (L$FW$). Each ot these agencies has a unioue mission or mandate in relation to desert
conservation (Table +1). Other Federal agencies responsible tor management and conservation ot
lands in this region include the Bureau ot Reclamation and the Bureau ot Indian Attairs. The L.$.
Oeological $urvev collects and provides environmental data to guide management ot public lands.

Federal lands managed primarilv tor conservation values in the studv area are administered bv
BLM. NP$. L$F$. and L$FW$. Lands with the highest levels ot protection include Wilderness
Areas. Wilderness $tudv Areas. Areas ot Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). National Parks
and Monuments. and National Wildlite Retuges ($ection 2.7). The remaining tederallv
administered lands outside ot these designations have varving levels ot natural resource protection
but the landuse mandates tor some ot them mav be incompatible with the protection ot biological
diversitv and conservation values.

+.2 $tate Lands

The Mojave Desert Ecoregion extends into tour states-Arizona. Calitornia. Nevada. and Ltah-
and the mandates and goals governing land management ditter trom state to state. Table +2
provides examples ot Calitornia agencv mandates. while Table 21 ($ection 2.7) lists the amount ot
land held and managed bv each agencv within the ecoregion.

$ome conservation goals. such as maintaining connectivitv throughout the region. are complicated
bv the ditterent landuse policies ot the ditterent states. $tate lands with the highest levels ot
protection include Wilderness Areas. Natural Reserves. Ecological Reserves. and $tate Wildlite
Areas. The remaining stateowned lands have varving levels ot natural resources protection. and
various landuse mandates that do not necessarilv tocus on natural resources protection.

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
8%?1'!MVB!F'5'*%1!2.'0-<!"%05%+')!
2.'0-<! "/))/#0]!=+%+'5!S;*>#)']!#*!T#%1)!
Bureau ot
Land
Management
According to the Federal Land Policv and Management Act ot 1976. the L.$. Congress
declared that it is the policv ot the Lnited $tates that the public lands be managed in a
manner that will protect the oualitv ot scientitic. scenic. historical. ecological.
environmental. air and atmospheric. water resource. and archeological values. that. where
appropriate. will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition. that
will provide tood and habitat tor tish and wildlite and domestic animals. and that will
provide tor outdoor recreation and human occupancv and use." The Calitornia Desert
Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan directs BLM to .provide tor the immediate and tuture
protection and administration ot the public lands in the Calitornia Desert within the
tramework ot a program ot multiple use and sustained vield. and the maintenance ot
environmental oualitv" (BLM 1999).
National Park
$ervice

The National Park $ervice (NP$) is dedicated to conserving. unimpaired. the natural and
cultural resources and values ot the National Park $vstem tor the enjovment. education.
and inspiration ot this and tuture generations. The $ervice is also responsible tor managing
a great varietv ot national and international programs designed to help extend the benetits
ot natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this
countrv and the world" (NP$ 2007). Each NP$ unit within the Mojave Desert has a unioue
mission.
Death Vallev National Park dedicates itselt to protecting signiticant desert teatures that
provide world class scenic. scientitic. and educational opportunities tor visitors and
academics to explore and studv" (NP$ 2002).
The National Park $ervice at loshua Tree National Park preserves and protects a
representative area ot the Colorado and Mojave deserts and the natural and cultural
resources tor the benetit and enjovment ot present and tuture generations. The park
strives to maintain its rich biological and geological diversitv. cultural historv.
recreational resources. and outstanding opportunities tor scientitic studv". (NP$ 2001).
The Mojave National Preserve was created to protect the area's diverse natural and
cultural resources and to perpetuate the sense ot discoverv. solitude. and adventure that
has existed tor generations" (NP$ 2007a).
The mission ot the Lake Mead National Recreation Area is to provide diverse inland
water recreational opportunities in a spectacular desert setting tor present and tuture
generations" (NP$ 2007b).
Forest $ervice The Forest $ervice's mission. . to sustain the health. diversitv. and productivitv ot the
nation's torests and grasslands to meet the needs ot present and tuture generations". is now
carried through with a renewed emphasis on corc:t:or o/ ti. iorc rather than outtuts o/ ti.
iorc (L$F$ 2005).
Department
ot Detense
The mission ot the L. $. Department ot Detense (DOD) is to provide the militarv torces
needed to deter war and to protect the securitv ot the Lnited $tates" (DOD 2010). While
the DOD's primarv goal is militarv readiness. its longterm management goals also include
sateguarding native environments and species that relv on them.
Fish and
Wildlite
$ervice
The mission ot the L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. working with others to conserve. protect
and enhance tish. wildlite. and plants and their habitats tor the continuing benetit ot the
American people.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KM!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!

8%?1'!MV@!6%1/C#*0/%!=+%+'!2.'0-<!"%05%+')!!
2.'0-<! "/))/#0]!=+%+'5!S;*>#)']!#*!T#%1)!
Calitornia Department
ot Parks and Recreation
(CDPR)
The mission ot the CDPR is to provide tor the health. inspiration. and
education ot the people ot Calitornia bv helping to preserve the state's
extraordinarv biological diversitv. protecting its most valued natural and cultural
resources. and creating opportunities tor highoualitv outdoor recreation.
Calitornia Department
ot Fish and Oame
(CDFO)
The mission ot the CDFO is to manage Calitornia's diverse tish. wildlite. and
plant resources. and the habitats upon which thev depend. tor their ecological
values and tor their use and enjovment bv the public.
Calitornia $tate Lands
Commission
The Calitornia $tate Lands Commission's mission is to manage approximatelv
+.5 million acres (1.8 million hectares) ot land held in trust tor the people ot
Calitornia. The Commission manages +69.250 acres ot $chool Lands held in tee
ownership bv the $tate. and the reserved mineral interests on approximatelv
790.000 acres ot $chool Lands where the surtace estate has been sold. The vast
majoritv ot these lands are located in the desert. The $tate holds these lands tor
all the peoples ot the $tate tor the public trust purposes ot water related
commerce. navigation. tisheries. recreation. and open space". The Public Trust
Doctrine originallv reouired that land and water be maintained tor commerce.
navigation. and tisheries". $ubseouent revisions added hunting. tishing.
swimming. recreational boating. and preservation ot those lands in their
natural state" in order to protect scenic and wildlite habitat values to the list ot
reouirements (Calitornia $tate Lands Commission 2008).

+.3 Native American Lands

The Mojave Desert Ecoregion includes the ancestral and presentdav homes ot a number ot Native
American tribes. The Federal Oovernment maintains a special trust relationship with the tribes. as
a result ot various treaties. statutes. Executive Orders. judicial decisions. and other legal
instruments (L$FW$ 2008). This relationship creates an entorceable tiduciarv responsibilitv to
Indian tribes to protect their lands and resources. These lands are. however. not tederal public
lands or part ot the public domain. and are theretore not directlv subject to tederal public land
laws (L$FW$ 2008). The Bureau ot Indian Attairs (BIA). within the L.$. Department ot the
Interior. is responsible tor the administration and management ot land held in trust bv the L.$.
government tor Native American Indians. Land protection related to development on torests and
rangelands. leasing assets on these lands. protection ot water and land rights. and direction ot
agricultural programs are components ot the Bureau's responsibilities. Although Indian lands are
exempt trom a number ot laws. involvement bv the BIA in such land management situations
triggers selected Federal laws such as the National Environmental Policv Act (NEPA). Within the
tramework ot applicable laws. Native American lands are managed bv individual tribes according
to their goals and objectives (L$FW$ 2008). such that management mav ditter trom tribe to tribe.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KN!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
+.+ Regional Conservation Plans

In addition to Federal and state lands. the Mojave Desert Ecoregion includes land held bv a large
number ot jurisdictions at the citv and countv level. resulting in a diverse set ot landuse plans and
management goals. In some cases. planning is coordinated among jurisdictions to address long
term habitat and species recoverv goals and land management strategies.

A number ot regionalscale planning ettorts have been completed or are currentlv underwav
(Figure +1). For Calitornia. pursuant to a statutorv directive ot the Federal Land Policv and
Management Act (FLMPA) in 1976. BLM prepared a Calitornia Desert Conservation Area
(CDCA) Plan. which was adopted in 1980. That plan has been amended bv the adoption ot
subseouent regional desert conservation plans. driven bv litigation over the agencv's treatment ot
listed species. Each ot these planning ettorts proposes specitic actions and adopts land
management decisions to satistv the NEPA. the mandates ot the Endangered $pecies Act. and
other statutorv obligations ot the agencv. The three CDCA plans are the West Mojave Plan
(WEMO). the Northern and Eastern Mojave Plan (NEMO). which covers 3.3 million acres and
was approved in 2002. and the Northern and Eastern Colorado Plan (NECO). which covers over 5
million acres and was also approved in 2002. Each plan consists ot two components. a tederal
component that amends the CDCA Plan. and a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that.
once approved. enables development to occur on lands owned bv private parties or state and local
governments under $ection 10(a)1(B) ot the Endangered $pecies Act.

Outside ot Calitornia. planning ettorts include the Lower Colorado River Multiple $pecies
Conservation Program (LCRM$CP). the Washington Countv Habitat Conservation Plan
(WCHCP). and the Clark Countv Multiple $pecies Habitat Conservation Plan (CCM$HCP). In
addition. a BLM planning ettort is currentlv underwav in Ltah to create plans tor the Red Clitts
National Conservation Area (NCA) and the Beaver Dam Wash NCA. which were Congressionallv
designated in 2009 and teature high desert tortoise densities. Each plan must demonstrate onthe
ground conservation benetits to minimize and mitigate the incidental habitat loss thev are
proposing tor the listed species. Each plan must also demonstrate adeouate tunding to accomplish
the conservation goals and adeouate sateguards built into the programs to respond to untoreseen
changes.

For the regional desert tortoise planning ettorts (WEMO. NEMO. NECO. WCHCP. CCM$HCP)
a twodecadelong process ot detining critical habitat. recoverv areas. and lead management entities
has resulted in mixed results with regard to ontheground conservation achievements. However.
processes are in place that would allow these planning ettorts to integrate substantiallv with manv
ot the conservation goals presented in this Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment. For instance.
Clark Countv. Nevada developed a 30vear Multiple $pecies HCP (beginning in 2001). which
covers manv ot the conservation targets tound in the Eastern $ubregion ot this assessment. This
program will provide tunding tor conservation actions benetiting the 79 species in addition to the
desert tortoise. covered bv incidental take permits and prelisting agreements.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KO!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St. George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Existing Multiple $pecies
Habitat Conservation
PlansPrograms e RMPs
Figure + 1
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Mojave Desert
Habitat Conservation
PlansPrograms
Lower Colorado M$CP
Washington Countv HCP
Clark Countv M$HCP
Northern and Eastern Mojave
West Mojave
Northern and Eastern Colorado
BLM Resource Management Plans
DOE PLAN
Elv RMP
Las Vegas RMP
Nellis (NTTR) RMP
Nellis Nonrenewal Area
Red Rock Canvon RMP
$loan Canvon NCA RMP
Tonopah RMP
Lake Havasu Field Ottice RMP
Arizona $trip RMP
$t. Oeorge RMP
! KP
"#$%&'!(')'*
!
89'!:%+;*'!
+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KQ!
W
lands managed trom both the Pahrump and Las Vega
m
o

I
which addresses landuse issues. inclu
h

A
(NOOs) are dedicated to the protection ot open
space. natural habitats. and biodiversitv in the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Although not all ot
these entities are longterm land stewards. all
work to acouire or otherwise protect natural area
lands tor the purpose ot protecting sensitive and
rare habitats and species. and tor maintaining
l
o

A
+. $ection 2.7). Private lands have no tormal pro
land is diverse and unpredictable. The tvpe ot us
voluntarv basis to highdensitv industrial. agri
$ection 2.6. landuse patterns
use. primarilv as a result ot water importation an
ot roads in the region. As the human population ot th
that greater demands will be placed on the Mojave
r

M
natural desert habitats and to provid
accomplished via the volunteer ettorts ot private
collaborative ettorts. conservation dedications vi
incentives such as purchase ot development rights
benetits. Private land does not necessarilv have
important c
important natural areas or butters on portions ot th
p
+.6 Private Lands
+.5 Nongovernmental Organization Lands
number ot nongovernmental organizations
inkages between ecological preserves. parks. and
ther wildlite retuges.
n addition to the above planning ettorts. each countv within the Mojave Desert has a general plan
ding protection ot natural resources. and numerous cities
ave their own environmental goals and plans.
pproximatelv +.7+3.57+ acres ot the Mojave Desert are in private ownership (Table 21. Figure 2
tection status and management ot privatelvowned
e mav range trom a highlv managed status on a
cultural. and urban development. As described in
in the Mojave Desert have evolved towards increased intensitv ot
d the construction ot an everlengthening network
e $outhwest Lnited $tates grows. it is likelv
Desert Ecoregion tor development. agriculture.
ecreation. and electrical power production and transport.
ithin southern Nevada. the BLM is currentlv revising Resource Management Plans (RMPs) tor
s tield ottices. $imilar RMPs exist tor lands
anaged in the Arizona portion ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. and the $t. Oeorge. Ltah tield
ttice.
anv private lands do. however. support conservation values. and thev can be managed to protect
e benetits to wildlite. Conservation management can be
land owners. either individuallv or through
a mitigation programs. or through tinancial
or dedication ot conservation easements tor tax
to be maintained in a natural state to support
onservation values. Beneticial management ot private lands mav include protection ot
e propertv. low intensitv land uses that provide
ermeabilitv to wildlite and maintain habitat connectivitv. and working landscapes that support
:#0VT#&'*03'0+%1!U*.%0/^%+/#0!
D%05#H0'*)
Calitornia Wilderness Coalition
Mojave Desert Land Trust
The Amargosa Conservancv
The Antelope Vallev Conservancv
The Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee
The Transition Habitat Conservancv
The Nature Conservancv
The Wilderness Land Trust
The Wildlands Conservancv
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
!
wildlite habitats. An important example ot the latter is the management ot agricultural lands in the
west Mojave to provide vital toraging and roosting areas tor bird species ($ection 5.1.5).

+.7 Conservation Management Challenges

Although manv conservation ettorts are underwav in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. and a large
number ot agencies and organizations are involved in protecting biodiversitv ot the ecoregion.
there are a number ot management challenges that currentlv hinder the tull potential ot these
collective ettorts.

+.7.1 Multiple Mandates and Constraints

The entities managing lands in the Mojave Desert each have their own mission and set ot
mandates (Tables +1 and +2). Although conservation ettorts would be most ettective it
coordinated among agencies and organizations. divergent missions and mandates otten create a
ditterent set ot longterm goals and ontheground management strategies. For example. while one
agencv might be mandated to provide tor recreational opportunities or extraction ot resources.
another mav be reouired to provide complete protection ot native ecosvstems. This ditterence in
mission constrains how closelv management strategies can be coordinated. $imilarlv. even slight
ditterences in missions can result in divergent management protocols. such as with tire
management policies.

+.7.2 Lack ot Coordinated Management

Management strategies are treouentlv not coordinated among agencies and organizations. which
can hinder ettective conservation management. For example. when a watershed is owned and
managed bv multiple agencies and private owners. a land manager with a conservation emphasis
can be adverselv attected bv an upstream land manager with a resource extraction emphasis.
Agencv mandates to provide intensive recreational opportunities mav adverselv attect adjacent
lands managed to protect high conservation values. Lack ot coordination is otten related to the
various mandates ot the agencies and organizations. and a lack ot time and resources available tor
coordination. In addition. ditterent regional tield ottices within the same agencv otten have
ditterent management priorities and interests. turther resulting in inconsistent administration and
entorcement ot land uses.

Designation ot the CDCA provided a geographic delineation tor a coordinated conservation ettort
extending to the Mojave Desert within Calitornia. Currentlv. however. onlv the BLM is mandated
to manage their lands as part ot this conservation area (BLM 1999). Although the missions and
mandates ot multiple governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations promote
conservation ot this area. there is no mandate reouiring them to work in a coordinated tashion
within the CDCA.

Creation ot the Desert Managers Oroup (DMO). an interagencv group tormed in 199+ to jointlv
address desertwide conservation. visitor services. and public satetv ettorts (DMO 2007). has
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
KR!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
!
increased coordination bv tacilitating communication and providing a torum tor sharing
intormation and discussion ot issues ot common concern. The DMO is involved in collaborative
activities such as weed management. and has a number ot working groups with varving levels ot
activitv that jointlv address a wide range ot conservation issues. including.
Conservation Land Acouisition Work Oroup
Desert Tortoise Intormation and Education Work Oroup
Desert Lands Restoration Work Oroup
Hazardous Materials Work Oroup
Mohave Oround $ouirrel Working Oroup
Paleontologv and Cultural Resources Work Oroup
Raven Management Work Oroup

$imilar to the DMO. the $outhern Nevada Agencv Partnership ($NAP) is a group ot stewardship
protessionals trom the BLM. NP$. L$FW$. and the L$DA who are tocused on the portion ot the
Mojave Desert within Nevada.

+.7.3 $ingle$pecies Focus

Manv conservation ettorts have traditionallv tocused on protecting single species. and planning tor
the recoverv ot species that have special status as threatened or endangered under state or tederal
law signiticantlv drives agencv programs and policv. In manv cases. tunding and laws necessarv to
advance conservation objectives are otten tied to a particular listed species. In the Mojave Desert.
recoverv ot the desert tortoise has absorbed much ot the conservation ettort and resources on the
part ot state and tederal agencies. However. current practitioners recognize that largescale
processes support biodiversitv. and that protecting entire ecosvstems or landscapes otten results in
a better outcome than narrowlvtocused. singlespecies conservation ($ocietv tor Conservation
Biologv 2010).

+.7.+ Knowledge Oaps and Public Misconceptions

The abilitv to ettectivelv manage and conserve the Mojave Desert is otten hindered bv a lack ot
intormation. In addition to numerous intormation gaps. the Mojave Desert sutters trom a public
image problem. Common misconceptions about the desert have limited the public's
understanding its inherent conservation value. In part due to scarce water resources. deserts in
general are tvpicallv perceived as wastelands-lands ot little to no value. This limits acceptance ot
the need to conserve desert landscapes. Wealth extracted trom the desert through mining or
grazing. tor example. otten imposes tew costs or obligations on the pursuer and the activitv is
viewed as purelv additive. Habitat destruction caused through extraction is otten ignored and lett
unremediated where habitat values are perceived to be nonexistent or negligible.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
MA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
!
+.8 Restoration Ettorts

Active restoration ot native plant
communities has been attempted at various
locations throughout the Mojave Desert.
On the whole. these ettorts have been
costlv and have resulted in onlv slow
ecological recoverv where thev have been
successtul at all. $oil biological crusts.
which are essential to the growth and
survival ot manv plant species and the
maintenance ot ecosvstem processes
($ection 3.+). have unassisted recoverv
times estimated between several vears
(Belnap and Eldridge 2003) to millennia
(Belnap and Warren 1998) depending on a
varietv ot tactors. While assisted recoverv
mav occur more rapidlv (Bowker 2007).
manv native Mojave Desert plants. such as
creosote bush (Lorr.o tr:c.rtoto) and
blackbrush (Coi.o.r. rooss:ss:o). are so
longlived and slowgrowing that restoring a
communitv to a predisturbance condition
can take decades to centuries. it it is
possible at all. Active restoration projects
that tocus on earlvsuccessional andor
postdisturbance native species such as
saltbush (Atr:ti. st.). have met with more
success. but these species are otten not
representative ot the original plant
communitv at locations that land managers
would like to restore.
T%>)!W/05'*/0.!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!/0!
+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0

x Incomplete location data and inventories
on sensitive species and communities
x Incomplete inventories ot landuse
threats andor digital data across the
ecoregion
x Incomplete understanding ot the
ouantitative interaction ot threats tor
cumulative impacts analvses
x Incomplete knowledge regarding control
ot invasive plant species
x Incomplete knowledge regarding control
and the indirect impacts ot invasive
animal species
x Incomplete understanding ot tuture
climate change
x Incomplete understanding ot
groundwater svstems
x Lack ot successtul restoration protocols
x Incomplete understanding ot the inter
relationships between nitrogen
deposition. tire. and invasive plants
x A lack ot linkage (habitat connectivitv)
planning in the Mojave Desert
x Incomplete understanding ot the direct
and indirect impacts ot largescale
development ot renewable energv
tacilities

Lltimatelv. the success or tailure ot a
restoration project can onlv be judged
against the original goals established bv
entities leading the project. Tvpical goals
tor the recoverv ot disturbed lands include visual erasure ot disturbance. recoverv ot site stabilitv
and soil structure. recoverv ot vegetation cover or composition. return ot native animals. or
recoverv ot ecosvstem processes (Belnap 200+). $everal agencies. such as the National Park $ervice.
have active restoration programs tor disturbed lands. For example. volunteers working tor the
American Conservation Experience program and AmeriCorps have worked to restore desert
tortoise habitat in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Posttire restoration research bv
L$O$ and others has been conducted in several locations. including the Pakoon Basin ot Arizona
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
MB!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I/)+/0.!"%0%.'3'0+!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
!
and loshua Tree National Park. Abandoned mines are restored bv closing adits (horizontal mine
shatts) and leveling spoil piles through the joint ettorts ot a manv tederal and state agencies and
their partners (AML 2010). however. true restoration ot desert habitats is not otten pursued.

+.9 Mitigation Programs

A varietv ot generic and specitic mitigation programs currentlv exist in the Mojave Desert. Most
mitigation obligations arise out ot permitted uses ot public land that disturb habitat or adverselv
attect other resources. Mitigation reouirements tollow a hierarchv. tirst avoid harm. then minimize
adverse ettects. and then compensate tor anv remaining harm. One specitic example ot a largescale
compensatorv mitigation program comes trom Nevada. In 1999. Congress passed what is known as
the $outhern Nevada Public Lands Management Act ($NPLMA). which allows tor the expenditure
ot 85% ot the proceeds ot public lands in and around Las Vegas to be expended on the purchase
ot environmentallv sensitive lands in $outhern Nevada. with an emphasis on Clark Countv.
Estimates ot income that mav be generated bv these sales. based upon the current land market
values and the amount ot public land identitied tor disposal under the PLMA. range trom $650
million to $1 billion. These tigures rival the amount allocated bv Congress under the Federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Criteria similar to those used bv the LWCF were initiallv
emploved during the process ot decisionmaking regarding the expenditure ot tunds trom this
program. However. ettectiveness ot implementation ot the $NPLMA mitigation program has been
uneven in recent vears. Involvement ot multiple agencv statt in the selection ot projects. combined
with the timing and availabilitv ot oualitving acouisitions. has resulted in onlv a tew. highvalue
projects.

!

Aor.oso Coror r.or Ci:ro Rorci (Pioto.roti o B:ii Cir:st:or)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
M@!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! MK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
N!! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!

The Mojave Desert has experienced a long historv ot human use and abuse (Rowlands 1995).
Manv ot the threats that plague the ecoregion are tamiliar and shared with other svstems. but a tew
are especiallv severe and broad in scope in the Mojave Desert. The arid climate. delicate soils. and
naturallv slow pace ot ecological succession render the Mojave Desert tragile and vulnerable to
disturbance. even subtle actions can have longlasting conseouences tor the ecoregion's plant and
animal communities. Exploitative use ot the desert continues to intensitv as the human population
grows and societv grapples with solutions tor persistent. global environmental problems. The
contemporarv intensitication ot old threats is coupled with the emergence ot newer threats.
leading to interactions that are ditticult to address without the involvement ot multiple agencies.
land owners. and a diverse and otten contlicting arrav ot interest groups. The ecoregion is turther
plagued bv a deepseated lack ot cultural understanding and appreciation ot its importance as a
vital. living ecosvstem worthv ot protection. Without successtul. widespread amelioration ot the
threats described in this section. much ot the Mojave Desert's conservation value mav be lost in
the vears to come.

Habitat loss and degradation are the top threats to biodiversitv conservation within the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion. The Mojave Desert is included as one ot the national hotspots ot native species
endangerment (Flather et al. 1998). with residential and industrial development cited as top causes
ot harm to biodiversitv within the region. Habitat loss. degradation. and tragmentation occur
through a varietv ot mechanisms. including both direct land conversion and slow degradation due
to dispersed. persistent uses. The expansion ot cities. including Victorville and Lancaster in
Calitornia and Las Vegas and Pahrump in Nevada. is a tamiliar threat spurred bv population
growth and cheaper housing options available at the edge ot large urban areas. From 2006 to 2007.
Victorville experienced the secondhighest population growth rate in the countrv according to the
L.$. Census Bureau. In addition. recent ettorts to rapidlv site and construct industrialscale
electrical solar power plants threaten to obliterate tens ot thousands ot acres ot native vegetation
and wildlite habitat in desert vallevs. while wind energv development is occurring along ridge tops.

In addition to habitat loss and degradation. habitat tragmentation in the Mojave Desert has
occurred as a result ot phvsical barriers such as urban development. highwavs. rail lines. dams. and
tences. Habitat connectivitv and integritv are vital tor longterm survival ot species and the
tunctionalitv ot ecological processes. Barriers restrict the movement ot species. limit gene tlow. and
prevent natural dispersal. Fragmentation along an elevational or latitudinal gradient could prevent
species trom moving to a more suitable habitat in response to a changing climate. Barriers can also
impact ecological processes such as sand deposition (Bunn et al. 2007). or tragment aouatic
habitats leaving populations isolated trom one another (Martin and Wilcox 200+). In addition to
blocking movement. roads. rail lines. utilitv corridors. and other agents ot tragmentation can serve
as vectors tor invasive species and disease. increase mortalitv rates tor numerous grounddwelling
species. and spread pollution.

Everv natural svstem is subject to disturbances. In this assessment. onlv human caused destruction.
degradation. andor impairment ot conservation targets are considered threats. Threats are
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
collectivelv comprised ot both stresses and sources ot stress. The Nature Conservancv uses the
word stress" to reter to impairment or degradation ot natural svstems. communities. or
populations. An example ot a stress would be low population size or reduced extent ot a particular
plant communitv tvpe. For each stress present within the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. there are one
or more causes or sources. $ources ot stress (also known as direct threats) are the proximate
activities or processes that have caused. are causing. or mav cause the stresses. Examples ot sources
ot stress include incompatible management practices or land development. $ources ot stress are
limited to human activities. Here we present the sources ot stress that contribute to habitat
destruction. degradation. and other torms ot impairment to natural svstems. communities. and
species in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion.

5.1 LandLse Changes

5.1.1 Lrban Expansion and Proliteration

There are about one million people residing within the Calitornia portion ot the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion (Hunter et al. 2001). and over 1.8 million within Clark Countv. Nevada alone (L.$.
Census Bureau 2009 estimate). Manv ot the cities in the Mojave have doubled in size in recent
vears. though the recession that began in 2008 has slowed the rampant growth in manv locations.
The built urban environment ot cities in the desert includes manv components. including most
notablv housing. commercial development. and transportation and utilities intrastructure.

5.1.1.1 Housing and Commercial Development

Over the past two decades. a housing boom has occurred in communities that were once small.
remote Mojave Desert towns such as Lancaster. Palmdale. Victorville. Barstow. Ridgecrest. Las
Vegas. Pahrump. Mesouite. Kingman. and $t. Oeorge (Figure 51). Even the large planned
communitv ot Calitornia Citv. which initiallv tailed to draw a substantial population. grew trom
3.200 people in 1985 to over 1+.000 in 2009. The Mojave Desert. once a landscape that most
people entered onlv temporarilv. is now the vearround home to more people than ever betore.

Residential development. which has expanded existing urban areas and spurred the incorporation
ot new communities across the ecoregion. has been tueled bv manv tactors including. a warm and
drv climate. available inexpensive land. seeminglv adeouate supplies ot water supplemented bv
projects that deliver water (e.g.. trom the Bav Delta and the Colorado River) via aoueducts.
recreational opportunities. and tavorable economic conditions. Construction jobs draw people to
the region. creating a housing boom. The building ot homes necessitates commercial development
and other intrastructure. as discussed below. Lrban development threatens the conservation value
ot the Mojave Desert directlv bv causing direct habitat loss. degradation. and tragmentation.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
MM!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
395
15
138
M
o
j
a
v
e
R
i
v
e
r
Adelanto
Apple Valley
El Mirage
Hesperia
Phelan
Victorville
Wrightwood
395
15
138
M
o
j
a
v
e
R
i
v
e
r
Adelanto
Apple Valley
El Mirage
Hesperia
Phelan
Victorville
Wrightwood
395
15
138
M
o
j
a
v
e
R
i
v
e
r
Adelanto
Apple Valley
El Mirage
Hesperia
Phelan
Victorville
Wrightwood
395
15
138
M
o
j
a
v
e
R
i
v
e
r
Adelanto
Apple Valley
El Mirage
Hesperia
Phelan
Victorville
Wrightwood
395
15
138
M
o
j
a
v
e
R
i
v
e
r
Adelanto
Apple Valley
El Mirage
Hesperia
Phelan
Victorville
Wrightwood
138
15
395
M
o
j
a
v
e
R
i
v
e
r
Adelanto
Apple Valley
El Mirage
Hesperia
Phelan
Victorville
Wrightwood
198+ 1990 199+
1998 2002 2008
Figure 5 1
Lrban and Rural Expansion
Lrban Industrial
Rural Development
Land Lse
Railroad
0 10 20 5
Kilometers
$ee Appendix A.1 tor sources
Other Features
$tate
Countv
Major River
Major Road
Other Road
0 5 10 2.5
Miles
! MN
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
MO!
5.1.1.2 Transportation Intrastructure

T
ot houses an
demanded bv modern cities. Water pipelines. elec
including towers and cable lines. and tacilitie
the built environment in cities. Roads are bulld
activities and provide to
network ot smaller paved and unpave
which is sur
ease ot road construction. lack ot regional pla
to the arid climate and slow growth ot native vege
s

W
there are plans tor a high
Orange Countv to Las Vegas. Rail lin
Earlv on. thev were emploved in the movement
longdistance movement ot treight and soon thev
has several small municipal airports. a number ot
airport at Las Vegas. Another major airport is cu
the CalitorniaNevada st
c

T
vulnerable species in a p
expansion and proliteration cause dir
disturbs and destabili
railwavs create new paths tor the invasion ot non
mortalitv ot terrestrial species through direct stri
lizards take advantage ot the heat radiating trom
vulnerable to being hit bv vehicles. The desert to
impact ot highwavs on t
on either side ot heavilv travelled roads (Hott and
ot potential habitat tor this threatened species
can prevent some ot the negative impacts ot roads
coupled with underpasses. tencing along roadwa
(

T
signiticant impact on conservation targets in the
tragmenting and degrading remainin
e

he rapid intlux ot new human residents into the Mojave Desert necessitates not onlv the building
d businesses. but also the expansion ot deliverv svstems tor all services and utilities
tric power lines. communications intrastructure
s tor storage and containment ot trash are all part ot
ozed and paved to accommodate construction
r vehicle trattic. Major highwavs connect large population centers. and a
d roads crisscrosses the Mojave Desert. This road network.
prisinglv large given the amount ot open space in the ecoregion. results trom a relative
nning. and permanence ot even unpaved roads due
tation (Figure 52). New highwavs are planned in
everal locations to accommodate the growing human population.
hile most new human communities in the Mojave Desert have limited or no local public transit.
speed rail line to connect Victorville to Las Vegas and another trom
es have existed in the Mojave tor over a centurv ($ection 2.6).
ot mining materials. now thev are used tor the
will be used tor passengers. The ecoregion also
militarv airstrips. and a larger international
rrentlv has been planned in Primm. Nevada near
ate line to service the Las Vegas area. however. recent economic
onditions have delaved or cancelled those plans.
aken alone. anv one ot these intrastructure developments could have an impact on certain
articular geographic area. All developments associated with urban
ect loss ot habitat. and the grading ot areas tor development
zes soils bv destroving sensitive soil biological crusts. Roads. highwavs. and
native invasive species. and lead to direct
kes. Because some reptiles such as snakes and
paved roads at night. thev are particularlv
rtoise is also attected bv roads. $tudies on the
he species indicate that there is a dead zone" that extends up to 1.5 miles
Marlow 1993). This results in a signiticant loss
throughout the Mojave Desert. However. tencing
on the tortoise. and studies have shown that
vs can decrease vertebrate deaths bv 98%
Boarman 1991. 1992). and allows the dead zone to be recolonized bv desert tortoises.
ogether. the multiple threats associated with urban expansion and proliteration constitute a
Mojave Desert bv destroving existing habitat.
g habitat. and using large amounts ot a water. In addition. the
xpenditure ot large amounts ot energv is reouired to transport additional water to the region.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
M o j a v e
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
l
e
y

W
a
s
h
A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
R
i v
e
r
Owens
Lake
Palmdale
Ridgecrest
Pahrump
Kingman
Twentyni ne
Palms
Victorville
Barstow
Las
Vegas
St. George
Laughlin
Lake Mead
Baker
Death
Valley
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Roads e Railroads
Figure 5 2
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Highwav or Main Road
Local Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Minor Road Dirt Road*
Railroad
* Does not include most
OHV routes.
! MP
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
MQ!
5.1.2 Electrical Oeneration and Transmission

C
dependence on toreign sources ot en
climate chan
owned land to site large power pl
electricitv. L
become incr
electrical production. The searing sunshine. strong
desert $outhwest have captured the attention ot
to the production ot elect
demand tor electricitv. reducing toreign tu
opportuni
t

I
the Department ot Energv (DOE) are preparing
Environmental Impact $tatement (PEI$) to evaluate
development on BLMadministered lands in seven
also review and make determin
tacilities prior to the completion ot the PEI$. as
tunding and state renewable porttolio standard
r

I
impatient with the permi
threats inher
tacilities. However. the impacts ot this tvpe
devastating. It poorlv sited. thes
damage. and
threats such as the spread ot invasive plants an
connectivitv is critical wh
movement ot wildlite. bu
change over longer timetrames. Orading ot natural
energv production that reouires water can lead
t

$
generation in that each has notable advantages
better suited to a given location than others. $ola
electrical en
c
ognizant ot the nation's evergrowing demand tor electricitv. the desire to reduce the countrv's
ergv. and the desire to reduce CO
2
emissions to help address
ge. manv government leaders have increasinglv voiced support tor using publiclv
ants that use the sun. wind. or geothermal energv to generate
egislators. power companies. investors. environmentalists. and the general public have
easinglv interested in the development ot renewable alternatives to tossil tueldriven
winds. and geothermal resources present in the
those looking to solve a range ot problems related
ricitv within the Lnited $tates. In addition to addressing issues related to
el dependence. and increasing emplovment
ties. proponents ot industrialscale electrical power generation in the desert argue that
hese new developments will contribute to solving the problem ot global climate change.
n response to the surge in applications bv energv companies to develop public land. the BLM and
a $olar Energv Development Programmatic
potential impacts ot utilitvscale solar energv
western states (Figure 53). However. BLM will
ations on manv applications tor proposed renewable energv
the timelimited availabilitv ot tederal stimulus
s have placed considerable pressure on the
egulatorv agencies to ouicklv review these project proposals.
n light ot the potential longterm benetits that renewable energv could provide. manv are
t review process. which weighs those potential benetits against the real
ent in the construction and operation ot industrialscale electrical power generating
ot development are signiticant and potentiallv
e tacilities and their associated transmission corridors can destrov.
tragment important habitat tor desert plants and animals and exacerbate other
d associated wildtires. Consideration ot landscape
en siting tacilities. as power plants might not onlv restrict seasonal
t also prevent some species trom moving to adapt to tuture climate
areas tor development disturbs tragile soils. and
to groundwater overdratt. causing degradation ot
ragile aouatic habitats on which manv desert species depend.
5.1.2.1 Ditterences in Impacts ot Proposed Technologies
olar. wind. and geothermal technologies are similar to other methods ot industrialscale electricitv
and disadvantages. and some technologies are
r photovoltaic (PV) panels convert sunlight into
ergv without using an intermediate step ot a steam turbine. The technologv thev
ontain is proven and simple. but thev reouire more land to generate a given amount ot electricitv
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark Mtn
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Proposed
Electricitv Oeneration
Figure 5 3
Project Area
0 20 +0 10
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Mojave Desert
Proposed Transmission Lines
Voltage Class
# # # #
DC Line
Lnder 100
100 3+5
500
Proposed Electricitv Oeneration
$olar
Wind
Other Features
$tate
Countv
Major River
Major Road
Other Road
Electricitv Oeneration Zones
BLM $olar Energv $tudv Area
CA RETI
Certitied Renewable Energv Zone
Includes tootprint ot BLM rightotwav
applications tor CA and AZ. point
locations tor NV. CA. and AZ.
CA locations accessed 91310.
! MR
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NA!
t
great deal ot water. a resource that is limited
Desert. Power towers also pose a risk
technologv result in signiticant disturbance (in so
$tirling engine technologies reouire le
t
p

A
industrv norm. The site is tvpicallv cle
eouipment and to preven
cleared zones under and around the s
access roads and a surrounding securi
Because som
atter disturbance. development ot thi
even it all ot the installed eouipment is re
disturbance to tragile soil biologic
pollution as soils are whi
tacilitv is sim
side. the great expanse ot exposed. disturbed so
susceptible t
s

I
power plants in the desert. these tacilities mav
photovolataic installation
panels. Power companies have indicated that
megawatt (MW) per vear might be needed tor
solar power tower technologies heat a transter tluid
steam and turn the turbines that generate electric
and washing mirrors. In addition. it a plant us
turbines. ind
r

T
trom aouiters or purchased through a
$EO$ IIIVII plant at Kramer lunction purchased
Kern Water Agencv. which obtained this water
electricitv reouired to pump water trom the $acram
g

L
Polarized light pollution trom PV
t
han other solar technologies. Parabolic trough and solar power tower technologies can consume a
in both amount and distribution in the Mojave
to birds. bats. and insects. Both tvpes ot solar thermal
me cases laserleveling) ot tragile soils and plants.
ss water and can cause less soil and vegetation disturbance
han solar trough or power towers. but the technologv is relativelv unproven at the scales currentlv
roposed.
solar parabolic trough installation or solar power tower site reouires tlat land. and grading is the
ared ot all vegetation to allow access to the installed
t tires. Herbicides mav be spraved or vegetation mowed to maintain
olar tields. These tacilities tvpicallv include numerous graded
tv tence that prevents movement ot wildlite through the site.
e native plant species in the Mojave mav take decades or even centuries to recolonize
s tvpe has longterm conseouences that cannot be undone.
moved and restoration attempts are made. The
al crusts can destabilize soils. leading to increased particulate air
pped bv tierce desert winds. In total. the surtace disturbance at a solar
ilar in intensitv to commercial tacilities such as warehouses. with an additional down
ils tound onsite and on associated roads is
o invasion bv nonnative invasive plants. and can serve as a reservoir ot invasive
pecies. turthering their dispersal into nearbv natural lands.
n addition to the direct habitat loss associated with the construction ot industrialscale electrical
have a strong impact on water resources. While
s reouire no water to generate electricitv. water is reouired to wash
between two and 10 acreteet ot water per 100
this purpose (TNC 2008). Parabolic trough and
that is in turn used to heat water to create
itv. Water is also reouired tor the steam circuit
es wetcooling ot the exhaust steam trom its
ustrv standards indicate that up to 600 acreteet ot water per 100 MW per vear mav be
eouired.
he proposed sources ot water tor manv tuture solar tacilities are unclear. Water mav be drawn
water district and pumped to the site. For example. the
cooling water trom the Antelope Vallev East
trom the $tate Water Project. The amount ot
ento$an loaouin Delta to the Mojave Desert to
enerate one MW ot electricitv using solar technologies has not vet been calculated (TNC 2008).
ight and noise pollution associated with electrical power plants can be problematic tor wildlite.
panels can attract aouatic insects and other species that mistake
he panels tor bodies ot water. potentiallv leading to population decline or even local extinction ot
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
some organisms (Horvath et al. 2010). Nighttime lighting tor securitv or other reasons mav
negativelv impact a varietv ot Mojave Desert species. manv ot which have developed nocturnal
behavior to escape the davtime heat ot the desert. In addition. solar thermal plants that emplov drv
cooling generate noise pollution through the use ot large tans. $ome ot these tvpes ot pollution
mav be reduced or eliminated through changes in design as technologies improve.

Environmental impact studies on wind tarms have documented mortalitv ot birds and bats that
strike turbines or are butteted bv the turbulence generated bv the rotating blades. As some ot the
ideal locations tor siting wind tarms are in mountain passes. which migratorv birds mav use to
traverse mountain ranges. bird strikes are ot particular concern. Quantitving mortalitv due to
collisions on wind tarms is ditticult. but research indicates that mortalitv is greater in areas that
have more birds. In addition. the access roads used in the construction and maintenance and
construction ot wind tarms mav cause signiticant damage directlv and indirectlv bv providing
corridors tor the spread and establishment ot invasive plants. which mav in turn promote more
treouent and severe tires.

5.1.2.2 Transmission Lines and Ltilitv Corridors

Transmission lines extend across the Mojave Desert. carrving electricitv trom sites ot generation to
sites ot consumption in urban centers (Figure 5+). With the development ot more industrialscale
electrical generation plants in the desert. there are calls tor more transmission lines to distribute
electricitv to the sites where it is used. The construction. operation. and maintenance ot these
transmission lines and associated access roads and other intrastructure cause habitat loss.
degradation. and tragmentation. Manv ot the problems associated with wind tarms applv to
transmission lines as well. road construction disrupts soils. uproots plants. and creates barriers
between patches ot habitat. Disturbed soils promote the invasion ot nonnative plants. Lnder
certain conditions. transmission lines can be associated with increased tire risk. In addition.
transmission towers can serve as Raven perching and nesting sites. providing them with ideal
vantage points trom which thev can conserve energv while hunting. Ravens can then exert a
potentiallv devastating ettect on newlvhatched desert tortoise as well as numerous other small
animal species.

Transmission lines. like wind turbines and power towers. also pose a direct threat to birds and bats
when these animals strike them in midair. Mortalitv estimates due to these strikes varv greatlv bv
species. location. and date. but estimates have been as high as 200 tatalities per mile ot
transmission line per vear in some areas (Faanes 1987).

5.1.2.3 Other Related Intrastructure

Industrialscale electrical power plants reouire maintenance. A statt ot technicians. engineers. and
other personnel will be reouired on site as these tacilities generate electricitv. Because manv ot the
proposed locations tor these power plants are remote. it is highlv likelv that new urban
development will occur in locations close to the new power plants. Housing. roads. and associated
intrastructure constitute a signiticant threat to biodiversitv in the desert ($ection 5.1.1).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NB!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
N@!
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Ari zona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorvil le
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bul lion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Valley
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Current Electricitv
Oeneration e Transmission
Figure 5 +
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Project Area
Mojave Desert
Electricitv Oenerating Lnit
Tvpe. megawatts
Non $olar
Transmission Line
Voltage Class
# # # #
DC Line
Lnder 100
100 3+5
500
Other Features
$tate
Countv
Major River
Major Road
Other Road
Combined Cvcle
Oas Turbine
Oeothermal
Hvdraulic Turbine
Internal Combustion Turbine
Wind Turbine
()
*+
,-
&.
#/
01
Photovoltaic 5.2
Photovoltaic 10
Photovoltaic 30
$team Turbine 15
$team Turbine 30 36
$team Turbine > 60
#%
#%
#%
#%
#%
#%
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NK!
4/)G!#C!T*#;05H%+'*!J3>%/*3'0+!

The bistate Amargosa River (Figure 55). apart
trom rare storm events. is whollv dependent on
groundwater. The Death Vallev Regional Flow
$vstem. a hvdrologicallv complex series ot aouiters.
supplies the vital perennial streams. seeps. and
springs that in turn keep the river tlowing vear
round. Oroundwater pumping has lowered the
water table and dried up desert springs. and
threatens the natural communities that are whollv
dependent on groundwaterted surtace water.
Legal controls on groundwater pumping and
protection ot water tor biodiversitv are weak in
Calitornia and Nevada.

I
asso
interest in industrialscale
reminded us vet again how scarce wat
water use sh
tor various uses. in combination with rapid popu
serious concern over tuture water availabilitv
a

M
the Mojave Desert comes trom one ot
the major drainage svste
ecoregion. which include the Colorado
River. the Virgin River. the Muddv
River. the Mojave River. the Amargosa
River. the White River drainage svstem.
and the Meadow Vall
(Figure 22). Additionallv. manv towns.
cities. and in
water trom groundwater basin
ted bv precipitation in nearbv
watersheds. A large amount ot water is
also imported into the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion tr
W

W
ecoregion (Flather et al. 1998). Even plant communiti
negativelv impacted when water tables drop du
(Figure 55). Lrban and industrial development. ag
the use. diversion. and contamination ot waters
riparian svstems is impacted to varvin
g
w

D
River (CRWQCB 2005). and large am
Ecoregion. $
Desert is used within the ecoregion. but much ot i
other parts ot Arizona an
its tlow and sedimentation patterns have been
t
iversion and apportionment ot the Colorado River occurs according to the 1932 Law ot the
ounts ot water are removed upstream ot the Mojave Desert
ome ot the water withdrawn trom the Colorado River as it tlows through the Mojave
t is exported tor domestic and agricultural use in
d Calitornia. $o much water is withdrawn trom the Colorado River that
greatlv altered (Pitt 2001). In addition. the
loodplains ot the Colorado River have been converted in manv places trom native riparian
n the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. urban development. agriculture. and mining activities are all
ciated with groundwater pumping. water diversions. and streambed moditications. Newtound
electricitv production through the use ot solar thermal technologies has
er resources are in this region. and raised the issue ot how
ould be monitored andor regulated. In recent vears. an expanding demand tor water
lation growth and climate change. has led to
. and called into ouestion how development.
griculture. and vulnerable natural ecosvstems can coexist in the arid Mojave Desert.
ater diversion is one ot the tive most commonlvcited causes ot species endangerment in the
es not tvpicallv associated with water can be
e to excessive dumping and groundwater overdratt
riculture. roads. and mining all contribute to
heds and water resources. Each ot the major
g degrees bv diversion ot surtace waters. overdratt ot
roundwater. or the impending threat ot massive residential development occurring in their
atersheds.
uch ot the desertderived water used in
ms within the
ev Wash svstem
dustrial operations extract
s that are
om the Calitornia $tate
ater Project.
5.1.3 Oroundwater Pumping. Water Diversions. and $treambed Moditications
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Beatty
Tecopa
Badwater
Pahrump
A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
23
95
23
160
Amargosa Hvdrologv
Figure 5 5
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 5 10 2.5
Miles
0 10 20 5
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Raod
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
$eep or $pring
Pumping Well
Hvdrographic area where
pumpage exceeds
100 million cubic meters (Mm
3
)
#
#%
! NM
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NN!
c
n

T
and riparian habitats. all ot which are tied to gr
water sources. M
o

O
groundwater and surtace water is crucial to dete
and their abilities to recharge. In addi
a

R
$tates. with over +0 million participants na
pastime is rapidlv increasing in the desert $o
registered OHV users in
and Recreation 2002). On anv given weekend. more
and racing trucks can gat
o

O
biological crusts and natural de
soil compact
1982). $oils that have been distur
to human health risks. Di
plants. manv ot which are capable ot carrving tire
soil biological crusts and natural desert pavement
can cause lo
1983). Exposure to the l
ot the central auditorv svstem and increased mortal
evolved sensitive hearing to detect pre
demonstrated that re
u

C
occurrence. leading to destruction and tragment
ditticulties o
and inappropriate OHV use is huge. Even where publ
open. trail onlv. and special uses. protection ot co
entorcement and inadeouate rider education remain
p
ottonwood and willow habitats to agriculture (Marshall et al. 2000). or have been invaded bv non
ative tamarisk (Pott et al. 1997. Briggs and Cornelius 1998).
hroughout the Mojave Desert. groundwater extraction threatens springs. seeps. cienagas. lakes.
oundwater levels. and depend on them tor renewed
anv worrv about aouiter contamination. and the tact that the current rates ot use
t groundwater resources in the Mojave Desert are not sustainable over time (Brown et al. 2007).
aining a better understanding ot the ecoregion's hvdrologv. particularlv the connections between
rmining the tolerances ot the hvdrologic svstems
tion. we lack intormation about the abilitv ot some species
nd communities to adapt to changing water availabilitv. oualitv. or timing ot deliverv.
5.1.+ Recreational Otthighwav Vehicle Lse
ecreational otthighwav vehicle (OHV) use has become a popular activitv throughout the Lnited
tionwide in 20052007 (Cordell et al. 2008). This
uthwest and in Calitornia alone. the number ot
creased bv 108% between 1985 and 2002 (Calitornia Department ot Parks
than +0.000 motorcvclists. dunebuggv riders.
her at a single location. and activities range trom casual use to highlv
rganized. welltunded. competitive ottroad racing across hundreds ot miles ot public land.
tthighwav vehicle use directlv kills native plants and animals. damages and destrovs soil
sert pavement (Wilshire 1983. Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). causes
ion. alters water runott patterns. and promotes erosion (Iverson 1980. Adams et al.
bed bv OHVs are susceptible to wind and water erosion. leading
sturbed soils are also vulnerable to the spread ot invasive nonnative
when ignited bv sparks trom an OHV. Because
torm over decades to centuries. their destruction
ngterm problems. In addition. OHVs create noise pollution (Brattstrom and Bondello
ow treouencv noise produced bv OHVs results in signiticant degeneration
itv in species such as kangaroo rats. which have
dators (McOinn and Faddis 1997). $tudies have
ptiles. small mammals. and plants have reduced densitv and biomass in OHV
se areas (e.g.. Burv et al. 1977. Lathrop 1983. Oroom et al. 2007).
reation ot undesignated routes through repeated unregulated use ot public land is a common
ation ot otherwise intact habitat. Due to the
t regulating a widespread activitv in a vast landscape. the potential tor OHV trespass
ic lands managers have designated areas tor
nservation targets is not enhanced. Insutticient
huge problems that must be overcome betore
ublic lands are protected trom destruction bv OHV use.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
5.1.5 Agriculture

Farming results in a number ot direct threats to natural svstems and native species in the Mojave
Desert. Agriculture necessitates the removal ot native vegetation. causing a loss ot habitat tor native
plants and animals. Tillage results in the destruction ot soil biological crusts. which destabilizes soil
and makes it vulnerable to erosion bv wind and water. The disruption ot soils otten tacilitates the
growth ot nonnative invasive plants. which can grow ouicklv and outcompete native plants. Lse ot
tertilizers and production ot manure in dairving operations can elevate the nutrient content ot
agricultural soils. turther encouraging the growth ot weeds. Abandoned agricultural tields do not
necessarilv return to native vegetation. as it is ditticult tor native species to become reestablished in
areas dominated bv nonnative invasive plant species.

$ome tvpes ot agriculture. such as altalta tarming. reouire large amounts ot water. It groundwater
aouiters are tapped tor this purpose. tarming can lead to a drop in groundwater levels and a tull
suite ot deleterious ettects to waterdependent species ($ection 5.1.3). As an example. groundwater
pumping tor agricultural purposes in the Ash Meadows area threatened the endangered Devil's
Hole puptish with extinction in the late 1960s to earlv 1970s. This eventuallv led to a landmark
$upreme Court decision in 1976 (Cappaert vs. L.$.). which recognized the prioritv ot a tederal
reserved water right. created when Devil's Hole was originallv added to Death Vallev National
Monument. over subseouent state water rights (NP$ 2010). In addition to depleting water
resources. irrigation ot tilled andor tertilized tields can result in the contamination ot waterwavs.
causing negative conseouences tor aouatic species downstream ot tarms. Various tarming practices
such as tertilization. burning. and dairv operations can lead to emissions ot airborne pollutants.
which can negativelv impact conservation targets ($ection 5.3).

Despite the threats to biodiversitv caused bv agricultural practices. it is important to note that
some native species can benetit trom tarming. Irrigated crops can provide cover. nesting habitat.
torage. migratorv stopovers. andor hunting opportunities tor some species ot native birds.
including hawks. ibises. plovers. and Burrowing Owls. In this wav. agriculture can sometimes
provide greater conservation value tor some species than other tvpes ot human land use.

5.1.6 Livestock Orazing

The grazing ot livestock in the Mojave Desert occurs both on privatelv owned land and on several
large livestock allotments located on BLM and L.$. Forest $ervice lands. Livestock grazing results
in welldocumented impacts that can threaten conservation targets. Oiven the historv ot livestock
grazing in the desert. manv ot these impacts have been occurring tor over a centurv. In some
locations. where allotments have been retired. recoverv is underwav. At other sites. intense grazing
over manv decades resulted in severelvdegraded landscapes with little evidence ot recoverv ot
native plants and animals to date.

Direct impacts ot grazing bv cattle. sheep. horses. or teral burros include removal ot native
vegetation. The degree to which vegetation is removed depends on how the grazing is managed.
but it is largelv uncontrolled in the case ot herds ot teral horses and burros. manv ot which are
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NO!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
located in Nevada. It not properlv managed. grazing can greatlv alter plant cover. biomass.
composition. and structure ot native vegetation communities. impact sensitive plants and native
species that relv on them. and cause extensive erosion and damage to sensitive soils. $oil damage
can. in turn. impede nutrient cvcling. such as nitrogen tixation bv soil biological crusts (Belnap et
al. 199+. $oils disturbed bv hooved ungulates are vulnerable to invasion bv nonnative plants.
which can. in turn. promote tire. Moditication ot native vegetation communities can impact
terrestrial and aouatic animal species. and trampling can collapse small mammal and reptile
burrows.

Although the negative impacts ot overgrazing have long been recognized (Bentlev 1989. cited in
Lovich and Bainbridge 1999). there mav be cases where limited and selective grazing provides the
onlv economicallv teasible tool available tor the control ot invasive nonnative species. Certainlv.
the risks and benetits ot livestock grazing depend on management protocols and the setting in
which grazing occurs. and on the precipitation and other weather conditions betore. during and
atter grazing. For this reason. grazing on public lands has been judged to be a major Federal action
reouiring an environmental impact statement mandated bv the NEPA (BLM 1999).

The impact ot livestock grazing on desert environments is not tullv understood. because ot the lack
ot longterm studies and the raritv ot undisturbed control" sites (Lovich and Bainbridge 1999).
Desert environments where torage and water are naturallv limited mav be especiallv sensitive to
cattle grazing. In arid desert environments. cattle depend on troughs and other artiticial water
sources tor survival. These artiticial water sources can tacilitate the range expansion ot native
predators (such as Ravens or covotes). allowing them to persist in locations where thev otherwise
could not survive. and thus to prev on native animals thev otherwise would not be able to reach.
Roads that are cut to supplv and service livestock intrastructure (tences. corrals. troughs. pumps.
etc.) tragment and degrade patches ot native vegetation.

Where livestock have access to riparian habitat. creekside congregation ot herds can alter stream
channel morphologv. water oualitv and ouantitv. and the structure ot riparian soils (Kauttman and
Krueger 198+. Platts 1981. ouoted in Fleischner 199+). Because riparian svstems are a rare habitat
tvpe in the Mojave Desert and support a large component ot the desert's biodiversitv ($ection 3.1).
concentration ot cattle in these areas can magnitv the negative impacts ot grazing. Research in the
western Mojave Desert has demonstrated that protection ot riparian areas trom disturbances such
as livestock grazing and OHV use. through installation ot protective tencing. can result in
measurable improvements in vegetation biomass. seed biomass. cover ot perennial shrubs. and
rodent densitv and diversitv (Brooks 1995).

5.1.7 Mining

Mining has occurred in the Mojave Desert tor over a centurv. Historicallv. mines were much
smaller than manv ot the openpit sites operating todav. Over time. land in the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion has been mined tor borates. talc. copper. lead. zinc. coal. calcite. tungsten. strontium.
uranium. precious metals such as gold and silver. gem oualitv nonmetals. and building materials
such as sand. gvpsum. cinders. decorative rock. and gravel (BLM 1999. Calitornia $tate Parks
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NP!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
2005). All ot these activities lead to surtace disturbances. and result in damage to desert soils and
destrov tragile soil biological crusts. leading to erosion and negative conseouences tor water and air
oualitv. $trip and open pit mining are the most visiblv destructive to terrestrial habitat. Openpit
mines provide ideal sites tor invasive nonnative plants. Manv mining operations reouire huge
amounts ot water tor processing (millions ot gallons dailv). which can also impact the local water
availabilitv it groundwater overdratt occurs. In addition. mines. such as those tor gold. mav also be
signiticant sources ot pollution it thev use cvanide or mercurv processing. Oravel and sand mining
that occurs in desert washes. mountain toothills. and alluvial tans can severelv alter the natural
hvdrologv ot a site. leading to changes in the intiltration ot water into groundwater aouiters.
Mining ot active materials contributes to high levels ot tugitive dust and airborne toxicants
(Chattee and Berrv 2006). Additionallv. atter these material sites have plaved out" thev are lett
behind as depressions in the landscape with altered soil morphologv otten serving as ideal nurserv
sites tor invasive weeds. Finallv. access roads leading to mines destrov and tragment habitat. and
lead to a varietv ot problems detailed above.

5.1.8 Militarv Activities

Militarv training. maneuvers. and bombing practice can have a signiticant impact on conservation
targets. Data trom L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice records through 1996 indicated that nationwide.
+% ot tederallvlisted species are harmed bv militarv activities (Wilcove .t oi. 2000). Militarv
training and maneuvers conducted in the Mojave Desert have increased in recent vears as the L.$.
Armed Forces prepare tor engagements in the deserts ot the Middle East and central Asia (Figure
56). At least one species. the desert tortoise. has suttered high mortalitv atter being relocated
during the expansion ot Ft. Irwin in Calitornia. Despite these negative ettects. lands owned and
managed bv the militarv can varv a great deal in conservation value. and some species can benetit
trom the lack ot public access imposed on militarv lands. Ettorts to butter militarv installations
trom encroaching developments can also have important conservation cobenetits.

5.1.9 Waste Disposal

The desert has long been a tinal resting place tor waste and other materials that are no longer
wanted. Landtills and open dumps are tilled not onlv with local municipal waste. but also
industrial materials. mining slag. construction debris. sewage sludge residue. radioactive materials.
and municipal waste trom cities throughout the $outhwest. While the arid environment ot the
desert ensures that the waste sites are relativelv inert. it also results in slow decomposition. and
historic trash heaps are easv to tind.

Waste disposal in the desert has manv conseouences. including direct destruction ot habitat.
tragmentation bv roads. and contamination ot soils. air. and groundwater. Waste disposal sites are
tvpicallv untit tor other uses atter thev have served their storage purpose. In addition. the edible
waste in uncovered landtills subsidizes native predators such as covotes and Ravens. increasing
their populations and causing considerable damage to prev species such as rodents and reptiles.
including desert tortoise hatchlings. $uch subsidized predation ot desert tortoises was identitied as
one ot the major sources ot population decline in the species' recoverv plan (L$FW$ 199+).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
NQ!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! 2;.;)+!@ABA!
Laughlin
Nellis
AFB
Ash
Meadows
NWR
Mesquite
Needles
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
iv
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
lle
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r
M
u
d
d
y
R
i
v
e
r
Palmdale
Ridgecrest
Pahrump
Kingman
Twentynine
Palms
Victorvil le
Barstow
Las Vegas
St. George
Edwards
AFB
China Lake
NAW$
Death Vallev
National Park
Nevada
Test $ite Desert
National Wildlite
Range
$pring
Mountains
Nellis
AFTR
Lake Mead
Mojave
National Preserve
Fort Irwin
NTC
China Lake
NAW$
Twentvnine Palms
AOCC
loshua Tree
National Park
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
Owens
Lake
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Militarv Expansion
Figure 5 6
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Militarv Expansion
Fort Irwin. completed
Twentvnine Palms. proposed
Land Ownership
Local lurisdiction
$tate Lands
L$ Bureau ot Indian Attairs
L$ Department ot Energv
L$ Forest $ervice
Private Land
! NR
"#$%&'!(')'*
!
89'!:%+;*'!
+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
6#0)'*&%0-<! ! 2;.;)+!@ABA

T
h
5.2 Invasive Nonnative $pecies

I
insects. amphibians. and
and indirect. because thev can moditv native
species. and alter ecological processes including hv
agricultural crops and harm human health. Next to
the second most common cause ot L.$. speci
1996). It is bevond the scope ot this assessment to
species that threaten the Mojave
species in th
p

A
widespread. and ot great concern to conservation
purposetul planting and others were brought in a
and become invasive atter human
natives with a competitive advantag
to the soil otten make conditions more tavora
change mav benetit invasive species beca
enhance production ot species such as nonnati
1999). In ad
plants where thev occur. Even small increases in
densitv and biomass ot n
invaders in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion can be
e
nvasive nonnative species come in manv taxonomic torms. including plants. mammals. tish.
reptiles. These nonnative species have multiple negative impacts. direct
plant and animal communities. endanger native
drologv and tire regimes. Thev can also threaten
habitat loss. nonnative species are considered
es being listed as threatened or endangered (Randall
discuss all the potential invasive nonnative
Desert. Rather. we introduce some ot the most common invasive
e ecoregion. address their general impacts. and discuss in more detail one ot the most
roblematic and ditticulttocontrol plant invaders.
number ot nonnative plant species are well established in the Mojave Desert. generallv
biologists. $ome were introduced through both
ccidentallv. Manv nonnative plant species spread
activities moditv the environment in wavs that provide non
e. $oil disturbance. changes in soil tauna. or other alterations
ble tor nonnative plant species. Olobal climate
use increased levels ot atmospheric CO
2
are known to
ve annual grasses and torbs (Brooks and Berrv
dition. nitrogen inputs trom anthropogenic air pollutants can benetit nonnative
nitrogen have been associated with increased
onnatives (Brooks 2003. $ection 5.3). The most prominent plant
assigned to the tollowing three broad categories.
ach ot which has a ditterent invasion pattern. though all pose serious threats to biodiversitv.
amaris is perhaps one ot the most problematic and ditticult to control invaders. Though it mav
ave been introduced into North America bv $paniards. tamarisk didn't became widelv distributed
3. Riparian $hrubs. Invasive nonnative riparian shrub species mav change hvdrological
processes. outcompete native riparian plant communities. and alter habitat tor a number ot
ripariandependent animal species. The most common riparian invader in the Mojave
Desert is tamarisk (Toor: stt.).
2. Forbs. Invasive nonnative torbs can suppress and outcompete native annual plants. mav
deplete soils ot important nutrients and decrease soil moisture. and can increase tire
treouencv and size. $ahara mustard (Bross:co tourr./ort::) and Russian thistle (Soisoio tro.us)
are two ot the most common invasive torbs in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion.
1. Orasses. Nonnative grass species that are highlv invasive in the Mojave include red brome
(Brous ruo.rs). cheatgrass (Brous t.ctoru). ripgut brome (Brous c:orcrus). and schismus
(Sci:sus oorootus). These species can spread rapidlv. increase plant cover. and increase the
treouencv and size ot tires. This socalled grasstire cvcle has transtormed native shrub
dominated plant communities into primarilv grassdominated landscapes in some parts ot
the Mojave Desert.
OA!
!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
!
until the 1800s. when it was planted as an ornamental plant. as windbreaks. and tor shade and
riverbank stabilization. it is now tound throughout nearlv all western and southwestern states
(Lovich 2000). Tamarisk impacts native wildlite bv changing the communitv composition ot torage
plants. changing the structure ot native riparian svstems. and causing surtace water sources to drv
up. It has. tor example. been reported to have negative impacts on native puptish species (Kennedv
et al. 2005). Along streambeds. tamarisk otten spreads trom the edges to the middle. therebv
narrowing the stream channel and increasing the potential tor tlood damage (Calitornia $tate
Parks 2005). It has been tound to alter the breakdown ot organic materials in desert streams
(Kennedv and Hobbie 200+). and it exudes salt above and below the ground that can inhibit the
establishment ot other plants ($udbrock 1993). Tamarisk tolerates a wide range ot soil tvpes. but is
most commonlv tound in soils that are seasonallv saturated (Brotherson and Field 1987). A mature
saltcedar can produce hundreds ot thousands ot seeds that are easilv dispersed bv wind and water
($udbrock 1993). $eeds have been known to germinate while still tloating on water. and seedlings
mav grow up to a toot per month in earlv spring ($udbrock 1993). Areas most threatened bv
tamarisk include riparian habitats. washes. and plavas (Figure 22. $ection 2.5). Ettorts to slow the
advance ot tamarisk have been complicated bv the tact that the $outhwestern Willow Flvcatcher
(Et:coro .t:us tro:i::). uses tamarisk stands tor nesting along the Colorado River and its
tributaries (L$O$ 2009a). In lune. 2010 the L$DA released a memo stating that is will not permit
the interstate movement ot the saltcedar leat beetle introduced as a biological control agent tor
tamarisk until endangered species issues are resolved." This highlights one ot the weaknesses ot
singlespecies tocus in conservation management.

The Mojave Desert is also threatened bv a number ot nonnative. invasive animal species. $ome ot
these. such as teral goats. horses. and burros are large herbivores that were historicallv managed.
Although treeranging goats. sheep. and horses have been removed trom most locations in the
Mojave Desert. teral burro populations still persist. Wild burros can have similar environmental
impacts as domestic livestock ($ection 5.1.6). However. aspects ot their behavior and phvsiologv
likelv make their potential impacts on the desert environment unioue when compared to cattle.
Although both species are dependent on water. the digestive svstems ot burros ditter trom those ot
ruminant cattle. allowing them to go without water tor longer time periods (Dill et al. 1980).
Burros are also more agile and better able to negotiate rugged terrain. Both ot these attributes
make it likelv that burros will disperse greater distances and have a wider impact on desert lands.
In the Orand Canvon. longterm grazing bv burros was reported to cause the near extinction ot
burrobush. which acts as an important nurse plant" tor other plants such as barrel cacti and
saguaros (Webb and Bowers 1993). Loss ot burrobush due to grazing was hvpothesized to have
impeded recruitment ot barrel cacti. causing an observed discontinuitv in population age structure
(Bowers 1997).

Burros mav be particularlv damaging to desert riparian habitat. where thev treouentlv congregate.
bv increasing sedimentation and nitrogen levels in water sources and competing tor water with
native wildlite such as bighorn sheep (Bunn et al. 2007). Indeed. studies have tound evidence ot
competition between burros and bighorn sheep in desert environments (Marshal et al. 2008).
Burros are protected under the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act. and although target management
numbers were established bv the Bureau ot Land Management prior to 1980 as part ot an ettort to
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! 2;.;)+!@ABA!
OB!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
!
limit their numbers. current population sizes still exceed established targets (BLM 1999. Bunn et
al. 2007).

Other nonnative animals in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion include bulltrogs (Roro cot.so.:oro).
cravtish (Procooorus ciori:o). and western mosouitotish (Goous:o o//:r:s). which negativelv impact
native aouatic species (L$FW$ 1986. Ivanvi 2000. Calitornia $tate Parks 2005. L$O$ 2010).
Terrestrial invaders include European starlings (Sturrus :ui.or:s). wild turkevs (M.i.o.r:s .oiioto:o).
honevbees (At:s .ii:/.ro). and brownheaded cowbirds (Moiotirus ot.r). All ot these have had some
level ot impact on native species and their habitat via competition. predation. or parasitism. Other
nonnative invasive animals. otten associated with urban areas and other humandominated
landscapes and documented to threaten native species. include domestic dogs (Cor:s iutus
/o:i:or:s) and cats (F.i:s cotus). Argentine ants (L:r.t:ti.o iu:i.) (Holwav 2005). and tire ants
(Forvs et al. 2002). The introduction and spread ot these invasive animals are tacilitated bv
development and tragmentation. but manv ot them can spread tar bevond these disturbed areas.

5.3 Deposition ot Air Pollutants

Increasing amounts ot nitrogen entering the atmosphere trom automobiles. agriculture. and
industrial emissions have. in turn. increased the amount ot nitrogen deposited across the
landscape (i.e.. nitrogen deposition). Nitrogen deposition continues to increase and is recognized
as a serious threat to natural ecosvstems and biodiversitv (Fenn et al. 2003). Nitrogen deposition
can negativelv impact native desert ecosvstems through three primarv mechanisms. 1) direct
toxicitv to plants (e.g.. 100% ot sagebrush seedlings died when grown experimentallv in soils with
nitrogen levels similar to soil levels measured near Riverside. Calitornia). 2) changes in
composition ot native plants. and 3) promoting invasive species (Weiss 2006. Brooks 2003.
$ection 5.2). Elevated levels ot nitrogencontaining pollutants also impact air oualitv and
contribute to impaired visibilitv. therebv impacting the aesthetic value ot open spaces and
wildlands (Fenn et al. 2003). Because deserts are naturallv nitrogen limited. even small additions ot
nitrogen mav benetit nonnative plants (Brooks and Berrv 1999. Brooks 2003). and verv small
increases in available nitrogen levels. such as 3.2 g m
2
vr
1
. can increase nonnative plants and
decrease native annual plants (Brooks 2003). Nitrogen deposition rates have been reported to be as
high as +.5 g m
2
vr
1
in the Los Angeles Basin (Brooks and Berrv 1999). Nitrogen deposition
theretore creates a risk to desert vegetation communities such as desert scrub. sand dunes. and
alkali sinks (Weiss 2006). and contributes indirectlv to altered tire regimes. which turther promote
tvpe conversion. loss ot native plant species. and negative impacts on native animal species due to
changes in habitat oualitv ($ection 5.+). Ot 11 western states tested. Calitornia had bv tar the
highest nitrogen deposition levels (Fenn et al. 2003).

Additional research and monitoring ot nitrogen deposition is needed within the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion (Adams 2003. Fenn et al. 2003). however. several monitoring studies suggest that the
Mojave Desert is experiencing especiallv high deposition rates (Figure 57). Model results suggest
that areas adjacent to urban areas in southern Calitornia represented one ot several hotspots tor
total nitrogen deposition (Fenn et al. 2003. Figure 57). In western states. primarv nitrogen
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! 2;.;)+!@ABA!
O@!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Mojave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Nitrogen Deposition (CA)
Figure 5 7
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Nitrogen Deposition
kg N ha vr
less than 1
1 to 2
2 to 3
3 to +
+ to 5
5 to 6
6 to 7
7 to 8
more than 8
! OK
"#$%&'!(')'*
!
89'!:%+;*'!
+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
6#0)'*&%0-<! OM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
e
power plants. An unknown amount ot nitrogen co
Asia (Fenn et al. 2003). Deposition is likelv high
be high downwind ot agr
Lnited $tate
transportation sources are projected to
s
2

W
more accuratelv describe
emission ot these contam
Calitornia A
Department ot Air Qualitv Management and th
implement air pollution control reouirements in the Mojave Desert ot Nevada. and the Air
Qualitv Division ot the Arizona Department ot Envi
Arizona. Th
Desert. Airborne pollutants include gaseous. liou
tugitive dust to heavv metals. Mining. metal sm
production. and a host ot other activities releas
airborne pollutants can negativelv impact cons
contained in
disease in desert tortoise. is suspected
2002). Waterdependent species are pa
a

F
ignition rates. and an in
caused bv lightning. the increase in ignition
in humancaused tires (Brooks an
increase tire intensitv and size. are mainlv a re
described in $ection 3.6.+.. most ot t
dominant creosote bush scrub comm
tires in these vegetation communities were rare
limited biom
Rogers 1986. Brown and
nonnative grasses and $ahara mustard. provide a
b

I
Mojave Desert. estimates ot historical intertire
v
mission sources are. in declining order ot importance. transportation. agriculture. industrv. and
mes across the Pacitic Ocean trom $outheast
est downwind ot large urban areas. but mav also
icultural sources (Tonnesen et al. 2007). In most parts ot the western
s. deposition due to both transportation and agriculture has increased. However.
decrease slightlv in coming vears due to new emission
tandards. while agricultural sources. which are not regulated. are expected to increase (Fenn et al.
003).
hile airborne nitrogen acts as a tertilizer when it hits the ground. other airborne pollutants are
d as contaminants. Four statebased government entities regulate the
inants in the Mojave Desert. In the Calitornia portion ot the desert. the
ir Resources Board controls emissions ot airborne pollutants. The Clark Countv
e Nevada Bureau ot Air Pollution Control
ronmental Qualitv has this responsibilitv in
e Ltah Air Qualitv Board enacts rules pertaining to air pollutants in Ltah's Mojave
id. and particulate emissions-evervthing trom
elting. construction. transportation. electricitv
e various toxicants into the atmosphere. These
ervation targets because manv ot the compounds
these emissions are toxic to plants and animals. Cutaneous dvskeratosis. a shell
to be caused bv or exacerbated bv these toxicants (Berrv et al.
rticularlv susceptible to harm. as toxicants can be washed
cross the surtace ot the land and accumulate in rivers and streams when it rains.
5.+ Moditied Fire Regimes
ire regimes in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion have been altered bv two primarv tactors. increased
crease in biomass (tuels). Although tires in the desert were historicallv
rates between 1980 and 1995 was due to an increase
d Esoue 2002. Figure 58). Increased amounts ot tuels. which can
sult ot invasions ot nonnative plant species. As
he desert's natural vegetation communities. including the
unities. are not considered to be tireadapted. Historicallv.
and did not travel great distances because ot
ass (tuel). wide spacing between plants. and sparse ground cover (Humphrev 19+9.
Minnich 1986). Todav. however. invasions ot exotic plants. in particular
dditional biomass that otten torms a continuous
lanket ot tlammable vegetation that allows tires to spread more readilv.
ncreased ignition rates and tuels have resulted in more treouent and more extensive tires. In the
intervals range trom 30 vears to more than 1.000
ears. while current intertire intervals are as short as tive vears in some areas (Brooks et al. 1999.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ON! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St. George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Fires in the Mojave Desert
Figure 5 8
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Major River
Fire (1970 to Present)
Area Burned
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !!!!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! OO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
E
longlived perennials suc
recoverv rate
conversion" ot native vegetation communities. wh
et al. 1999). or signitican
succulents (Altord et al. 2005. Bock and Block
negativelv impact native animals. such as desert
their habitat. (Brooks et al. 1999)
E

A
chaparral and torests. this is not the case in mo
and it has been suggested
exotic plants and suppression ot most
Block (2005) echoed this suggestion and stated that
in some regions ot the southweste
exception due to the historical raritv ot tire and th
Measures to maintain an
in the Mojave Desert (Mojave Desert Land Trust 2006). Mapp
the scope ot this assessment. however. it is likelv
o

A
common and widespread enough th
declines in p
North Americans and Europeans has created a huge
trade with gila monsters (
markets. The internet has spurred the growth ot tr
Desert species. Few species are protected trom co
added to stocks ot captive bred individuals and
(
5.5 Collection ot Plants and Animals
varietv ot desert species are collected tor pets. tood. or commercial trade. While a tew species are
at current rates ot collection pose little problem. signiticant
opulations ot some species have been attributed to collection. The relative attluence ot
demand tor wildcaught animals tor the pet
H.ioc.ro sust.ctu) tetching up to $10.000 per individual on toreign
ade and tacilitated the worldwide sale ot Mojave
llection. and wildcaught animals can easilv be
sold as captive bred" to unknowing consumers
Pianka and Vitt 2003).
lthough tires are a natural process and can plav beneticial roles in some ecosvstems. such as
st ot the Mojave Desert's vegetation communities.
that in these areas risk ot tire should be reduced through removal ot
tires (Brooks et al. 1999. Brooks and Esoue 2002). Bock and
although prescribed tires should be increased
rn Lnited $tates. desert scrub and riparian woodlands are an
e susceptibilitv ot native species to damage bv it.
d restore natural tire regimes are theretore important conservation actions
ing altered tire regimes was bevond
that altered tire regimes are linked to the presence
t roads and urban development and the presence ot nonnative. invasive plant species.
dith Allen pers. comm. 2010). This change in tire treouencv has dramaticallv increased the risk to
h as creosote bush and loshua trees. because thev have low posttire
s (Brown and Minnich 1986). It can also result in permanent changes or tvpe
ich are replaced bv exotic plant species (Brooks
tlv reduce numbers ot native ot nurse" plants. woodv plants. and
2005). Increased tire treouencv and size can
tortoise. bv killing them. reducing the oualitv ot
and altering species composition ot the vegetation ($imons 1991.
soue et al. 2003).
Ciuciuoiio
$everal Mojave Desert reptile species are commonlv sought
atter. collected. and sold as pets. Horned lizards (Pirrosoo
stt.). chuckwallas (Sourooius oo.sus). collared lizards
(Crototitus coiior:s). and desert iguanas (D:tsosourus corsoi:s)
are particularlv sought atter in the commercial collection
trade. Collectors in Nevada have unlimited bag limits while
paving onlv a $100 license tee to the $tate Department ot
Wildlite. The desert tortoise (Goti.rus o.oss::::) used to be a
popularlv collected animal in the Mojave and $onoran
deserts. but has been protected bv various state and tederal

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !!!!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
regulations since the mid1980s. The desert tortoise is tound in Calitornia. Nevada. Ltah. and
Arizona and all ot the states reouire permits tor the possession ot this tederallvlisted threatened
species. In addition. it is listed in Appendix II ot CITE$. which reouires permits tor collection or
scientitic use in international trade (Leuteritz and Ekbia 2008). Despite these regulations. the
desert tortoise is still illegallv collected when encountered along roads or around newlv constructed
housing developments on the edge ot its habitat.

Manv Mojave Desert plant species desired bv gardeners and landscapers are extremelv slowgrowing
or ditticult to start trom seed. this has incentivized collection ot large specimens trom the wild as
an alternative to nurserv propagation. The collection ot cactus species is ot particular concern.
Because cacti tvpicallv grow slowlv and have low reproductive rates. the occasional loss ot a tew
plants to collecting can pose a signiticant threat to a population (L$FW$ 1985). particularlv it it is
naturallv small or sparse.

5.6 Disease

Disease occurs naturallv in ecological svstems and plavs an important role in regulating
populations ot species. However. a signiticant increase in rates ot intected individuals. a rise in the
virulence ot a disease. a shitt in location ot disease outbreaks. or a rise in mortalitv attributable to a
disease can occur when environmental conditions change in wavs that promote disease vectors or
when other threats weaken the immune response ot individuals. The extreme heat and ariditv ot
the Mojave Desert has served to block manv disease vectors. but alterations in temperature and
raintall due to global climate change mav allow some diseases to gain a toothold in new locations.

A thorough review ot the diseases attlicting Mojave Desert species and the tactors that contribute
to these diseases is bevond the scope ot this assessment. However. one notable illness ot
conservation concern is Lpper Respiratorv Tract Disease (LRTD). which has contributed
signiticantlv to desert tortoise population declines. This disease is characterized bv mild to severe
nasal discharge. puttv evelids. and dullness to the skin and scutes. Caused bv a Mcotioso. LRTD
is commonlv tound in captive tortoises. and spreads easilv to unintected individuals (lacobson et
al. 1991). In the Desert Tortoise Natural Area in the West Mojave. longterm studies showed that
over 70% ot adult tortoises died between 1988 and 1992 (Kristin Berrv pers. comm.. cited bv
lacobson 1992). The disease was noted in tortoises throughout the Mojave Desert. Tortoises mav
become susceptible to the disease through other stresses such as poor nutrition. drought. and
release ot LRTDintected captive tortoises into the wild (lacobson 1992). In this wav. the disease
contributes to higher rates ot desert tortoise mortalitv than would otherwise occur. While the
svmptoms ot LRTD mav be treated. no cure has been tound.

5.7 Climate Change

The burning ot tossil tuels such as coal and oil. along with extensive detorestation throughout the
world. has resulted in increased concentrations ot heattrapping greenhouse gases in the Earth's
atmosphere. The heat trapped bv gases such as carbon dioxide and methane has caused a gradual
increase in global temperatures. It is anticipated that. along with increased temperatures. the earth
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! OP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !!!!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
will experience additional climatic changes such as more intense heat waves. new wind patterns.
worsening drought in some areas. and more precipitation in others (IPPC 2007).

Although it is not preciselv known how much the Earth's climate will change. or what the exact
ettects will be. it has been predicted that 2030 percent ot plant and animal species will be at
increased risk ot extinction (Lnited Nations Environment Programme 2008). Increased risk ot
extinction mav result trom vegetation communitv changes due to altered precipitation and
temperature patterns. disruption ot pollinatorhost plant relationships (such as relationships
between buttertlies and their host plants). reduction or alteration ot waterrelated habitats. and
changes to processes such as wildtires. tlooding. disease. and pest outbreaks (Field et al. 1999).

Due to the sensitive nature ot desert communities. warming ot ambient air temperatures and
stream temperatures could increase heat stress tor both terrestrial and aouatic species. Patterns ot
tuture precipitation are highlv uncertain. nevertheless warming alone mav increase
evapotranspiration rates leading to increased drought stress and decreased treshwater availabilitv.

Current climate projections tor Calitornia's deserts are severe. with the tvpical summer maximum
temperatures bv the end ot the centurv reaching levels that are hotter than the most extreme vear
documented in the last 100 vears (Figure 59). The majoritv ot global climate models also predict
the Mojave Desert will become even more arid. losing an average ot 1.6 inches ot precious rain
each vear (Figure 59). These changes in climate are also likelv to exacerbate other threats. tor
example bv promoting invasions and spread ot nonnative. disturbancetolerant. and tire
promoting plants. and increasing the treouencv and intensitv ot tire in areas ot the desert that have
historicallv not experienced tire and whose species are not adapted to it (Rogers 1986. Brooks et al.
1999).

Changes in climate that could be ot great importance in the Mojave Desert. such as the timing.
treouencv. and vield ot precipitation events. are especiallv ditticult to predict. However. with
respect to general climate impacts we deter to the Fourth Assessment Report ot the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and proceed with the understanding that. 1)
warming is uneouivocal and will continue even it greenhouse gas emissions stabilize. 2) natural
communities are alreadv responding to recent changes in climate through shitts in distributions
and phenologv. changes in communitv composition. and local extirpations. 3) tuture trajectories ot
precipitation are less certain than temperature increases. +) extreme weather will likelv increase.
but raritv ot such events impairs modeling. and 5) climate change will likelv exacerbate manv
existing threats. such as catastrophic wildtires. nonnative species invasions. and disease (IPCC
2007).

Even subtle climate changes mav have large impacts on desert ecosvstems. where species are alreadv
living in extreme conditions ot heat and ariditv. Elevated temperatures and altered raintall patterns
mav cause valuable water sources to drv up seasonallv or altogether. and mav alter stream tlow and
recharge ot groundwater basins. $mall changes in water temperature can intluence dissolved
oxvgen levels and concentrations ot dissolved salts and other toxins in water. which mav reduce
the viabilitv ot populations ot desert puptish (Oerking and Lee 1983) and other aouatic species.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! OQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !!!!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
!
!

!

Figure 59 Climate Change Predictions tor the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Comparison ot
observed historical climate variables (one and twentv vear averages) and tuture projections
(twentvvear averages) using the 11 Oeneral Circulation Models under the A2" scenario.
showing average annual maximum temperature (top) and annual precipitation (bottom).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! OR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !!!!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
$ummer thunderstorms in the deserts mav increase in number andor intensitv ($heppard et al.
2002). which could cause signiticant changes in plant phenologv. tlooding patterns. and tire
treouencv. Other studies suggest that climate change will alter the distribution ot grasslands in
relation to desert vegetation communities. however the direction ot this change depends on still
uncertain precipitation scenarios (Lenihan et al. 2006). $uch vegetation changes will also likelv
have large intluences on desert tire regimes ($ection 5.+).

Changes in seasonal precipitation totals and patterns can impact a wide varietv ot plant species.
because their growth is tied to seasonal patterns in precipitation (Weltzin et al. 2003). In addition.
increased levels ot atmospheric carbon dioxide mav alter the competitive relationships between
native and nonnative species. through intluences on plant productivitv (Ziska 2008). while
changes in tire regimes mav promote invasion ot nonnative plants. Epps et al. (200+) tound that
populations ot desert bighorn sheep living in lower. drier mountain ranges mav be more
susceptible to extirpation than those living in higher. moister mountain ranges. Thus. climate
change could present a verv real challenge to desert bighorn sheep populations. and probablv
numerous lessstudied species that share their habitats. Plant and animal species mav shitt their
distribution in response to climate change (Field et al. 1999) and recent studies have shown that
species responses mav varv considerablv (Loarie et al. 2008)

Climate is just one ot the tactors that determine the distributions ot plants. animals and other
organisms. Otten species distributions are constrained bv predators. diseases. competitors. soils
andor nutrients as much. or more. than precipitation or temperature regimes. Nevertheless. in
the Mojave Desert. we expect mean and extreme temperatures will increase. and as a result. soil
moisture will decrease even it precipitation remains constant. It temperatures increase as projected.
thermal and drought tolerances ot manv species mav be exceeded in parts ot. or across. their
current ranges in the decades and centuries ahead. Because ditterent species respond to changes in
climate and other habitat tactors ditterentlv and some mav respond bv moving in ditterent
directions or at ditterent rates. we predict that species will not move as together in intact
communities. $ome communities with no analogues todav mav torm in the centuries ahead. and
some communities that are common todav mav tade out as their members move in ditterent
directions (Williams and lackson 2007). The protection ot a large network ot core conservation
areas connected bv corridors and butter areas will help ensure that species have the opportunitv to
move and track changes in climate and the distributions ot other species on which thev
depend. On the other hand. tragmented landscapes mav block such movements tor some species.
putting them at increased risk ot extinction.

Oiven all the complexities and uncertainties inherent to climate change. modeling otters one
inexpensive means ot testing a wide range ot tuture biodiversitv scenarios based upon simplitving
assumptions. The Nature Conservancv's Calitornia Climate Adaptation Team developed species
distribution models tor nine species ot plants and animals in the Mojave Desert with the goal ot
identitving examples ot potential tuture climate retugia in the ecoregion (The Nature Conservancv.
unpublished data). Model projections support the hvpothesis that species will move largelv
independent trom one another as climate changes. resulting in speciesspecitic retugia across the
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! !!!!89*'%+)!%05!6#0)'*&%+/#0!69%11'0.')!
region. Our midcenturv torecasts (20+52065) tortunatelv identitv potential climate retugia tor
almost all tlora and tauna considered.

One kev ditticultv encountered bv our modeling process was that current distributions ot manv
Mojave tlora and tauna are poorlv described. in part because thev otten straddle borders between
states and nations ($ection +.7.2). This will particularlv challenge attempts to scale up this
approach toward more comprehensive biodiversitv torecasts including more than nine species.
Otten the rare and imperiled species distributions are welldescribed. however. those ot manv
species that are common todav but might be vulnerable to tuture changes in climate are not.
Conservation practitioners urgentlv need more survevs ot desert biota. suggesting a critical role tor
increased publicprivate partnerships and data sharing. As an example ot how occurrence data gaps
led to an attrition ot species in our modeling process. we started bv selecting 20 relativelv common
species tor modeling. Ot those 20. onlv nine species had sutticient rangewide observation data to
generate models and ot the nine. onlv tour species had adeouate observation data within the
Mojave Desert Ecoregion to test the proportion ot known occurrences todav that are also projected
to be tuture climate retugia. Furthermore. in terms ot interpreting models to support conservation
decisions. species distribution models appear best suited tor identitving potential climate retugia
within areas where species alreadv occur todav. Characterizing vulnerabilitv in areas where climates
are projected to change the most. however. will reouire an explicit understanding ot species
phvsiological tipping points and dispersal abilitv.

Moio:. Yucco oioo:r. :r Ci:co.o Voii. u:ti ti. K:r.stor Ror.. :r ti. ooci.rourc
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! !
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! P@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
O!! 4');1+)!#C!+9'!2))'))3'0+!

6.1 Anthropogenic Disturbance

A kev tactor we used to evaluate conservation value was the level ot anthropogenic disturbance.
which represents the inverse suitabilitv ot a planning unit to contribute to the longterm
conservation objectives. high disturbance indicates low suitabilitv and vice versa. To calculate
disturbance. we used existing data on roads. trails. and agricultural development to assess both the
intensitv ot disturbance (e.g. dirt roads versus paved roads) and the percentage ot each 259hectare
(onesouaremile) planning unit that was disturbed. We also visuallv surveved recent imagerv tor
the entire planning area to ensure that we captured recent torms ot disturbance such as OHV trails
that mav not have been consistentlv included in data we used (see Appendix A tor details).
Oeographic Intormation $vstem (OI$) data tor other threats including invasive plants. moditied
tire regimes. and nitrogen deposition were not readilv available tor portions ot the ecoregion. thus
precluding a ouantitative assessment ot the intensitv ot such threats or their distribution across the
entire Mojave Desert Ecoregion.

Disturbance scores were high tor much ot the Western Mojave and the greater Las Vegas Vallev
area and smaller areas around Pahrump and Laughlin. Nevada. Kingman. Arizona. and $t. Oeorge.
Ltah (Figure 61). On the other hand. our analvsis revealed several large blocks with low levels ot
anthropogenic disturbance. Especiallv noteworthv is the large northwest to southeast trending
band with low disturbance scores roughlv paralleling and largelv west ot the CalitorniaNevada
border. This band extends trom the northern reaches ot Death Vallev National Park south to
Interstate +0 and bevond to the southern edge ot the ecoregion with onlv a tew tissures that are a
conseouence ot roads. Other blocks with low disturbance occur north ot Las Vegas. in the area
encompassing loshua Tree National Park. and the adjacent Pinto Basin southeast ot Twentvnine
Palms. Calitornia (Figure 61).
6.2 Conservation Values

We classitied each planning unit into one ot tour conservation value categories. Ecologicallv Core.
Ecologicallv Intact. Moderatelv Degraded. and Highlv Converted (Figure 62. Appendix A).
Ecologicallv Core lands comprise 37.2% ot the studv area at 12.1 million acres
6

(+.9+0.+09
hectares) and Ecologicallv Intact lands comprise another +8.7% at 16.0 million acres (6.+7+.006
hectares). Thus 85.9% ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion retains high conservation value.

Ecologicallv Core lands are relativelv undisturbed. have known occurrences ot conservation targets
and contribute to meeting the assessment's ouantitative conservation goals. Thev comprise a core
network ot lands that collectivelv capture the ecoregion's biological diversitv within a minimal

6
While the Mojave Desert Ecoregion covers 32.1 million acres (13.013.215 hectares). the planning area tor this
assessment included 32.8 million acres (13.286.509 hectares) because planning units on the perimeter extend bevond
the Mojave Desert Ecoregion.

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PK! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Anthropogenic Disturbance
Figure 6 1
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Anthropogenic Disturbance $core
Verv Low
High
Verv High
Medium
Low

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owl shead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Mojave Desert
Conservation Value
Figure 6 2
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Mojave Desert
Conservation Value
disturbance which support conservation
targets and whose protection is critical tor
the longterm conservation ot the ecoregion's
biological diversitv
disturbance or which supports conservation
targets and which reouires a level ot protection
that will enable it to continue to support
ecological processes and provide connectivitv
Land tragmented bv roads. ottroadvehicle
trails or in close proximitv to urban.
agricultural and other developments
Land in urban and agricultural areas that is
tragmented and most impacted bv human uses
Highlv Converted
Moderatelv Degraded
Ecologicallv Intact
Ecologicallv Core
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PM! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
area and whose protection is critical to sateguard the longterm persistence ot the conservation
targets.

Most Ecologicallv Intact lands are tunctionallv eouivalent to Ecologicallv Core lands and mav
contain manv ot the same conservation targets. including sensitive species. Thev mav have been
classitied as Ecologicallv Intact rather than Ecologicallv Core. because.
x thev support more widespread ecological svstems.
x thev contain conservation targets tor which the conservation goals were alreadv met in
Ecologicallv Core lands. or
x thev are at higher risk ot degradation due to their proximitv to threats such as residential
development or designated OHV recreation areas.

While Ecologicallv Intact lands are ot high conservation value in and ot themselves. thev also
enhance the value ot Ecologicallv Core lands. connecting them with one another and buttering
them trom disturbance and tragmentation. Ecologicallv Intact lands reouire levels ot protection
that will allow them to continue to plav these roles. retain their landscape integritv. support
ecological processes. and provide habitat tor conservation targets.

Moderatelv Degraded lands comprise 10.+% ot the studv area. or 3.+ million acres (1.379.015
hectares) and Highlv Converted lands comprise another 3.7% ot the area or 1.2 million acres
(+93.079 hectares). This means that signiticant levels ot disturbance are now evident on +.6
million acres (1.872.09+ hectares) throughout the studv area.

Moderatelv Degraded lands are disturbed
and tragmented bv roads or OHV trails.
or are in close proximitv to urban.
agricultural. and other developments.
Thev otten maintain ecological
tunctionalitv (e.g.. maintain
groundwater intiltration and tlow. serve
as sand sources. provide connectivitv).
provide habitat tor native species. or are
known to have conservation target
occurrences. Highlv Converted lands are
in urban or agricultural areas and have
been heavilv altered. $ome can support
conservation targets. although their
ecological contexts are compromised.
Conservation targets occur on
Moderatelv Degraded and even Highlv
Converted lands. but otten thev are
remnants ot tormerlv larger. more
robust populations that existed prior to
89'!"#9%&'!T*#;05!=_;/**'1!/0!"#5'*%+'1<!
('.*%5'5!%05!W/.91<!6#0&'*+'5!1%05)!
!
Found throughout the western portion ot the
ecoregion. the Mohave ground souirrel
(St.roti:ius oio:.rs:s) is endemic to the Mojave
Desert and listed as threatened bv the $tate ot
Calitornia.
Over 30% ot the known occurrences ot this
species are on lands categorized as either
Moderatelv Degraded or Highlv Converted.
$everal ot these occurrences are located between
more intact areas managed bv the BLM tor
Mohave ground souirrel conservation.
These Moderatelv Degraded and Highlv
Converted lands mav link larger blocks ot habitat.
Changes in the use ot these lands could sever
these linkages. and permanentlv isolate Mojave
ground souirrel subpopulations.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!
the human impacts. It is important to note that there is ecological value in maintaining open
spaces. parks. and other nondeveloped lands within the Moderatelv Degraded and Highlv
Converted lands areas. Thev mav support local populations ot some organisms and mav even serve
as corridors tor movement ot the more mobile species such as covote. kit tox. bighorn sheep. and
some avian targets.

Lntortunatelv. little consideration ot
the importance ot incorporating
conservation principles into landuse
plans is evident in past and even
current development planning in
most urban and suburban areas ot
the Mojave Desert. From the highlv
checkerboarded landownership and
haphazard development patterns in
northwest Arizona. to the high
densitv sprawl ot the Las Vegas.
Victorville. Barstow. and Pahrump
vallevs. opportunities to retain or
restore ecosvstem tunctionalitv either
in or around these metropolitan
areas have been mostlv lost. Coupled with the impacts ot the groundwater withdrawal. the
prospects ot restoring ecological tunctionalitv to these landscapes are not good.
B:.iorr Si..t
(Pioto.roti o Tutt.r Ars.i Bioi.)

6.2.1 Current Land Ownership Patterns

Examination ot the percentage ot land held bv major landowners that is within each ot the tour
categories reveals that the majoritv ot tederal agencv lands retain high conservation value (Table 6
1). The BLM. DOD. and state agencies also hold substantial areas ot land that are Moderatelv
Degraded. $lightlv over halt (53.5%) ot private landholdings in the ecoregion are Moderatelv
Degraded or Highlv Converted (Table 61).

8%?1'!OVB!6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;'!#C!D%05)!W'15!?<!(/CC'*'0+!D%05#H0'*)E!89'!-#1;30)!+#+%1!BAA`E!
6%+'.#*<! !!!!!aD"! :S=! (U(! b=FZ=! b=F=! =+%+'! 8*/?%1! S*/&%+'! U+9'*!
Core
37.2% 52.+% 35.1% 36.2% 85.3% +3.0% 22.5% 20.2% 28.0%
Intact
55.6% +6.+% +8.5% 63.5% 8.9% +3.5% +8.8% 26.3% 57.5%
Degraded
6.7% 1.1% 15.1% 0.+% +.+% 10.3% 16.2% 32.3% 12.6%
Converted
0.5% 0.1% 1.3% 0.1% 1.+% 3.2% 12.5% 21.2% 2.0%

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!

Evaluation ot the proportional ownership ot land within each categorv indicates that the Bureau ot
Land Management. the largest landowner in the ecoregion. holds the largest percentage ot land in
both the Ecologicallv Core and Ecologicallv Intact categories. with ++.8%. and 52.7% respectivelv
(Table 62). The National Park $ervice and Department ot Detense also hold substantial
percentages ot the lands in the highest conservation categories. In contrast. private landowners
hold onlv about 8% ot the lands in the highest conservation value categories. but nearlv halt
(+6.5%) ot the Moderatelv Degraded land and the great majoritv ot the Highlv Converted land
(8+.8%. Table 62).

8%?1'!OV@!S*#>#*+/#0%1!UH0'*)9/>!#C!D%05!/0!,%-9!6#0)'*&%+/#0!6%+'.#*<E!89'!*#H)!+#+%1!BAA`E!
6%+'.#*<! aD"! :S=! (U(! b=FZ=! b=F=! =+%+'! 8*/?%1! S*/&%+'! U+9'*!
Core ++.8% 27.+% 11.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.2% 0.3% 8.1% 1.3%
Intact 52.7% 19.1% 11.9% 3.+% 0.2% 1.8% 0.+% 8.3% 2.1%
Degraded 29.1% 2.1% 17.0% 0.1% 0.5% 1.9% 0.7% +6.5% 2.1%
Converted 6.+% 0.3% +.1% 0.1% 0.+% 1.7% 1.+% 8+.8% 0.9%
Core e
Intact
+9.3% 22.7% 11.5% 3.0% 1.2% 2.0% 0.+% 8.2% 1.7%
Degraded e
Converted
23.1% 1.6% 13.6% 0.1% 0.+% 1.8% 0.9% 56.7% 1.8%

Nearlv all (92.+%) ot the land in the
Mojave Desert that is critical tor
connectivitv. as indicated bv the
Calitornia Essential Habitat
Connectivitv Project ($pencer et al.
2010). was designated bv our analvsis
as either Ecologicallv Core or
Ecologicallv Intact (Figure 63).
Notable exceptions include Essential
Connectivitv Areas in close proximitv
to the Citv ot Barstow. where some ot
the land is either Moderatelv
Degraded or Highlv Converted. and a
portion ot the Lucerne Vallev east ot
Victorville. which is degraded bv OHV
activitv and other activities associated
with rural residential development.
R.c Roci Coror Not:oroi Cors.r:ot:or Ar.o. N.:oco
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PQ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Granite
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Mojave Desert
Conservation Value
e CA $tatewide Essential
Habitat Connectivitv
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 20 +0 10
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Conservation Value
Ecologicallv Core
Ecologicallv Intact
Moderatelv Degraded
Highlv Converted
Connectivitv
CA $tatewide Essential
Habitat Connectivitv
Conservation Value
Ecologicallv Core
Ecologicallv Intact
Moderatelv Degraded
Highlv Converted
EHC
38.8%
53.6%
6.8%
0.8%
Figure 6 3
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2))'))3'0+!4');1+)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! PR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6.2.2 Areas with High Conservation Value that are not Fullv Protected

O
designated as OAP status 1 or 2. while +5%
protected (O
categories). Ot the Ecolo
lands. con
the species and communities thev support. $imilarlv.
Ecologicallv Intact are
also plav a crucial role in maintaining the ecolog
r

nlv 55% ot the lands identitied as Ecologicallv Core are adeouatelv protected within lands
ot these lands are unprotected or inadeouatelv
AP status 3 or +. Table 63. see $ection 2.8 tor intormation on the tour OAP status
gicallv Core land in OAP status 3 or +. 2+% is publiclvowned. On these
servation will reouire a change in the management prescription to ensure persistence ot
less than halt (+5%) ot lands identitied as
in OAP status 1 or 2. The remainder ot the Ecologicallv Intact lands can
ical health ot the highest prioritv areas. and will
eouire increased attention and protection.
8%?1'!OVK!T2S!=+%+;)!#C!D%05)!/0!,%-9!6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;'!6%+'.#*<
! T2S!=+%+;)!6%+'.#*<!XS'*-'0+!#C!8#+%1!2*'%Y!
8<>'! 1 @! K! M!
Ecologicallv Core 29% 26% 25% 20%
Ecologicallv Intact 25% 20% 36% 19%
Moderatelv Degraded 1% 6% 35% 58%
Highlv Converted 0% 1% 9% 90%

L
include northtacing slop
that pro
could allow species to mo
identitied the areas with the highest concentratio
ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion and evaluated thei
and Ecologicallv Intact lands. We tound that
highest landscape resilience. The Ecologicallv C
capture 53% ot the areas ot high
ecoregion. While more detailed assessments
adaptation strategies tor the long term conservation
in general. t
c
6.3 Landscape Resilience
andscape teatures that mav provide retugia tor species bv buttering the impacts ot climate change
es that heat up less than other areas even on hot davs. seeps and springs
vide perennial sources ot water. and riparian corridors (including washes and orroos) that
ve to cooler locations in response to climate change (Appendix B). We
n ot these landscape resilience teatures in much
r occurrence with respect to Ecologicallv Core
these two categories include 95% ot the areas ot
ore areas are particularlv important because thev
est landscape resilience. while onlv covering 37% ot the
are needed when developing climate change
ot target species. this assessment indicates that
he areas ot highest conservation value todav also include the areas with the highest
oncentration ot teatures that mav enhance the resilience ot species to climate change.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
P!! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!

We propose a vision tor the Mojave Desert ot enhanced protection and management that ensures
the longterm survival ot the native species. natural communities. and ecological processes that
represent and sustain the tull varietv ot lite in the ecoregion. This vision can be realized bv.
1. expanding the network ot core protected areas to sateguard underprotected species and
svstems.
2. buttering and connecting these core areas with areas permeable to dispersal and migration
ot desert species. and
3. ensuring protection ot wetlands. springs. and higherelevation regions and other areas most
likelv to provide habitat to vulnerable species as climates change.
Achieving this vision also reouires abating threats to the ecoregion's biodiversitv. and ensuring that
human uses ot the desert do not come at the expense ot sustaining its extraordinarv conservation
value into the tuture.

The map ot conservation values across the Mojave Desert Ecoregion (Figure 62) provides a
template tor accomplishing this vision. The lands categorized as Ecologicallv Core represent a core
network ot areas needed to sateguard the tull complement ot the Mojave Desert's biodiversitv. The
Ecologicallv Intact lands represent areas needed to butter and connect this network and to support
the continuation ot kev ecological processes and interactions among species and communities.
Maintaining ecological permeabilitv through these areas will be necessarv tor the dispersal and
migration ot plants and animals and their abilitv to persist and adapt over time.

These high conservation value areas are surrounded bv a web ot Moderatelv Degraded and Highlv
Converted lands. which have been altered to greater degrees bv urbanization. agriculture. and
other human uses. Moderatelv Degraded lands are not dominated bv urban or agricultural uses
but are tragmented bv roads or OHV trails or are in close proximitv to urban. agricultural. and
other developments. Highlv Converted lands are urban and agricultural areas. or other areas that
have been most impacted and tragmented bv human use. Despite the impacts to habitat in this
categorv. these lands support important conservation values ($ection 1.2.2 and Appendix A). In
general. however. Moderatelv Degraded lands and Highlv Converted lands represent areas where
new developments and intensive human uses mav have less overall impact on the longterm
viabilitv ot the conservation values ot the Mojave Desert.
7.1 Conservation Objectives

We propose distinct conservation objectives tor each ot the tour conservation value categories in
support ot this vision.
Ecologicallv Core (land with low levels ot anthropogenic disturbance that support conservation
targets and whose protection is critical tor the longterm conservation ot the ecoregion's
biological diversitv).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
Prot.ct ti. ior... :rtoct ioo:tot oiocis corst:tut.c o Ecoio.:coii Cor. iorcs to cors.r:. :rr.tioc.ooi.
cors.r:ot:or tor..ts. suttort ti. roturoi .coio.:coi troc.ss.s utor ui:ci ti. c.t.rc (..... sorc
trorstort orc uot.r/iou r..:.s). orc o:rto:r ioo:tot corr.ct:::t. Pr.:.rt ti. /ro..rtot:or o/
ti.s. or.os cous.c o c.:.iot.rt orc roocs. orc tr.:.rt ti. c..rocot:or cous.c o :r:os:ors o/
.ot:c st.c:.s. urcioroct.r:st:c (/r.ou.rt) /:r. r..:.s. orc oti.r c:r.ct orc :rc:r.ct iuor :tocts.

Ecologicallv Intact (land with low levels ot anthropogenic disturbance or that supports
conservation targets and reouires a level ot protection that will enable it to continue to support
ecological processes and provide connectivitv).
Proot. iorc us.s orc oro...rt troct:c.s tiot o:rto:r or :tro:. iorcscot. :rt..r:t orc
trot.ct cors.r:ot:or tor..ts. Proot. r.storot:or o/ ioo:tot corr.ct:::t. roturoi :...tot:or
cour:t:.s. orc .coio.:coi troc.ss.s (..... sorc trorstort orc uot.r/iou r..:.s).

Moderatelv Degraded (lands tragmented bv roads. otthighwav vehicle trails or in close
proximitv to urban. agricultural and other developments).
Ercouro.. susto:rooi. iorc us.s tiot :r:::. :tocts to rot::. st.c:.s orc cour:t:.s orc oti.r
roturoi r.sourc.s. trot.ct s.rs:t::. st.c:.s orc :soiot.c i:.i :oiu. rot::. .cosst.s. orc o:rto:r
iorcscot. t.r.oo:i:t to u:ici:/. o:..rt.

Highlv Converted (land in urban and agricultural areas that is tragmented and most impacted
bv human uses).
Ercouro.. ciust.r:r. o/ r.u iorc us.s :r or.os tiot io:. oir.oc o..r cor:.rt.c /or iuor us.s orc
.rcouro.. c.s:.rs o/ r.r.uooi. .r.r. /oc:i:t:.s tiot :r:::. :tocts to cors.r:ot:or tor..ts orc
oti.r o:oio.:coi r.sourc.s. Focus cors.r:ot:or orc oro...rt .//orts u:ti:r H:.ii Cor:.rt.c iorcs
or .:st:r. ot.r stoc.s. r:tor:or ioo:tots. orc corors tiot suttort iocoi u:ici:/.. :tro:. o:r orc
uot.r ouoi:t. r.cior.. orc o:rto:r .rourcuot.r oou:/.rs. orc oti.ru:s. :tro:. iuor ouoi:t o/
i:/.. Proot. ottrotr:ot. oro...rt o/ o.r:cuituroi iorcs orc uroor iorcscot.s tiot or. s:.r:/:cort
/or ti. suttort o/ u:ici:/. (..... Burrou:r. Ouis. Athene cunicularia).

Although lands classitied as Moderatelv Degraded and Highlv Converted have been subject to a
higher degree ot disturbance and degradation. it should not be assumed that thev are necessarilv
appropriate tor development or other intensive human uses. Rather. thev represent areas likelv to
have tewer environmental constraints. $itespecitic analvses would be needed to assess their actual
development suitabilitv.

7.2 Conservation $trategies

Major tactors likelv to shape conservation in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion in the coming decade
include. the decisions and actions ot the diverse group ot tederal agencies that manage the great
majoritv ot the land. a continued tocus on ettorts to recover state and tederallvlisted species.
particularlv the Mohave ground souirrel and desert tortoise. intense pressures to develop
renewable energv and introduce other human uses ot the desert. and the resultant ettorts bv state
and tederal agencies to develop longterm conservation and landuse planning and permitting
processes to address these pressures.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! Q@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
A varietv ot strategies will be reouired to accommodate these tactors and achieve a robust and
enduring conservation outcome. Thev include protecting high conservation value lands through
redesignation ot public lands tor conservation use and acouisition ot private and state school
lands. and enhanced management and restoration ot all public lands. promoting collaborative
conservation among stakeholders. addressing intormation gaps and uncertaintv. and promoting
adaptive learning that puts new intormation to use to improve and enhance the positive ettects ot
emploving these strategies.

7.2.1 Protection through Redesignation

Although the Mojave Desert has the highest percentage ot tederallvowned and managed lands
among all L.$. ecoregions. onlv a portion ot those lands are currentlv designated and managed in
a manner that attords conservation top prioritv. As a result. the wildlite and native vegetation on
manv public lands in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion continue to be stressed bv a varietv ot threats.
One example is the Mojave population ot the desert tortoise. which was tederallv listed in 1989.
designated as threatened in 1990. and tor which critical habitat was otticiallv designated in 199+.
Despite this status. manv recommendations in the approved 199+ Desert Tortoise Recoverv Plan
have vet to be implemented over large areas ot habitat on public lands. in part because the land is
still designated as multiple use. Remarkablv. 78% ot the land in Desert Wildlite Management
Areas
7
in the Mojave is still managed tor multiple uses. according to the latest intormation
available. More than 20 vears atter the tederal listing. desert tortoise populations continue to
decline (L$FW$ 2006). In addition. 20% ot the area categorized in this assessment as Ecologicallv
Core and 19% ot that categorized as Ecologicallv Intact is in Oap Analvsis Program (OAP) Land
Management $tatus + ($ection 6.2.2). meaning that it lacks anv restrictions that prevent
conversion ot natural habitat tvpes to anthropogenic habitat tvpes ($ection 2.8).

Increased protection mav be achieved bv changing the designation ot multipleuse public lands
that are crucial tor continued viabilitv ot native plants and wildlite (e.g.. Ecologicallv Core and
Ecologicallv Intact).
8
Redesignations could provide mandates that these lands be primarilv
managed tor conservation ot habitat and native species and that known threats to habitat and
species be abated to the degree teasible. Anv redesignation ot public lands would need to entail
clearlv detined boundaries and management objectives coupled with adeouate dedicated tunding

7
Desert Wildlite Management Areas (DWMAs) were identitied bv the L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice in the 199+
Recoverv Plan tor the Mojave population ot the desert tortoise. and were to be implemented bv the BLM through
otticial designation as Areas ot Critical Environmental Concern. In this report. a DWMA is detined as an
administrative area within the recoverv unit which is managed such that reservelevel protection is attorded desert
tortoise populations while maintaining and protecting other sensitive species and ecosvstem tunctions (e.g..
watersheds)." Manv ot the 1+ DWMAs identitied in the 199+ recoverv plan have not vet been designated.
8
We note that a mechanism tor the redesignation ot public lands is currentlv not available. It is possible that a new
tvpe ot legislativelvcreated designation is needed to allow the withdrawal ot multipleuse lands tor conservation
purposes. Lnder a mitigation scenario. there is the alternative possibilitv to create a conservation bank on a limited
amount ot public lands tollowing guidance provided bv the L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice (2003). however. this
method cannot be widelv emploved to remove public lands trom multiple uses. The goal ot redesignation should be to
provide a clear and enduring mandate to manage speciticallv identitied lands tor conservation and to immediatelv
abate threats to habitats and species bv eliminating all other known or suspected incompatible uses trom these lands.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
tor these areas. Oreater protection through designation should also be structured to ensure
enduring protection ot these public lands. which would enable ettective investment in
management and restoration activities.

7.2.2 Protection through Acouisition

Private lands account tor 8.2% ot the high conservation value lands (Ecologicallv Core and
Ecologicallv Intact) in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. $ome ot these areas. as well as high
conservationvalue state school lands. deserve protection through acouisition ot tee simple title or
conservation easement. For example. Calitornia state school land sections. which are held to
maximize economic returns. and tormer railroad properties still torm a checkerboard within a
matrix ot highconservation value tederal lands in some areas. The occurrence ot state school lands
and private lands within public lands increases the ditticultv ot managing the surrounding public
land and increases the possibilitv that highvalue conservation lands mav be used tor development
or other activities incompatible with conservation. Prioritv should also be accorded to acouisition
ot lands trom willing sellers that connect existing protected areas and provide corridors that
animals and plants need tor movement. Concentrations ot highconservationvalue private lands.
important tor both the wildlite habitat and the connectivitv thev provide. exist in portions ot the
western Mojave. the Pahrump and Las Vegas vallevs. and the region around Kingman. Arizona.

7.2.3 Protection through Enhanced Management and Restoration

Once protection through redesignation or acouisition ot highconservationvalue lands has been
achieved. biodiversitv conservation reouires appropriate management to prevent and abate threats
and promote viabilitv ot native species and the health ot native communities. Ettective
conservation" is a condition in which targets are viable. threats to their viabilitv are abated. and
institutional and other enabling conditions are in place to ensure those conditions persist into the
tuture (Higgins et al. 2007).

Manv areas ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. including some that alreadv enjov the highest tormal
protection tor biodiversitv. do not experience conservation management that is sutticient to abate
threats to longterm viabilitv ot targets. This is due in part to the multitude ot threats in this
ecoregion and also limited and inconsistent tunding. Moreover. the tocus ot agencv management
is otten directed to recover listed species. While this is likelv to also benetit other plants and
animals that share the habitats ot these species. broader ettorts to improve management in other
habitats will be necessarv to ensure that the tull biodiversitv ot the ecoregion is ettectivelv
protected.

The scarcitv ot conservation management tunding calls on managers ot desert resources-and the
researchers and other stakeholders that care about conservation ot the Mojave Desert-to improve
collaboration across sectors and jurisdictions to identitv wavs in which monitoring and
management resources can be combined andor coordinated. tocused on the most essential
management imperatives. and directed to actions at scales necessarv to be ettective. Through
collaboration. important etticiencies and economies ot scale mav be achieved.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
7.2.+ Protection through Enhanced Collaboration

Oiven the pressures threatening the Mojave Desert in the tace ot limited resources devoted to
conservation. there is an urgent need to increase the etticiencv and enhance the ettectiveness ot
conservation ettorts. Collaborative ettorts are one means ot accomplishing better conservation
outcomes and can be a powertul wav to assemble existing resources and bring new tunding and
attention to the ecoregion. Although the manv agencies and organization working in the Mojave
Desert have varied mandates and management goals ($ection +). the protection ot natural
communities. native species. and biodiversitv is at least an element common to nearlv all ot them.
Rationales tor protecting natural resources mav ditter (e.g.. the Department ot Detense mav be
interested in buttering militarv lands and the Bureau ot Land Management's goal mav be. in part.
to maintain or reestablish habitat connectivitv tor native species). but collaboration will increase
the likelihood ot all agencies successtullv achieving their conservation objectives.

We encourage agencies. organizations. and individuals to initiate or continue dialog about. and to
act on. their specitic needs. shared goals. and mutuallvbeneticial opportunities. We otter the
tollowing recommendations.
x Continue and expand activities ot the Desert Managers Oroup in Calitornia and the
$outhern Nevada Agencv Partnership ($NAP) in Nevada as a means ot increasing
cooperative management among agencies. Reactivate inactive working groups and consider
creation ot new working groups to address issues such as climate change. watershed and
ground water basin conservation. and habitat connectivitv.
x Develop a multistate. Mojavewide desert management group. modeled on the Desert
Managers Oroup in Calitornia and the Desert Tortoise Recoverv Team. which would
collect and disseminate intormation. coordinate tederal and state actions across state
boundaries. and maximize ecosvstem protection and conservation activities.
x Promote a regional approach tor conservation ot the Mojave Desert in Calitornia bv
pursuing a collaborative ettort to retain the Calitornia Desert Conservation Area in the
National Landscape Conservation $vstem (NLC$).
x Encourage partnerships between public land managers and conservation organizations
working in the region to acouire tee title or conservation easements on kev inholdings and
butter zones. Foster activities ot land trusts such as the Mojave Desert Land Trust. the
Wildlands Conservancv. and the Amargosa Conservancv to acouire and protect
inholdings. especiallv those containing aouatic and riparian resources that are scattered
throughout Ecologicallv Core and Ecologicallv Intact lands.
x Develop and promote collaborative relationships with private land owners to maximize the
conservation value ot private lands. This mav include restoration ot lands that will benetit
adjacent public lands (e.g.. exotic plant removal) or land management actions to maintain
wildlite permeabilitv across private lands.
x Build upon collaborations between the Department ot Detense. other tederal and state
agencies. and conservation groups. to encourage militarv land buttering as a means ot
protecting both militarv training missions and natural resources. The Readiness and
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) is designed to prevent encroachment ot land
uses around militarv bases that would be incompatible with militarv testing and training
activities. $uch initiatives can represent valuable tools tor conservation ot natural resources.
x Develop collaborative programs tor longterm sustainabilitv ot groundwater basins and
perennial and seasonal surtace water tlows dependent on groundwater sources. This will
reouire joint ettorts trom state and tederal agencies. Tribes. private land owners. and water
users (e.g.. residential. industrial. resort. and agricultural).
x Federal and state agencies should seek tunding tor cooperative studies bv the L$O$ ot
desert hvdrologv and groundwater resources. and tor the development ot predictive models
that can be used to limit harm over the longterm to natural communities dependent on
water.
x Agencies should agree to limit the use ot desert groundwater to sustainable ouantities-that
is. to amounts not in excess ot recharge rates. and that anticipate reduced precipitation in
the centurv ahead. New developments. including renewable energv projects. should be
reouired bv both tederal and state agencies both to minimize water use and provide
mitigation tor their groundwater impacts.
x Where groundwater svstems cross state boundaries (tor example. the Death Vallev Regional
Flow $vstem). state agencies should develop cooperative. crossboundarv methods to limit
and tairlv allocate water use.
x Where groundwater basins are adjudicated. regulatorv agencies and all water users should
collaborate in ensuring that adjudicated groundwater levels are attained or exceeded.
x Where groundwater basins are threatened bv overdratt or overallocation ot resources. seek
adjudication or other legallv protective mechanisms to ensure that ecological uses ot water
are recognized and protected.
x Encourage partnerships between researchers. land managers. and conservation
organizations to identitv and prioritize groundwater intiltration zones tor protection.
x Establish collaborative programs to maintain and restore watershed health. Management
and restoration to reduce water diversion and pollution will depend greatlv on
collaboration between tederal and state agencies. Native American Tribes. and private land
owners.
x Promote status and protection ot selected rivers bv developing and entorcing scientiticallv
sound Wild and $cenic River management plans. and bv proposing additional streams tor
Wild and $cenic Rivers status. under the National Wild and $cenic Rivers Act.
x Be prepared to respond to opportunities presented bv the Clark Countv (NV) M$HCP and
the Washington Countv (LT) M$HCP (Figure +1) to turther protect Ecologicallv Core
and Ecologicallv Intact lands.
x Look tor opportunities to conserve kev resource areas bv utilizing and building on existing
regional conservation programs such as the Lower Colorado River Multi$pecies
Conservation Program. BLM's West Mojave Plan (WEMO). Northern and Eastern Mojave
Desert Plan (NEMO). and Northeast Colorado Desert Plan (NECO. Figure +1)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
x Establish and continue collaborative programs to control nonnative invasive plants.
Collaborations such as the establishment ot the Mojave Weed Management Area. initiated
bv the Desert Managers Oroup. should be promoted and expanded. Coordination with
others such as the Calitornia Invasive Plant Council will benetit this ettort.
x Plan tor localized or widespread surges in nonnative invasive plants in response to
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (as a result ot climate change) or nitrogen
deposition (currentlv the greatest areas ot concern include the western Mojave and
downwind ot metropolitan Las Vegas).
x Continue collaborative ettorts to maintain landscape connectivitv across the ecoregion and
with adjacent ecoregions. Lse the linkage evaluation coordinated bv $outh Coast
Wildlands tor the Calitornia deserts and conduct a linkage evaluation tor the remainder ot
the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. Identitication ot these areas will provide guidance on where
wildlitetriendlv transportation intrastructure enhancements. such as tencing and
underpasses. and land management activities are most likelv to increase wildlite
permeabilitv and landscape integritv.
x Promote transit and land management measures that reduce nitrogen deposition and
greenhouse gas emissions. These measures. which will be most ettective it pursued in
collaboration with jurisdictions outside ot this region. particularlv in the Los Angeles
Basin. mav include.
automobile regulations to reduce vehicle emissions.
public mass transportation options to reduce vehicle use. and
agricultural and landscape protocols that reduce or limit the use ot nitrogenbased
tertilizers.

These ettorts will reouire increased coordination and specitic allocation ot tunds. Reattirming a
commitment to the working groups ot the Desert Managers Oroup mav tacilitate some ot these
ettorts. and should be pursued as a means ot increasing communication and sharing intormation.
loint management planning will be needed. ideallv within an established tramework to ensure
longterm tollowthrough. Ideallv all agencies would contribute tunding. and joint tundraising
ettorts could be undertaken. $hared commitment to protection ot the Mojave Desert can result in
shared policv positions related to water conservation. landuse practices. and land designations.

7.2.5 Addressing Intormation Oaps and Lncertaintv

Although several ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion's most scenic and remarkable locales and some
ot its most characteristic plants and animals have been the subject ot attention bv biologists and
other researchers tor decades. much ot this roughlv 32.1millionacre area has been onlv lightlv
surveved and remains incompletelv known at best. Data are most abundant tor a tew ot the
region's animal species and subspecies that are listed bv the tederal or state governments as
endangered or threatened. including the desert tortoise. Peninsular bighorn sheep. and the
Mohave ground souirrel. However. there are major data gaps even tor some ot these species.
notablv. the distribution ot the Mohave ground souirrel has been particularlv ditticult to
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
determine. Moreover. knowledge is tar trom complete tor portions ot the eastern Mojave that are
distant trom roads. and tor the tlora and tauna that are most active and apparent in the late
summer and earlv autumn.

All stakeholders in the ecoregion would benetit trom more active mapping ot species bv universitv
researchers. state Natural Heritage Programs. agencv scientists. and museums. This would provide
greater intormation on the distribution ot manv species now regarded as rare or narrowlv
distributed. There is a large backlog ot occurrence data that has been submitted but not vet
uploaded to the Calitornia Natural Diversitv Database (CNDDB) and three state Heritage Program
databases. Conservation ettorts would benetit signiticantlv it occurrence data were processed in a
timelier manner. $imilarlv. development ot distribution models tor more species would provide
intormation that could be used to better map. monitor. and manage them. and to identitv
associations and patterns that would intorm management ot larger groups ot organisms and larger
sites.

The conseouences ot data and knowledge gaps are manv. Obviouslv. gaps impede robust
conservation planning and strategic action. But thev can also lead to inetticiencies and risks in
landuse decision making. The pressure to rapidlv develop renewable energv generation tacilities in
the Mojave Desert. including in manv undersurveved areas. is a reminder ot the importance ot
having comprehensive and current intormation concerning biodiversitv distribution and status. in
a manner that is accessible to decision making. Oiven that the pressures to develop the Mojave
Desert are unlikelv to subside. we underscore the imperative tor.
1. investing in monitoring and research to establish baselines and understanding ot kev
svstems.
2. tocusing monitoring on impacts ot new developments in order to intorm tuture landuse
siting and mitigation decisions.
3. tostering data archiving. sharing. and svnthesis so that data can serve a conservation
purpose. and
+. ensuring that. betore commitments to develop land are made. an adeouate inventorv ot
conservation values is in hand.
It is critical that an institutional tramework tor adaptive learning be established in the Mojave
Desert. so that landuse decisions a decade trom now are more intormed than thev are todav.

To encourage their use bv the tull arrav ot stakeholders. the tour land categorv data generated bv
this assessment are publiclv available. not onlv in this document. but also in a Map $ervice
available on ConserveOnline (http.conserveonline.orgworkspacesmojavedocumentsmojave
desertecoregional2010view.html.). We repeat the caution that. because this analvsis was
conducted at an ecoregionalscale and all ot the data were aggregated into onesouaremile.
hexagonal planning units. the results are appropriate tor viewing and analvses onlv at a scale ot
1.250.000 or coarser. We hope these data will encourage turther data sharing and cooperative
ettorts among stakeholders to assess and plan conservation and other land uses in the Mojave.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
7.3 Application ot the Assessment to Regional Planning

We conducted this assessment in part to help intorm regional conservation and landuse planning
ettorts tor the Mojave Desert bv the responsible agencies and other stakeholders including industrv
and the conservation communitv. It otters a regionalscale vision tor a conservation reserve design.
It also identities broad patterns ot conservation value that can be used to guide potential impacts
awav trom Ecologicallv Core and Ecologicallv Intact lands where development is likelv to cause
tragmentation and other damage to conservation targets. and steer it towards other appropriate
areas in Highlv Converted and perhaps portions ot Moderatelv Degraded lands. Designation ot
high conservation value areas can also be used to help direct investment ot mitigation tunds and
actions to areas that mav provide conservation values in addition to those that are the subject ot
specitic mitigation reouirements.

7.3.1 Intorming Development and Intrastructure $iting Decisions

This assessment mav be ot use in guiding siting decisions bv identitving areas ot high conservation
value where proposed development would have a high likelihood ot encountering environmental
constraints and challenges. and. it implemented. would cause irreparable damage to ecological
values. Ecologicallv Core and Ecologicallv Intact lands are largelv undisturbed and untragmented
and support conservation targets such as known occurrences ot rare or declining species and
ecological svstems. Although approximatelv 29% ot Ecologicallv Core lands and 25% ot the
Ecologicallv Intact lands are alreadv in OAP Land Management $tatus 1. the highest level ot
conservation protection ($ection 2.8). large percentages ot the remainder are subject to renewable
energv. mining. or other lease claims in addition to other actions incompatible with conservation
values. These lands are likelv to be ditticult or impossible to develop without causing damage that
will be ecologicallv irreparable on the one hand and reouire costlv compensatorv mitigation on the
other.

Avoiding ecological harm-or at least minimizing it-is tar more likelv to be possible on Highlv
Converted lands and perhaps on some Moderatelv Degraded lands. We also note that Highlv
Converted and Moderatelv Degraded lands are more likelv to be in close proximitv to existing
intrastructure and centers ot energv demand. In addition. over halt (56.7%) ot the lands in these
categories are in private ownership. Because manv gaps exist in the regionalscale data used in this
assessment. it is essential that sitespecitic assessments be conducted to determine appropriate sites
and contigurations tor all proposed development. regardless ot location-even within alreadv
urbanized areas. In some cases. state or local databases will be available to support these tinerscale
assessments. In others. tield assessments bv competent scientists and protessionals will be reouired.

In short. this assessment can help applv the precautionarv principle to landuse decisions. conserve
tirst the no regrets" areas known to have high conservation value. direct new development and
intensive land uses tirst to places known to have the lowest conservation (and cultural) values and
the least uncertaintv about likelv impacts ot development or use. Meanwhile. hold ott decisions
about lands ot intermediate conservation value and work to improve knowledge so that sutticientlv
intormed decisions about their use can be made later. In all cases. no decision committing land to
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
a new use should be made without a clear understanding ot its conservation importance so that
irreparable harm can be avoided or minimized. This approach seems especiallv appropriate in the
context ot the intense and likelv continuing pressure to develop renewable energv tacilities in the
ecoregion.

7.3.2 Intorming Mitigation Decisions

Federal and state environmental laws reouire that harm to protected resources be avoided.
minimized. or compensated. This protection ot resources and environmental values is asserted
through the combination ot environmental ettects analvses under the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) and state laws. such as the Calitornia Environmental Qualitv Act (CEQA).
and the reouirements ot other environmental laws (tederal and state endangered species acts. water
and air oualitv laws) under the rubric ot mitigation.

This assessment can be used to guide attention to broad areas that warrant more sitespecitic
analvses tor their potential to tultill compensatorv mitigation obligations. For example. in areas
with high conservation value. tinerscale. spatiallvexplicit analvses ot land ownership. landscape
condition. species occurrences. kev threats. and climate change retugia might reveal specitic sites
best suited tor acouisition. redesignation. or enhanced conservation management.

This assessment can also provide a toundation tor a regional advance mitigation plan (RAMP) that
would integrate the expected longerterm demand tor renewable tacilitv siting and other land uses
with a regionallv identitied set ot conservation priorities to enable largescale desert conservation.
$uch a plan would seek to align intrastructure and conservation broadlv bv avoiding high value
areas in siting decisions and directing compensatorv mitigation resources to established
conservation prioritv areas and actions.

It is preterable to use compensation tunds to acouire lands with suitable habitat to ottset impacts
to replace" the lands subjected to disturbance. However. less than 9% ot the high conservation
value lands in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion are in private ownership and large areas ot the desert
contain tew private lands. Moreover. private lands that are available mav have low and un
restorable conservation value. Accordinglv. manv Mojave conservation and recoverv plans have
recommended using compensatorv mitigation tunds to enhance management ot. restore. or
provide additional protection to. public lands. Where these approaches are used. it will be
essential to ensure that the mitigation investment is maintained tor the entire time that the ettects
ot the threat being abated continue. It is also important that compensatorv mitigation tunds are
spent to enhance management on or restore public lands onlv where doing so will provide clear.
additional conservation benetits and will not simplv replace existing agencv activities.
responsibilities. and resources. Alternative mitigation actions should be considered and selected
based on deriving the maximum conservation return on the investment ot the mitigation tunds.

In planning mitigation it is important to take into account the low productivitv and extreme
sensitivitv ot desert soils and biota to destruction. Accordinglv. it is ditticult (and in some cases
impossible. given reasonable time and cost constraints) to return an area ot desert. once developed.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! QR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
back into a tullvtunctional desert ecosvstem. This has implications even tor shortterm projects.
since even it the direct impacts are time limited. the indirect impacts will likelv be indetinite. This
again underscores the importance ot tollowing the precautionarv principle in making such landuse
decisions because damage will be ditticult or impossible to undo.

7.3.2.1 The Mitigation Hierarchv and the Ecoregional Assessment

Landuse decisions should adhere to the principles ot the mitigation hierarchv (Table 71). First.
harm to resources should be avoided. It harm cannot be completelv avoided. damages should be
minimized or resources restored or damage reduced over time. Finallv. compensatorv mitigation
tor anv remaining harm must then be provided bv the partv seeking approvals.
!
Adhering to the mitigation hierarchv in the scoping. planning. and implementation ot anv
developments is widelv recognized as an etticient wav to minimize negative ecological impacts.
9

Avoidance and ettective minimization both reduce the potential ecological impact ot a project.
while compensation ottsets the unavoidable harm (Table 71). The net benetit in terms ot reducing
biodiversitv impacts and increasing the etticiencv in project planning decreases as one moves down
the hierarchv trom avoidance to compensation. For conservation interests. this provides a
svstematic wav to limit ecological impacts and otters strategicallvdirected compensation tor
unavoidable harm.

7.3.2.2 Cumulative Impact Assessment

The data on targets and threats provided bv this assessment as well as the analvsis ot conservation
values across the entire ecoregion can support cumulative impacts analvsis. which is reouired
under both state and tederal impact assessment laws. Cumulative impacts assessments predict and
weigh the overall ettects ot development proposed tor. and occurring at. multiple sites on the
biodiversitv and other natural resources ot the region over the long term. In evaluating the
contribution ot actions at individual project locations to cumulative impacts on species and
habitats. permitting agencies consider not onlv the ettect on the distribution and oualitv ot habitat
attected. but also the ettect on essential ecological processes. such as maintenance ot connectivitv
between subpopulations ot a species. or ot phvsical processes like groundwater tlow or deliverv ot
habitat structure (e.g.. sand sources). In light ot projected impacts trom climate change on species
distributions. disturbance regimes. and the timing and amounts ot precipitation. an explicit
consideration ot these projected impacts must also be included in cumulative impact analvses.

Incorporating climate change impact projections into the assessment ot cumulative impacts does
not implv that individual project developers would be responsible to mitigate tuture climate
change impacts. However. it does provide limits on development where collective climate impacts

9
The mitigation hierarchv was originallv developed principallv to applv to wetlands mitigation under the Clean Water
Act ($ection +0+). but has been adopted bv the Council ot Environmental Qualitv as a component ot all
environmental analvses and expanded to provide the tramework tor integrating other ecosvstems and multiple tvpes ot
intrastructure with conservation objectives (FHWA 2008. AWWI 2009). In addition to providing a tramework
applicable tor regulatorv processes. it has also been used to promote voluntarv ottsetting. especiallv tor biodiversitv (ten
Kate et al. 200+. McKennev 2005. Kiesecker et al. 2010).
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
8%?1'!PVB!89'!"/+/.%+/#0!W/'*%*-9<!XMA!6F4]!='-!BNAQE@AY!
$tep in the
Hierarchv
Detinition
(+0 CFR. $ec
1508.20)
Role ot Ecological Data and
Conservation Priorities
$cale ot
Intormation
Needed
Avoid Avoiding the impact
altogether bv not
taking a certain
action or parts ot an
action
Determine what areas should be
avoided based on conservation
value
Region. landscape.
site
Minimize Minimizing impacts
bv limiting the degree
or magnitude ot the
action and its
implementation
Determining the extent ot
impact resulting trom ditterent
options tor technologv tvpe.
ditterent scales ot build out. or
ditterent practices (e.g. wet vs.
drv cooling). ditterent timing ot
construction activities
Landscape. $ite
Restore Rectitving the impact
bv repairing.
rehabilitating. or
restoring the attected
environment
Help assess what resources mav
be restorable. determine the
contiguration and context tor
linking restoration with broader
ecosvstem tlows. help detine
viabilitv criteria or pertormance
measures tor restored" tunction
Landscape. $ite
Reduce Reducing or
eliminating the
impact over time bv
preservation and
maintenance
operations during the
lite ot the action.
$ame as above Landscape. $ite
Compensatorv
mitigation
Compensating tor the
impact bv replacing
or providing
substitute resources
or environments
Help detine areas where
mitigation can contribute to
conservation goals. detine
options tor locations. assess
landscape context tor mitigation
to assess viabilitv
Region. landscape.
site

in combination with proposed development pose risks to species and ecologicallv important
processes.

Oiven the extreme sensitivitv ot desert resources. and the great ditticultv ot restoring ecosvstem
tunctionalitv tollowing disturbance ($ection +.8). it is important that the evaluation ot impacts tor
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! L/)/#0!C#*!,CC'-+/&'!6#0)'*&%+/#0!
anv given project be comprehensive. It is similarlv essential that decisions regarding land use be
made in light ot the cumulative impacts ot oii ot the developments and mvriad other changes
existing and occurring or likelv to occur across the desert. There are limits as to how much
conversion and alteration a landscape can accommodate betore it ceases to tunction in a manner
that allows native diversitv to persist. For the conservation targets and values ot the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion. it is extremelv important to ascertain where those ecological thresholds are. and not
approach a threshold. especiallv where limits are uncertain. This is essential to avoid learning those
limits onlv atter thev have been crossed and irreversible damage done. Adherence to the
precautionarv principle and the mitigation hierarchv in landuse decision making. as well as
tostering crossjurisdictional and crosssector collaboration in monitoring. management. and
research. will be essential to ensure successtul stewardship ot the extraordinarv biological assets ot
the Mojave Desert Ecoregion into the tuture.

7.+ Conclusion

The Mojave Desert Ecoregion. one ot the most intact and wild places in North America. currentlv
taces unprecedented and intense development pressure. The tate ot much ot the Mojave Desert's
extraordinarv conservation value rests on the decisions now being made as to how to tap its
renewable energv resources. how to accommodate other new competing human uses ot the desert.
how to address unsustainable demands tor water. and how to overcome the challenges ot landuse
planning and management over such vast areas with such limited tunding. This assessment is
intended to help intorm these decisions.

This assessment also proposes a vision tor ettective conservation management ot the Mojave
Desert. and broad guidance tor achieving it. In an ecosvstem as tragile as this desert. hope tor the
longterm viabilitv ot its native biota depends upon the preservation ot undisturbed and
untragmented landscapes. Here. so much hinges on what is undertoot. the integritv ot soil crusts
and the maintenance ot groundwater levels. This assessment recognizes that sensitivitv and suggests
how pressures tor development in the Mojave Desert might be accommodated without sacriticing
the attributes ot the desert that make it unioue and special. It is in turtherance ot that goal that we
otter this assessment.

K:r.stor Mourto:r Ror.. ocross Ci:co.o Voii.. Coi:/orr:o
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! R@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
4'C'*'0-')!

Adams. M.B. 2003. Ecological issues related to N deposition to natural ecosvstems. research needs.
Environment International 29. 189 - 199. Available online at.
http.nrs.ts.ted.uspubsjrnl2003ne_2003_adams001.pdt
Adams. l.A.. A.$. Endo. L.H. $tolzv. P.O. Rowlands. and H.B. lohnson. 1982. Controlled
experiments on soil compaction produced bv ottroad vehicles in Mojave Desert.
Calitornia. L$A. lournal ot Applied Ecologv 19.167-176.
Altord. E.l.. l.H. Brock. and O.l. Ootttried. 2005. Ettects ot tire on $onoran Desert plant
communities. L$DA Forest $ervice Proceedings RMR$P36.
AML. 2010. Abandoned mine lands partners. Available at.
http.www.abandonedmines.govp.html. accessed lune 20. 2010.
American Wind and Wildlite Institute. 2009. Enabling Progress. Compensatorv Mitigation
$cenarios tor Wind Energv Projects in the L.$.
Andre. l.M. and D.L. Hughson. 2009. $weenev Oranite Mountains Desert Research Center. an
Interview with Director Dr. lim Andre. Mojave National Preserve $cience Newsletter
November 2009. Number 2.
Araujo. M.B. and M. New. 2006. Ensemble torecasting ot species distributions. Trends in Ecologv
and Evolution 22.+2-+7.
Ardron. l.A.. H.P. Possingham. and C.l. Klein. eds. 2008. Marxan Oood Practices Handbook.
External review version. 17 Mav. 2008. Pacitic Marine Analvsis and Research Association.
Vancouver. BC. Canada. 155 pp. www.pacmara.org
Bailev. R.O.. P.E. Avers. T. King. and W.H. McNab. eds. 199+. Ecoregions and subregions ot the
Lnited $tates (map). Washington. DC. L.$. Oeological $urvev. $cale 1.7.500.000.
Colored. Accompanied bv a supplementarv table ot map unit descriptions compiled and
edited bv McNab. W.H. and Bailev. R.O. Prepared tor the L$DA Forest $ervice.
Ball. I.R.. H.P. Possingham. and M. Watts. 2009. Marxan and relatives. $ottware tor spatial
conservation prioritisation. Pp. 185-195 in $patial conservation prioritisation.
Quantitative methods and computational tools. Eds Moilanen. A.. K.A. Wilson. and H.P.
Possingham. Oxtord Lniversitv Press. Oxtord. LK.
Beier. P.. and B. Brost. 2010. Lse ot Land Facets to Plan tor Climate Change. Conserving the
Arenas. Not the Actors. Conservation Biologv. 110.
Belnap. l. 200+. Leaving it alone. How do we determine when and where natural restoration will
work. Mojave Desert $cience $vmposium. Lniversitv ot Redlands. Nov 1618. 200+.
Available at. http.www.dmg.govmdsstalks.php. accessed lune 20. 2010.
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Belnap. l.. and D.l. Eldridge 2003. Disturbance and recoverv ot biological soil crusts. Pp. 36+-383
in l. Belnap. and O.L. Lange. editors. Biological soil crusts. structure. tunction. and
management. $pringerVerlag. Berlin. Oermanv.
Belnap. l.. and $.D. Warren. 1998. Measuring restoration success. a lesson trom Patton's tank
tracks. Ecological Bulletin 79.33.
Belnap. l.. K.T. Harper. and $.D. Warren. 199+. $urtace disturbance ot crvptobiotic soil crusts.
nitrogenase activitv. chlorophvll content. and chlorophvll degradation. Arid $oil Research
and Rehabilitization 8.1-8.
Bentlev. H.L. 1989. Cattle ranges ot the southwest. a historv ot the exhaustion ot the pasturage
and suggestions tor its restoration. L.$. Department ot Agriculture. Farmers Bulletin 72.1-
31.
Berrv. K.H.. E.K. $pangenberg. B.L. Homer. and E.R. lacobson. 2002. Deaths ot desert tortoises
tollowing periods ot drought and research manipulation. Chelonian Conservation and
Biologv +. +36-++8.
Boarman. W.I. 1991. Ettectiveness ot tences and culverts tor protecting desert tortoises along
Calitornia $tate Highwav 58. Final report on studv design. Report to Calitornia Energv
Commission. Contract No. 70089007.11 pp.
Boarman. W.I. 1992. Ettectiveness ot tences and culverts tor protecting desert tortoises along
Calitornia $tate Highwav 58. $ummarv ot Initial Field $eason. Report to Calitornia Energv
Commission. Contract No. 70089007.+5 pp.
Bock. C.E. and W.M. Block. 2005. Fire and birds ot the southwestern Lnited $tates. $tudies in
Avian Biologv 30.1+-32.
Bowers. l.E. 1997. Demographic patterns ot Ferocactus cvlindraceus in relation to substrate age
and grazing historv. Plant Ecologv 133.37-+8.
Bowker M.A. 2007. Biological soil crust rehabilitation in theorv and practice. An underexploited
opportunitv. Restoration Ecologv 15.13-23.
Brattstrom. B.H. and M.C. Bondello. 1983. Ettects ot ottroad vehicle noise on desert vertebrates.
Pp. 167-206 in Environmental Ettects ot OttRoad Vehicles. Impacts and Management in
Arid Regions. R. H. Webb and H. O. Wilshire (eds). $pringerVerlag. New York.
Briggs. M.K.. and $. Cornelius. 1998. Opportunities tor ecological improvement along the lower
Colorado River and delta. Wetlands 18.513-529.
Brooks. M. 2003. Ettects ot increased soil nitrogen on the dominance ot alien annual plants in the
Mojave Desert. lournal ot Applied Ecologv +0.3++-353.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Brooks. M.L. 1995. Benetits ot protective tencing to plant and rodent communities ot the western
Mojave Desert. Calitornia. Environmental Management 19.65-7+.
Brooks. M. and K. Berrv. 1999. Ecologv and management ot alien annual plants in the Calitornia
Desert. Calitornia Exotic Pest Plan Council. $pring 1999.
Brooks. M.L. and T.C. Esoue. 2002. Alien annual plants and wildtire in desert tortoise habitat.
status. ecological ettects. and management. Chelonian Conservation and Biologv +.330-
3+0.
Brooks. M. L.. T. C. Esoue. and C. R. $chwalbe. 1999. Ettects ot exotic grasses via wildlite on
desert tortoise and their habitat. Twentvtourth Annual Meeting and $vmposium ot the
Desert Tortoise Council. March 58. 1999.
Brooks. M.L.. T.C. Esoue. and T. Duck. 2003. Fuels and tire regimes in creosotebush. blackbrush.
and interior chaparral shrublands. Report tor the $outhern Ltah Demonstration Fuels
Project. L$DA. Forest $ervice. Rockv Mountain Research $tation. Fire $cience Lab.
Missoula. MT. 17 pp.
Brooks. M.L. and l.R. Matchett. 2003. Plant communitv patterns in unburned and burned
blackbrush (Coleogvne ramosissima) shrublands in the Mojave Desert. Western North
American Naturalist 63.283-298.
Brooks. M.L.. l.R. Matchett. and K. Berrv. 2006. Ettects ot livestock watering sites on alien and
native plants in the Mojave Desert. L$A. lournal ot Arid Environments 67.1251+7.
Brooks. M.L. and R.A. Minnich. 2006. $outheastern deserts bioregion. In. $ugihara. N.O.. l.W.
van Wagtendonk. K.E. $hatter. l. FitesKautman. and A.E. Thode. eds. Fire in Calitornia's
Ecosvstems. The Lniversitv ot Calitornia Press. Berkelev. 576 pp.
Brown. D.E. and R.A. Minnich. 1986. Fire and changes in creosote bush scrub ot the western
$onoran Desert. Calitornia. The American Midland Naturalist 116.+11-+22.
Brown. l.. A. Wvers. A. Aldous. and L. Bach. 2007. Oroundwater and Biodiversitv Conservation.
A methods guide tor integrating groundwater needs ot ecosvstems and species into
conservation plans in the Pacitic Northwest. The Nature Conservancv.
Brotherson. l.D. and D. Field. 1987. Tamarix. Impacts ot a successtul weed. Rangelands 9. 110
112.
Bunn. D.. A. Mummert. M. Hoshovskv. K. Oilardi. and $. $hanks. 2007. Calitornia Wildlite.
Conservation Challenges. Calitornia's Wildlite Action Plan. Prepared bv the LC Davis
Wildlite Health Center tor the Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame. $acramento.
CA.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Bureau ot Land Management. 1999. The Calitornia Desert Conservation Area Plan. 1980 as
Amended. L.$. Department ot the Interior. Bureau ot Land Management. Desert District.
Riverside. Calitornia.
Burv. R.B.. R.A. Luckenbach. and $.D. Busack. 1977. Ettects ot ottroad vehicles on vertebrates in
the Calitornia desert L$A. L. $. Fish and Wildlite $ervice Wildlite Research Report 8.1-
23.
Calitornia Department ot Parks and Recreation. 2002. Taking the High Road. The Future ot
Calitornia's OttHighwav Vehicle Recreation Program. OttHighwav Motor Division.
Calitornia $tate Parks. $acramento. CA.
Calitornia Regional Water Qualitv Control Board. 2005. Water Qualitv Control Plan. Colorado
River Basin - Region 7.
Calitornia $tate Lands Commission. 2008. About the Calitornia $tate Lands Commission.
Available online.
http.www.slc.ca.govAbout_The_C$LCAbout_The_C$LC_Home_Page.html. accessed
lune 5. 2008.

Calitornia $tate Parks. 2005. AnzaBorrego Desert $tate Park. Final Oeneral Plan and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). $CH - 2002021060. Calitornia $tate Parks.
$acramento. Calitornia.
Chattee. M.A. and K.H. Berrv. 2006. Abundance and distribution ot selected elements in soils.
stream sediments. and selected torage plants trom desert tortoise habitats in the Mojave
and Colorado deserts. L$A. lournal ot Arid Environments 67 $upplement.35-87.
Code ot Federal Regulations (CFR). Compensating tor Wetlands Losses under the Clean Water
Act. +0 CFR $ection 1508.20.
Conservation Biologv Institute. 2009. A tramework tor ettective conservation management ot the
$onoran Desert ot Calitornia. Prepared tor The Nature Conservancv.
Cordell. H.K.. C.l. Betz. O.T. Oreen. and B. $tephens. 2008. Otthighwav Vehicle Recreation in
the Lnited $tates and its Regions and $tates. A National Report trom the National $urvev
on Recreation and the Environment (N$RE). A REC$TAT$ Research Report in the IRI$
$eries. L.$. Department ot Agriculture. Forest $ervice. Athens. Oeorgia.
Dalv. C.. M. Halbleib. l.I. $mith. W.P. Oibson. M.K. Doggett. O.H. Tavlor. l. Curtis. and P.A.
Pasteris. 2008. Phvsiographicallv sensitive mapping ot climatological temperature and
precipitation across the conterminous Lnited $tates. International lournal ot Climatologv
28.2031-206+.
Desert Managers Oroup. 2007. FY06 Accomplishments Report and FY07 Five Year Plan. Februarv
2007. Available at http.www.dmg.gov5vrplan.php. accessed lune 15. 2010.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Desert Managers Oroup. 2008. Desert Managers Oroup working groups. Available at
http.www.dmg.govworkgroups.php. accessed lune 8. 2008.
Dessens. l. 1995. $evere convective weather in the context ot nighttime global warming.
Oeophvsical Research Letters 22.12+1-12++.
Dill. D.B.. M.K. Youset. C.R. Cos. and R.O. Barton. 1980. Hunger vs. thirst in the burro Eouus
os:rus. Phvsiologv and Behavior 2+.975-978.
Dobrowski. $. Z. 2010. A climatic basis tor microretugia. the intluence ot terrain on climate.
Olobal Change Biologv no. doi. 10.1111j.13652+86.2010.02263.x.
Epps. C. W.. D. R. McCullough. l. D. Wehausen. V. C. Bleich. and l. L. Rechel. 200+. Ettects ot
climate change on population persistence ot desertdwelling mountain sheep in Calitornia.
Conservation Biologv 18.102113.
Esoue. T.C.. C.R. $chwalbe. L.A. DeFalco. R.B. Duncan. and T.l. Hughes. 2003. Ettects ot desert
wildtires on desert tortoise (Goti.rus o.oss::::) and other small vertebrates. The
$outhwestern Naturalist +8.103-111.
Evans R.D. and l.R. Ehleringer. 1993. A break in the nitrogencvcle in aridlands evidence trom
deltaN15 ot $oils. Oecologia 9+.31+-317.
Faanes. C.A. 1987. Bird behavior and mortalitv in relation to power lines in prairie habitats.
Oeneral Technical Report 7. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. L.$. Department ot the Interior.
2+ pp.
Federal Highwavs Administration. 2008. EcoLogical. An Ecosvstem Approach to Developing
Intrastructure Projects. Washington. D.C. 2008
Federal Register. 2 March. 2010 Federal Register Vol. 75. No. +0 Proposed Rules 9377 - 9379.
Field. C.B.. O.C. Dailv. F.W. Davis. $. Oaines. P.A. Matson. l. Melack. and N.L. Miller. 1999.
Contronting climate change in Calitornia. ecological impacts on the golden state. Lnion
ot Concerned $cientists and The Ecological $ocietv ot America.
Fenn. M.E.. R. Haeuber. O.$. Tonnesen. l.$. Baron. $. OrossmanClarke. D. Hope. D.A. latte. $.
Copeland. L. Oeiser. H.M. Rueth. and l.O. $ickman. 2003. Nitrogen emissions.
deposition. and monitoring in the western Lnited $tates. Bio$cience 53. 391-+03.
Flather. C.H.. M.$. Knowles. and I.A. Kendall. 1998. Threatened and endangered species
geographv. Characteristics ot hot spots in the conterminous Lnited $tates. Bioscience
+8.365-376.
Fleischner. T.L. 199+. Ecological costs ot livestock grazing in western North America.
Conservation Biologv 8.629-6++.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Forvs. E.A.. C. R. Allen. and D.P. Wojcik. 2002. Intluence ot the proximitv and amount ot human
development and roads on the occurrence ot the red imported tire ant in the lower Florida
Kevs. Biological Conservation 10.27-33.
Oerking. $.D. and R.M Lee. 1983. Thermal limits tor growth and reproduction in the desert
puptish Ctr:rocor r. r.:oc.rs:s. Phvsiological Zoologv 56.1-9.
Oroom. l.D.. L.B. McKinnev. L.C. Ball. and C.$. Winchell. 2007. Quantitving otthighwav vehicle
impacts on densitv and survival ot a threatened duneendemic plant. Biological
Conservation 135.119-13+.
Oroves. C. 2003. Dratting a conservation blueprint. A practitioner's guide to planning tor
biodiversitv. Island Press. Washington. DC.
Heretord. R.. R.H. Webb. and C.I. Longpre. 2006. Precipitation historv and ecosvstem response to
multidecadal precipitation variabilitv in the Mojave Desert region. 1893-2001. lournal ot
Arid Environments 67.133+.
Higgins. l.. R. Lnnasch. and C. $upples. 2007. Ecoregional $tatus Measures v. 1.0. Framework
and Technical Ouidance to Estimate Ettective Conservation. The Nature Conservancv.
August 3. 2007. Available at.
http.conserveonline.orgworkspacescbdgatewavdocumentsconservationmeasures.
Hott. K.v.$. and R.W. Marlow. 1993. Dratt Preliminarv Report. Impacts ot vehicle road trattic on
desert tortoise populations in the Piute. Cottonwood. and Eldorado Vallevs Desert
Wildlite Management Areas ot $outhern Nevada. L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice.
Holwav. D.A.. 2005. Edge ettects ot an invasive species across a natural ecological boundarv.
Biological Conservation 121.561-567.
Horvth. O.. M. Blaho. A. Egri. O. Kriska. I. $eres. and B. Robertson. 2010. Reducing the
maladaptive attractiveness ot solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conservation Biologv.
DOI. 10.1111j.15231739.2010.01518.x
Humphrev. R.R. 19+9. Fire as a means ot controlling velvet mesouite. burroweed. and cholla on
southern Arizona ranges. lournal ot Range Management 2.175-182.
Hunter. R.B. 1991. Bromus invasions on the Nevada test site. present status ot B. rubens and B.
tectorum with notes on their relationship to disturbance and altitude. Oreat Basin
Naturalist 51. 176-182.
Hunter. L.M.. R. Toth. T.C. Edwards. and R.l. Lilieholm. 2001. Population. Land Lse Change.
and $pecies Endangerment in the Calitornia Mojave. Alternative Futures. Available at.
http.www.demogr.mpg.dePapersworkshops010518_paper08.pdt. accessed. lune 20.
2010.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007. The Phvsical $cience Basis. Contribution ot Working Oroup I
to the Fourth Assessment Report ot the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
|Core Writing Team. $olomon. $.. D. Qin. M. Manning. Z. Chen. M. Marouis. K.B.
Avervt. M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)l. Cambridge Lniversitv Press. Cambridge. Lnited
Kingdom and New York. NY. L$A. 996 pp.
Ivanvi. C. 2000. Fishes ot the desert. Pp. 511-526 in A Natural Historv ot the $onoran Desert.
Phillips. $.l. and P.W. Comus. eds. Arizona$onora Desert Museum Press. Tucson.
Iverson. R.M. 1980. Processes ot accelerated pluvial erosion on desert hillslopes moditied bv
vehicular trattic. Earth $urtace Processes 5.369-388.
lacobson. E.R. 1992. The desert tortoise and upper respiratorv tract disease. Desert Tortoise
Reserve Committee $pecial Report. Available at. http.www.tortoise
tracks.orgpublicationsjacobson.html. accessed. lune 20. 2010.
lacobson. E.R.. l.M. Oaskin. M.B. Brown. R.K. Harris. C.H. Oardiner. l.L. LaPointe. H.P. Adams.
and C. Reggiardo. 1991. Chronic upper respiratorv tract disease ot treeranging desert
tortoises (Xerobates agassizii). lournal ot Wildlite Diseases 27.296-316.
Kauttman. l.B. and W.C. Krueger. 198+. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosvstems and streamside
management implications. a review. lournal ot Range Management 37.+30-+37.
Kennedv. T.A. and $.E. Hobbie. 200+. $altcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) invasion alters organic
matter dvnamics in a desert stream. Freshwater Biologv +9.65-76.
Kennedv. T.A.. l.C. Finlav. and $.E. Hobbie. 2005. Eradication ot invasive Tamarix ramosissima
along a desert stream increases native tish densitv. Ecological Applications 15.2072-2083.
Kidron O.l. and A.Yair. 1997. Raintallrunott relationship over encrusted dune surtaces. Nizzana.
Western Negev. Israel. Earth surtace processes and landtorms 22.1169-118+.
Kiesecker. l.M.. H. Copeland. A. Pocewicz and B. McKennev. 2010. Development bv design.
blending landscapelevel planning with the mitigation hierarchv. Frontiers in Ecologv and
the Environment 8.261-266.
Kiesecker. l.M.. H. Copeland. B. McKennev. A. Pocewicz. and K. Dohertv. In press. Energv bv
Design. making mitigation work tor conservation and development.
Koehler. P.A.. R.$. Anderson. and W.O. $paulding. 2005. Development ot vegetation in the
central Mojave Desert ot Calitornia during the late Quaternarv. Paleogeographv.
Paleoclimatologv. Paleoecologv 215.297-311.
Lange O.L.. A. Mever. H. Zellner. L. Heber. 199+. Photosvnthesis and water relations ot lichen
soil crusts - tieldmeasurements in the coastal tog zone ot the Namib Desert. Functional
Ecologv 8.253-26+.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! RR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Lathrop. E. W. 1983. Recoverv ot perennial vegetation in militarv maneuver areas. Pp. 265-277 in
Environmental Ettects ot Ottroad Vehicles. Impacts and Management in Arid Regions.
Webb. R.H. and H. O. Wilshire. eds. $pringerVerlag. New York.
Lenihan. l. M.. D. Bachelet. R. Drapek. and R. P. Neilson. 2006. The response ot vegetation
distribution. ecosvstem productivitv. and tire in Calitornia to tuture climate scenarios
simulated bv the MC1 Dvnamic Vegetation Model. Calitornia Climate Change Center.
White Paper CEC5002005191$F.
Leuteritz. T.E.l. and H.R. Ekbia. 2008. Not all roads lead to resilience. a complex svstems
approach to the comparative analvsis ot tortoises in arid ecosvstems. Ecologv and $ocietv
13.1.
Lewis. P.A.. C.l. DeLoach. E.A. Knutson. l.L. Tracv. and T.O. Robbins. 2003. Biologv ot
Diorhabda elongata deserticola (Coleoptera. Chrvsomelidae). an Asian leat beetle tor
biological control ot saltcedars (Tamarix spp.) in the Lnited $tates Biological Control
27.101-116.
Loarie. $.R.. B.E. Carter. K. Havhoe. $. McMahon. R. Moe. C.A. Knight. and D.D. Ackerlv. 2008.
Climate change and the tuture ot Calitornia's endemic tlora. PLo$ ONE 3.e2502.
doi.10.1371journal.pone.0002502
Loarie. $.R.. B.H. Carter. K. Havhoe. $. McMahon. R. Moe. C.A. Knight. D.D. Ackerlv. 2008.
Climate change and the tuture ot Calitornia's endemic tlora. PLo$ ONE 3(6). e2502.
doi.10.1371journal.pone.0002502
Lovich. l. 2000. Toor: spp. In Invasive Plants ot Calitornia Wildlands. Carla C. Bossard. lohn
M. Randall. Marc C. Hoshovskv. Editors. Lniversitv ot Calitornia Press. Available at
http.www.calipc.orgipmanagementipcwindex.php.
Lovich. l.E.. and D. Bainbridge. 1999. Anthropogenic degradation ot the southern Calitornia
desert ecosvstem and prospects tor natural recoverv and restoration. Environmental
Management 2+.309-326.
Margules. C.R. and R.L. Pressev. 2000. $vstematic Conservation Planning. $cience. +5.2+3 -253
Marshal. l.P.. V.C. Bleich. and N.O. Andrew. 2008. Evidence tor interspecitic competition
between teral ass Eouus asinus and mountain sheep Ovis canadensis in a desert
environment. Wildlite Biologv 1+.228-236.
Marshall. R.M.. $. Anderson. M. Batcher. P. Comer. $. Cornelius. R. Cox. A. Oondor. D. Oori. l.
Humke. R. Paredes Aguilar. I.E. Parra. $. $chwartz. 2000. An Ecological Analvsis ot
Conservation Priorities in the $onoran Desert Ecoregion. Prepared bv The Nature
Conservancv Arizona Chapter. $onoran Institute. and Instituto del Medio Ambiente v el
Desarrollo $ustentable del Estado de $onora. with support trom the Department ot
Detense Legacv Program. and agencv and institutional partners. 1+6 pp.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BAA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Marshall. R.M.. D. Turner. A. Oondor. D.F. Oori. C. Enouist. O. Luna. R.P. Aguilar. $.
Anderson. $. $chwartz. C. Watts. E. Lopez. and P. Comer. 200+. An Ecological analvsis ot
conservation priorities in the Apache Highlands ecoregion. Prepared bv The Nature
Conservancv ot Arizona. Instituto del Medio Ambiente v el Desarrollo $ustentable del
Estado de $onora. agencv and institutional partners. 152 pp. Document available at
http.www.azconservation.org.
Martin. A.P. and l.L. Wilcox. 200+. Evolutionarv historv ot Ash Meadows puptish (genus
Cvprinodon) populations interred using microsatellite markers. Conservation Oenetics
5.769-782.
McKennev. B. 2005. Environmental Ottset Policies. Principles. and Methods. A Review ot
$elected Legislative Frameworks. Biodiversitv Neutral Initiative.
McOinn M.D. and B.T. Faddis. 1997. Kangaroo rats exhibit spongitorm degeneration ot the
central auditorv svstem similar to that tound in gerbils. Hearing Research 10+.90-100.
Mette. O.K. and C.R. Carroll. 199+. Principles ot Conservation Biologv. $inauer Associates. Inc.
$underland. Massachusetts. 600 pp.
Minnich. R.A. 2003. Fire and dvnamics ot temperate desert woodlands in loshua Tree National
Park. Report submitted to National Park $ervice. loshua Tree National Park. Contract
number P833700003+0001. 32 pp.
Mojave Desert Land Trust. 2006. Calitornia Desert Conservation Vision. Final. Available at.
http.www.mojavedesertlandtrust.orgwhat.html-vision. accessed lanuarv 2+. 2008.
National Park $ervice. 2001. loshua Tree National Park Business Plan. National Park $ervice. L.$.
Department ot the Interior.
National Park $ervice. 2002. Death Vallev Oeneral Management Plan. National Park $ervice. L.$.
National Park $ervice. 200+. Environmental Assessment tor the proposed 200+ Fire Management
Plan tor Mojave National Preserve. Available at.
http.www.nps.govmojaparkmgmtuploadenvironm.pdt. accessed lune 18. 2010.
National Park $ervice. 2007a. Mojave National Preserve Business Plan. National Park $ervice. L.$.
National Park $ervice. 2007b. First Annual Centennial $trategv tor Lake Mead National
Recreation Area. National Park $ervice. L.$. Department ot the Interior.
National Park $ervice 2010. Devil's Hole. Death Vallev National Park. Available at.
http.www.nps.govdevanaturesciencedevilshole.htm. accessed. lune 20. 2010.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BAB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Nussear. K.E.. Esoue. T.C.. Inman. R.D.. Oass. Leila. Thomas. K.A.. Wallace. C.$.A.. Blainev.
l.B.. Miller. D.M.. and Webb. R.H.. 2009. Modeling habitat ot the desert tortoise (Goti.rus
o.oss::::) in the Mojave and parts ot the $onoran Deserts ot Calitornia. Nevada. Ltah. and
Arizona. L.$. Oeological $urvev OpenFile Report 20091102. 18 p.
O'Learv. l.F. and R.A. Minnich. 1981. Posttire recoverv ot creosote bush scrub vegetation in the
western Colorado Desert. Madrono. 28.6166.

Pavlik. B.M. 2008. The Calitornia Deserts. an ecological rediscoverv. Lniversitv ot Calitornia
Press. Berkelev. 365 pp.
Pianka. E. R. and L.l. Vitt. 2003. Lizards. Windows to the Evolution ot Diversitv (Organisms and
Environments. 5.) Lniversitv ot Calitornia Press.
Pitelka. L.F. and the Plant Migration Workshop Oroup. 1997. Plant migration and climate
change. American $cientist 85.+6+-+73.
Pitt. l. 2001. Can we restore the Colorado River Delta. lournal ot Arid Environments +9.211-
220.
Platts. W.$. 1981. Intluence ot torest and rangeland management on anadromous tish habitat in
Western North America. No. 7. Ettects ot livestock grazing. Oeneral Technical Report
PNW12+. L. $. Forest $ervice. Pacitic Northwest Forest and Range Experiment $tation.
Portland. Oregon.
Pott. N.L.. l.D. Allan. M.B. Bain. l.R. Karr. K.L. Prestegaard. B.D. Richter. and l.C. $tromberg.
1997. The natural tlow regime. a paradigm tor river conservation and restoration.
Bioscience +7.769-8+.
Pott. N.L.. l.D. Allan. M.B. Bain. l.R. Karr. K.L. Prestegaard. B.D. Richter. and l.C.
$tromberg.1997. The natural tlow regime. a paradigm tor river conservation and
restoration. Bioscience +7.769-8+.
Possingham. H.P.. I.R. Ball and $. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods tor identitving
representative reserve networks. Pp 291-305 in Ferson. $. and M. Burgman. eds.
Quantitative methods tor conservation biologv. $pringerVerlag. New York.
Randall. l. M. 1996. Weed control tor the preservation ot biological diversitv. Weed Technologv
10.370-383.
Ricketts. T.H.. E. Dinerstein. D.M. Olson. C.l. Loucks. W. Eichbaum. D. Della$alla. K.
Kavanaugh. P. Hedao. P.T. Hurlev. K.M. Carnev. R. Abell. and $. Walters. 1999.
Terrestrial ecoregions ot North America. a conservation assessment. Island Press.
Washington. D.C.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BA@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Robinson. D.C.E.. $.l. Beukema. and L.A. Oreig. 2008. Vegetation models and climate change.
workshop results. Prepared bv E$$A Technologies Ltd.. tor Western Wildlands
Environmental Threat Assessment Center. L$DA Forest $ervice. Prineville. OR. 50 pp.
Rogers. O. F. 1986. Comparison ot tire occurrence in desert and nondesert vegetation in Tonto
National Forest. Arizona. Madrono 33.287-283.
Rogers. O.F. and l. $teele. (1980) $onoran Desert tire ecologv. 15-19. In. M. A. $tokes and l. H.
Dieterich (tech. coords.). Proceedings ot the tire historv workshop. Oeneral Technical
Report RM81. L.$. Department ot Agriculture. Rockv Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment $tation. Fort Collins. CO.

Rowlands. P. 1995. Vegetational Attributes ot the Calitornia Desert Conservation Area. Pp. 135
183 in. l. Latting and P. Rowlands. eds. The Calitornia Desert. An Introduction to Natural
Resources and Man's Impact. Volume 1. Lniversitv ot Calitornia. Riverside Press.
Riverside. Calitornia.
$eegmiller. R.F. and R.D. Ohmart. 1981. Ecological relationships ot teral burros and desert
bighorn sheep. Wildlite Monographs 78.1-58.
$heppard. P.R.. A.C. Comrie. O.D. Packin. K. Angerbach. and M.K. Hughes. 2002. The climate
ot the southwest. Climate Research 21.219-238.
$herer. L.M. 1967. The name Mojave. Mohave. A historv ot its origin and meaning. $outhern
Calitornia Quarterlv +9.136. Los Angeles. Calitornia.
$hreve. F. and I.M. Wiggins. 196+. Vegetation and Flora ot the $onoran Desert. $tantord
Lniversitv Press. $tantord. Calitornia. 17+0 pp.
$imons. L. H. 1991. Rodent dvnamics in relation to tire in the $onoran Desert. Arizona. L$A.
lournal ot Mammalogv 72.518-52+.
$ocietv tor Conservation Biologv. 2010. Conservation Biologv FAQ. Available at.
http.www.conbio.orgresourceseducationtao.ctm. accessed lune 10. 2010.
$pencer. W.D.. P. Beier. K. Penrod. K. Winters. C. Paulman. H. RustigianRomsos. l. $trittholt.
M. Parisi. and A. Pettler. 2010. Calitornia Essential Habitat Connectivitv Project. A
$trategv tor Conserving a Connected Calitornia. Prepared tor Calitornia Department ot
Transportation. Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame. and Federal Highwavs
Administration. Available online.
http.www.dot.ca.govhoenvbioprogram_ettorts.htm

$udbrock. A. 1993. Tamarisk control. I. Fighting Back. An overview ot the invasion. and a low
impact wav ot tighting it. Restoration and Management Notes 11.31-3+.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BAK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
ten Kate K. Bishop l. and Bavon R. 200+. Biodiversitv ottsets. views. experience. and the business
case. Oland. $witzerland. Cambridge. LK. and London. LK. ILCN and Insight
Investment.
The Nature Conservancv. 1997. Designing a Oeographv ot Hope. Ouidelines tor EcoregionBased
Conservation. The Nature Conservancv. Arlington. VA.
The Nature Conservancv. 1999. $ierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan. The Nature Conservancv ot
Calitornia.
The Nature Conservancv. 2000. Designing a Oeographv ot Hope. Ouidelines tor EcoregionBased
Conservation. Volumes I e II. (authors. Craig Oroves. Laura Valutis. Diane Vosick. Betsv
Neelv. Kimberlv Wheaton. lerrv Touval and Bruce Runnels). The Nature Conservancv.
Arlington. VA.
The Nature Conservancv. 2001. Ecoregionbased conservation in the Mojave Desert. August 2+.
2001. The Nature Conservancv ot Nevada. Las Vegas. Nevada. Available at.
The Nature Conservancv. 2008. Renewable Energv in the $outh Coast and Deserts. The Nature
Conservancv ot Calitornia.
The Nature Conservancv and World Wildlite Fund. 2006. $tandards tor Ecoregional Assessments
and Biodiveristv Visions. lanuarv 26. 2006. The Nature Conservancv. Arlington. VA.
Tonnesen. O.. Z. Wang. M. Omarv. and C.l. Chien. 2007. Assessment ot Nitrogen Deposition.
Modeling and Habitat Assessment. Calitornia Energv Commission. PIER EnergvRelated
Environmental Research. CEC5002005032.
Tuhv. l.$.. P. Comer. D. Dortman. M. Lammert. l. Humke. B. Cholvin. O. Bell. B. Neelv. $.
$ilbert. L. Whitham. B. Baker. The Nature Conservancv. and The Colorado Plateau
Ecoregional Planning Team. 2002. A Conservation assessment ot the Colorado Plateau
ecoregion. Prepared bv The Nature Conservancv ot Ltah with support trom agencv and
institutional partners. 110 pp. appendices. Document available at
http.www.azconservation.orgE!
Lnited Nations Environment Programme. 2008. Climate Change. Available at.
http.www.unep.orgThemesclimatechange. accessed lune 11. 2008.
L. $. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. 2008. American Indian Tribal Rights. FederalTribal Trust
Responsibilities. and the Endangered $pecies Act. Available at.
http.www.tws.govendangeredtribalindex.html. accessed lune 3. 2008.
L. $. Forest $ervice. 2005. Forest Plan Revision Lpdate. Angeles. Cleveland. Los Padres. $an
Bernardino National Forests. L.$. Forest $ervice.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BAM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
L.$. Department ot Detense. 2010. About the Department ot Detense and DetenseLINK.
Available at. http.www.detenselink.miladminabout.html. last accessed lune 15. 2010.
L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. 1985. Recoverv Plans tor Four $outhwest L.$. Cacti. Endangered
$pecies Technical Bulletin. 10. 1. 1. 79.
L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlite and plants.
determination ot endangered status and critical habitat tor the desert puptish. Federal
Register 51. No. 61. pp. 108+210851.
L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. 199+. The desert tortoise (Mojave population) recoverv plan. L.$.
Fish and Wildlite $ervice. Region 1Lead Region. Portland. Oregon. 73 pp. appendices.
L.$. Fish and Wildlite $ervice. 2006. Rangewide monitoring ot the Mojave population ot the
desert tortoise. 2001-2005 summarv report. Report bv the Desert Tortoise Recoverv
Ottice. L$ Fish and Wildlite $ervice. Reno. NV.
L.$. Oeological $urvev 200+. Precipitation Historv ot the Mojave Desert Region. 1893-2001.
Available at http.pubs.usgs.govtsts11703. Accessed lune 18. 2010.
L.$. Oeological $urvev. 2008a. The OAP Analvsis Program. Available at.
http.www.nbii.govportalserver.ptcommunitvgap_home1+82. accessed lune 9.
2008.
L.$. Oeological $urvev. 2008b. National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1 Arc $econd.
L.$. Oeological $urvev. 2009a. Mojave Water Resources. Available at.
http.ca.water.usgs.govmojaveindex.html. accessed lune 18. 2010.
L.$. Oeological $urvev. 2009b. National Hvdrologv Dataset. The National Map.
L.$. Oeological $urvev. 2010. A tield studv ot environmental variables intluencing abundance and
distribution ot desert puptish in the $alton $ea Basin. Accessed at.
http.wtrc.usgs.govresearchaouatic%20ecologv$T$aiki6.htm.
Van Devender. T.R.. and W.O. $paulding 1979. Development ot vegetation and climate in the
southwestern Lnited $tates. $cience 20+.701-710.
Warren. M.$.. l.K. Hill. and l.A. Thomas. et al. 2001. Rapid conseouences ot British buttertlies to
opposing torces ot climate and habitat change. Nature +1+.65-69.
Watts. M.E. I.R. Ball. R.R. $tewart. C.l. Klein. K. Wilson. C. $teinback. R. Lourival. L. Kircher.
H.P. Possingham. 2009. Marxan with Zones. sottware tor optimal conservation based land
and seause zoning. Environmental Modelling e $ottware.
doi.10.1016j.envsott.2009.06.005
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BAN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!4'C'*'0-')!
Webb. R.H. and l.E. Bowers. 1993. The impacts ot grazing on plant demographv in Orand
Canvon. Pp. 210-223 in Vegetation Management ot Hot Desert Rangeland Ecosvstems.
Papers presented at a svmposium. Lniversitv ot Arizona. Young. D.D.. ed. Tucson.
Webb. R.H.. l.$. Heaton. M.L. Brooks. and D.M. Miller. 2009. Introduction. pp 1 - 6. In R.H.
Webb. L . Fenstermaker. l. Heaton. D. Hughson. E. McDonald and D. Miller (Editors).
2009. The Mojave Desert. Ecosvstem Processes and $ustainabilitv. Lniversitv ot Nevada
Press. Reno. Nevada.
Weiss. $.B. 2006. Impacts ot Nitrogen Deposition on Calitornia Ecosvstems and Biodiversitv.
Calitornia Energv Commission. PIER EnergvRelated Environmental Research. CEC500
2005165.

Weltzin l.F.. M.E. Loik. $. $chwinning. D.O. Williams. P. Fav. B. Haddad. l. Harte. T.E. Huxman.
A.K. Knapp. O. Lin. W.T. Pockman. M.R. $haw. E. $mall. M.D. $mith. $.D. $mith. D.T.
Tissue. and l.C. Zak. 2003. Assessing the response ot terrestrial ecosvstems to potential
changes in precipitation. Bio$cience 53.9+1-952.
Wilcove. D.$.. D. Rothstein. l. $ubow. A. Philips. and E. Losos. 2000. Leading threats to
biodiversitv. what's imperiling L.$. species. Chapter 8 in Precious Heritage. The $tatus ot
Biodiversitv in the Lnited $tates. $tein. B.A.. L.$. Kutner. and l.$. Adams. eds. Oxtord
Lniversitv Press. New York. N.Y.
Williams. l.T. and $.T. lackson. 2007 Novel climates. noanalog communities. and ecological
surprises. Frontiers in Ecologv and the Environment 5.+75-+82.
Wilshire. H.O. 1983. The impact ot vehicles on desert soil stabilizers. Pp. 31-50 in Environmental
Ettects ot Ottroad Vehicles. Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. R. H. Webb and
H. O. Wilshire. eds. $pringerVerlag. New York.
Wohltahrt O.. Fenstermaker L.F.. and l.A. Arnone. 2008. Large annual net ecosvstem CO
2
uptake
ot a Mojave Desert ecosvstem. Olobal Change Biologv 1+.1+75-1+87.
Ziska. L.H. 2008. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and plant biologv. the overlooked paradigm.
DNA and Cell Biologv 27.165-172.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! BAO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2>>'05/I!2!!"'+9#5)!C#*!6#05;-+/0.!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!
!
U&'*&/'H!#C!+9'!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!2>>*#%-9!
!
We used the Ecoregional Assessment approach and methodologv outlined in D.s:.r:r. o G.o.roti
o/ Hot.: Gu:c.i:r.s /or Ecor..:orBos.c Cors.r:ot:or (The Nature Conservancv 1997. 2000). which is
described in detail in Oroves (2003) and has been retined in the process ot developing other
Ecoregional Assessments (e.g. Tuhv et al. 2002. Marshall et al. 200+) and recent regional
conservation trameworks (e.g. Conservation Biologv Institute 2009). We evaluated the Mojave
Desert Ecoregion as detined bv Bailev et al. (199+) and moditied bv The Nature Conservancv in
1998.

The tollowing list outlines the basic steps ot our approach. which are described in detail in the
sections that tollow.
x Detine the studv area. and delineate its boundaries.
x Identitv -#0)'*&%+/#0!+%*.'+). a set ot species. communitv tvpes and other conservation
teatures that represent the biodiversitv ot the ecoregion and that will serve as the tocus ot
the assessment. Conservation targets are generallv selected trom a range ot scales (e.g.
species to communities to ecological svstems) and trom ditterent taxa (e.g. tish. mammals.
insects. plants) to adeouatelv intorm comprehensive biodiversitv conservation.
x Oather data and map distribution ot conservation targets.
x $tratitv. or subdivide. the region. so as to ensure representation ot important variation
within and among conservation target populations and occurrences.
x $et ouantitative -#0)'*&%+/#0!.#%1) tor each target. Ooals represent the levels ot protection
estimated to be sutticient to allow the target to maintain ecological variabilitv. evolve. and
persist within the ecoregion as conditions change over the coming decades.
x Identitv and map threats to conservation targets (e.g.. map areas ot human impact).
x $vnthesize and evaluate these inputs to identitv the suite ot areas that would most
etticientlv meet the conservation goals ot protecting all conservation targets.
x Lse outputs ot this evaluation to map conservation value across the Mojave Desert
Ecoregion. using tour categories ot relative value.
x Manuallv review mapped conservation values against recent aerial and satellite imagerv and
revise map where appropriate to produce tinal database and map.
x Identitv conservation objectives and opportunities tor lands in each ot the tour
conservation value categories.

(%+%!=#;*-')!
!
Table A1 lists the data sources used in this assessment. Our primarv sources ot intormation tor
known occurrences ot target species were the Calitornia Natural Diversitv Database (CNDDB) and
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
8%?1'!2VB!!=#;*-')!#C!(%+%!b)'5!/0!+9'!2))'))3'0+! !
8<>'!%05!:%3'!#C!(%+%)'+! =#;*-'!
Conservation Target
Arizona Natural Diversitv Database http.www.azgtd.govw_ceditshdms_natural_heritage.shtml
Bighorn $heep populations and corridors Clint Epps
BLM North and East Mojave Plan http.www.blm.govcastentocddnemo.html
BLM Western Mojave Plan http.www.blm.govcastentocddwemo.html
Calitornia Natural Diversitv Database http.www.dtg.ca.govbiogeodatacnddb
Clark Countv. NV M$HCP http.www.accessclarkcountv.comdeptsdaoemepddcpPagesdcp_mshcp.aspx
Modeled Tortoise Habitat Arizona http.www.blm.govazstenprogmapsgis_tiles.html
Modeled Tortoise Habitat Mojave http.pubs.usgs.govot20091102
Nevada Natural Diversitv Database http.heritage.nv.govgisgis.htm
$eeps and $prings (NHD) http.nhd.usgs.gov
Ltah Threatened. Endangered. and $ensitive $pecies Occurrences

http.dwrcdc.nr.utah.govucdcDownloadOI$disclaim.htm
Digital Elevation Model
E$RI Data and Maps http.www.esri.com
L$O$

http.seamless.usgs.gov
Ecoregion
Mojave Desert Ecoregion Boundarv

http.conserveonline.orgworkspacesecoregional.shapetile
Energv
CA Dept. ot Cons. Div.Oil. Oas. and Oeothermal Resources http.www.conservation.ca.govdoggeothermalmapsPagesindex.aspx
CA RETI Renewable Energv Zones and Conceptual Transmission http.www.energv.ca.govretidocumentsindex.html
Current and Proposed Production Facilities Ventvx http.www1.ventvx.comvelocitvevenergvmap.asp
Current and Proposed Transmission Ventvx http.www1.ventvx.comvelocitvevenergvmap.asp
Energv Corridors West Wide Energv Corridors http.corridoreis.anl.goveistmapgisindex.ctm
Renewable Energv Right ot Wav Applications. BLM Calitornia http.www.blm.govcagis
$olar Energv $tudv Areas ($olar Energv PEI$) http.solareis.anl.goveismapsindex.ctm
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
8%?1'!2VB!!=#;*-')!#C!(%+%!b)'5!/0!+9'!2))'))3'0+! !
8<>'!%05!:%3'!#C!(%+%)'+! =#;*-'!
OAP $tewardship Ratings
Protected Areas Database ot the L.$. (v. 11) http.gapanalvsis.nbii.govportalserver.ptcommunitvmaps_and_data1850
$outhwest ReOAP $tewardship http.twsnmctwru.nmsu.eduswregap$tewardshipDetault.htm
The Calitornia Oap Analvsis Project (OAP)

http.www.biogeog.ucsb.eduprojectsgapgap_home.html
Hvdrologv
CALWATER 2.2 watersheds http.gis.ca.govmeta.epl.oid-22175
E$RI Data and Map http.www.esri.com
NHD

http.nhd.usgs.gov
Land Ownership
29 Palms Expansion http.www.marines.milunit29palmslaspagesdetault.aspx
ARLI$ Land Ownership http.www.land.state.az.usalrislavers.html
Fort Irwin Land Expansion http.www.tortirwinlandexpansion.com
OreenInto Network's CPAD http.casil.ucdavis.educasilplanninglandOwnership
Nevada Land Ownership http.www.blm.govnvstenprogmore_programsgeographic_sciencesgisgeo
spatial_data.html
Protected Areas Database ot the L.$. (v. 11) http.gapanalvsis.nbii.govportalserver.pt
Public Conservation and Trust Lands. PCTL_05 http.atlas.ca.govdownload.html-casilplanninglandOwnership
Ltah Trust lands $tate $urtace Ownership

ttp.landsttp.state.ut.uspubgisdata.htm
Land LseLand Cover
Existing vegetation data (eVeg) http.www.ts.ted.usr5rslclearinghousesecsinterior.shtml
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) http.redirect.conservation.ca.govDLRPtmmpproduct_page.asp
LANDFIRE http.www.landtire.gov
Mojave Desert Vegetation CA http.www.mojavedata.govdatasets.php.oclass-veg
MultiResolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) http.www.mrlc.gov
Nature$erve Ecological $vstems http.www.natureserve.orggetDataL$ecologvData.jsp
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
8%?1'!2VB!!=#;*-')!#C!(%+%!b)'5!/0!+9'!2))'))3'0+! !
8<>'!%05!:%3'!#C!(%+%)'+! =#;*-'!
Land LseLand Cover (cont.)
$outhWest ReOAP Landcover http.earth.gis.usu.eduswgap
$outhwest ReOAP $tewardship http.twsnmctwru.nmsu.eduswregap$tewardshipDetault.htm
The Calitornia Oap Analvsis Project (OAP)

http.www.biogeog.ucsb.eduprojectsgapgap_home.html
Planning Boundarv
BLM's WEMO. NECO. and NEMO plans http.www.blm.govcagis
Clark Countv. NV M$HCP http.www.redclittsdesertreserve.com
Lower Colorado River Multi$pecies Conservation Program http.www.lcrmscp.gov
Washington Countv. Ltah HCP http.www.redclittsdesertreserve.com
Protected Areas and Management Categories
Arizona Wilderness areas http.www.land.state.az.usalrislavers.html
BLM's WEMO. NECO. and NEMO plans http.www.blm.govcagis
Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame http.www.dtg.ca.govbiogeodatagisclearinghouse.asp
Nevada Wilderness Areas (BLM) http.www.blm.govnvstenprogmore_programsgeographic_sciencesgisgeo
spatial_data.html
L$F$

http.www.ts.ted.usr5rslclearinghousegisdownload.shtml
$atellite Imagerv
E$RI Bing Maps

http.www.esri.comsottwarearcgisarcgisonlinebingmaps.html
ThreatsImpacts
Fires. Calitornia http.trap.cdt.ca.govdatatrapgisdataselect.asp.theme-5
Fires. Nevada http.www.blm.govnvstenprogmore_programsgeographic_sciencesgisgeo
spatial_data.html
Fires. Ltah http.www.blm.govutstenprogmoregeographic_intormationgis_data_and
_maps.html
Oroundwater Pumps (NHD) http.nhd.usgs.gov
Livestock Orazing Allotments http.www.blm.govcagis
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
8%?1'!2VB!!=#;*-')!#C!(%+%!b)'5!/0!+9'!2))'))3'0+! !
8<>'!%05!:%3'!#C!(%+%)'+! =#;*-'!
ThreatsImpacts (cont.)
Livestock Orazing Allotments http.www.land.state.az.usalrislavers.html
Livestock Orazing Allotments http.www.blm.govcagis
Livestock Orazing Allotments http.www.ts.ted.usr5rslclearinghousegisdownload.shtml
Mines. Arizona http.www.admmr.state.az.usIntoannual_production.html
Mines. Calitornia ttp.ttp.consrv.ca.govpubomramlutomstoms.zip
Mines. Nevada http.www.blm.govnvstenprogmore_programsgeographic_sciencesgisgeo
spatial_data.html
Mines. Ltah http.gis.utah.govsgidvectordownloadutahsgidvectorgisdatalaversbvcategorv
Nitrogen Deposition http.pah.cert.ucr.eduaomndep
OHV Recreation Areas (Calitornia) http.www.blm.govcagis
Roads-Arizona http.www.land.state.az.usalrislavers.html
Roads-National http.www.esri.com
Roads-TIOER2009 http.www2.census.govcgibinshapetiles2009nationaltiles
Roads-Calitornia http.www.blm.govcagis
Roads-TIOER2000 http.www.esri.comdatadownloadcensus2000_tigerlineindex.html
Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas-AZ http.www.blm.govAZgis
Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas-CA http.www.blm.govcagis
Wild Horse and Burro Management Areas-NV

http.www.blm.govNVgis
TNC Conservation Porttolio Area

Mojave Desert Conservation Porttolio Areas
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
the Arizona. Nevada. and Ltah Natural Heritage programs. along with intormation gleaned trom
BLM's West Mojave (WEMO) and Northeast Colorado Desert (NECO) plans. NP$'s Northern
and Eastern Mojave Desert Management Plan (NEMO). and the Clark Countv. Nevada Multi
$pecies Habitat Conservation Plan. We moditied our primarv source ot land cover data.
LANDFIRE. with additional inputs trom the L$O$ ReOAP dataset and the L$O$ National
Hvdrological Dataset (NHD). Our primarv source ot data tor roads and railroads which tormed the
basis our suitabilitv analvsis (analvsis ot anthropogenic disturbance) used in Marxan was L$
Census Bureau's TIOER 2009. We utilized aerial and satellite imagerv provided through
ArcOI$Online.com to veritv our categorization ot the landscape.

,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H)!!
!
While an abundance ot data exists with regard to target occurrence intormation. signiticant gaps in
biodiversitv data exist tor the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. These gaps represent lack ot survev ettort
on the ground. lack ot reporting ot survev results. and signiticant lagtimes between data reporting
and data availabilitv in publiclvaccessible databases. For example. in the Calitornia portion ot the
Mojave Desert. manv records reported to the CNDDB have vet to be catalogued in the database
due to statting and other resource limitations. In addition to the gaps in occurrence data. little to
no intormation exists regarding the viabilitv ot species and communitv targets in the Mojave
Desert.

To remedv these shorttalls. the planning team traveled throughout the Mojave Desert Ecoregion
conducting an extensive expert interview process. The interviewees included nearlv 50 experts
trom conservation organizations. educational institutions. government agencies. and private
consulting tirms. including.
x Ash Meadows National Wildlite Retuge
x Bureau ot Land Management (CA. NV. LT. AZ)
x BrownBerrv Biological Consulting
x Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
x Center tor Biological Diversitv
x Calitornia Native Plant $ocietv
x Desert Research Institute - Las Vegas
x Lniversitv ot Idaho
x loshua Tree National Park
x Los Angeles Countv Parks and Recreation
x Mojave Desert Land Trust
x Mojave National Preserve
x Nellis Air Force Base and Ranges
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
x Nevada Department ot Wildlite
x Oregon $tate Lniversitv
x PRBO Conservation $cience
x $cience and Collaboration tor Connected Wildlands
x $helton Douthit Consulting
x $onoran Institute
x The Wildlands Conservancv
x Transition Habitats Conservancv
x Lniversitv ot Calitornia. Riverside
x Lniversitv ot Calitornia. Los Angeles
x Lniversitv ot Calitornia Natural Reserve $vstem
x Lniversitv ot Nevada. Las Vegas
x Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
x Lnited $tates Forest $ervice
x Lnited $tates Oeological $urvev
x Ltah Division ot Wildlite Resources
x Western Watersheds

Appendix C lists the experts interviewed. Note that inclusion on this list in no wav signities that
the interviewee endorses the methods or results ot this Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment.

The experts were oueried regarding target localities. target viabilitv. threats. processes. and land
management intormation. The intormation provided bv the experts was used to create a table ot
expert intormation (Appendix D) and a spatiallvexplicit porttolio ot sites within the desert that
have notable conservation value. This also creates a list ot biological site attributes tor each
polvgon that intorms both reserve selection and contiguration (design).

6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+!='1'-+/#0!%05!(%+%!
!
To guide identitication ot conservation opportunities. we selected multiple conservation targets
(Table A3. located at the end ot this appendix). Conservation targets are species. native plant
communities. and ecological svstems. Thev are the basic unit ot analvsis which. along with the
conservation goals. drive the ecoregional assessment process. Conservation targets are identitied
based on the coarse tilter tine tilter" approach (The Nature Conservancv 2000). The method
attempts to integrate several ditterent strategies tor conserving biological diversitv bv evaluating
and svnthesizing data at the ecological svstem and species levels (Oroves 2003). It also is reterred to
as a representative" approach to conservation based on the underlving premise that protecting
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
representative examples ot ecosvstems would also protect the vast majoritv ot species contained
within them.

Coarse tilter targets are plant communities and other ecological svstems including both rare and
common svstems. Analvzing biological organization at this scale has two advantages. First. it
enables one to tactor in the role ot ecological processes. such as the dominant disturbance regimes.
that plav an important role in maintaining the structure and tunction ot ecological svstems.
$econd. these larger scales ot analvsis are more likelv to capture two important components ot
biological diversitv. ecological and genetic variation. We selected coarse tilter targets trom the
ecological svstems in the LANDFIRE and L$O$ OAP analvsis program ReOAP datasets.

The premise ot the tine tilter is to evaluate the individual species whose raritv or some aspect ot
litehistorv reouirements might not be adeouatelv captured bv coarsetilter analvses. Candidates tor
the tine tilter include. but are not limited to. species with narrow habitat reouirements. rare or
declining species. species extirpated trom svstems where their reintroduction is still teasible and
important trom an ecological standpoint. and species that have specitic dispersal needs across
multiple ecological svstems and. theretore. mav be particularlv vulnerable to habitat tragmentation.
The selection ot tine tilter species is necessarilv biased bv available data. However. ecoregional
assessments tvpicallv include dozens ot tine tilter targets selected trom a varietv ot taxonomic
groups and spanning all levels ot raritv (i.e.. rare to common).

In this assessment. conservation targets. both species and ecological svstems. were selected based
upon their degree ot endemism to the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. their current population status as
endangered. threatened or declining. and their identitication bv experts in the tield that thev are
unioue or emblematic ot this ecoregion. Natural Heritage data trom the tour states were used to
identitv all the globallv rare species (labeled as O1 or O2) that inhabit this ecoregion and
additional species or natural communities were added as warranted. $pecies such as the bighorn
sheep (O::s coroc.rs:s r.isor:) were included not tor their raritv or unioueness within the ecoregion
but because ot their ecologv. thev reouire a great range in elevation during the course ot their lite
historv. $pecies such as these become surrogates tor the landscapescale conservation needs ot the
Mojave Desert. When relativelv common species such as kit tox (Vuit.s ocrot:s) and Burrowing
Owls (Ati.r. cur:cuior:o)!were identitied bv tield experts as tormerlv common but now in decline
or subject to habitatdegrading activities such as expanding residential development. we included
these species in our analvsis whenever we had ecoregionalwide data tor their occurrences.

In total. we selected 122 animal species and 399 plant species as conservation targets tor the
Mojave Desert. No new data or occurrence points were generated bv this exercise since it was
bevond the scope and the limited resources ot the ecoregional assessment process.!We used
Natural Heritage occurrence data on the distributions tor all target species except the desert
tortoise tor our spatial analvsis. To correct tor spottv and disparate intormation on tortoise
occurrence data in the tour states. we utilized the Desert Tortoise Recoverv Ottice's (DTRO)
recentlv completed habitat model tor this species (Nussear et al. 2009). For example. the Nevada
Natural Heritage Program considers all habitat below 5.000 teet as tortoise habitat rather than
recording individual observations or collection points. Calitornia Natural Diversitv Database
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
includes large polvgons tor their tortoise records. whereas Ltah Heritage Program normalizes all
records to the souare mile. The DTRO model indicates what should be appropriate tortoise
habitat based upon a large number ot individual occurrence record parameters such as slope.
aspect. elevation. soil tvpe. and surrounding vegetation composition. While this mav overestimate
the extent ot current tortoise populations. it is undoubtedlv more accurate in predicting where
thev are not tound.!
!
The ecoregion also supports a varietv ot ecological svstems. tor example. LANDFIRE data include
89 cover categories in the Mojave and REOAP data includes 98. Lsing both ot these sources and
the Nature$erve Ecological $vstem Descriptions tor the Mojave Desert. we aggregated them into a
list ot ++ targets. The Ecological $vstem Descriptions ditter bv ecological region. and our
aggregation process removed those ditterences in order to simplitv target identitication (Table A3).
For example. InterMountain Basins Mixed $altbush $hrubland. InterMountain Basins Mixed $alt
Desert $crub. and $onoraMojave Mixed $alt Desert $crub were aggregated into the more general
term Mixed $alt Desert $crub".

We used the LANDFIRE data to identitv the location and spatial distribution ot these ecological
svstem targets. Where LANDFIRE mapped the landscape as $parselv Vegetated or Barren. we
inserted ReOAP data which vielded tiner distinctions in these areas and introduced the categories.
Clitt and Canvon. Desert Pavement. Dune. Plava. Marsh. Meadow. and Wash. We also extracted
the locations ot drv lake beds or plavas trom the L$O$ National Hvdrologic Dataset in order to
update the LANDFIREReOAP data.

We also identitied seeps and springs as conservation targets because ot their great importance tor
plants and animals in this desert. including the tact that single springs and seeps or small clusters
ot them support narrowlv distributed endemic species such as spring tishes. springsnails.
amphibians. and plants.

6#0)'*&%+/#0!T#%1!='1'-+/#0!
!
Conservation goals are identitied tor both coarsetilter and tine
tilter targets. Thev are used tor two purposes in ecoregional
assessments. tirst. as a hvpothesis tor the number and distribution
ot each conservation target needed to maintain its viabilitv. and.
second. as an accounting unit to aid in determining the degree to
which the identitication ot conservation areas meets established
conservation goals. Conservation goals are tvpicallv expressed as a
number and distribution ot populations tor species. and as an
overall acreage. minimum patch size. and geographic distribution
tor ecological svstems. Ooals were set tor our conservation targets
tollowing guidelines established in previous ecoregional planning
processes and as described in Oeographv ot Hope (TNC 2000).
6#0)'*&%+/#0!T#%1)
represent the levels ot
protection estimated
to be sutticient to
allow the target to
maintain viabilitv.
evolve. and persist
within the ecoregion.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
There is no hard and tast rule tor setting
conservation goals. as long as the rationale tor their
establishment is laid out o tr:or:. the justitication can
be debated and the analvsis rerun with ditterent
goals it necessarv. In general. tor species targets. we
set goals based upon the degree ot global raritv as
tracked bv the Natural Heritage Databases in each ot
the tour states. High goals ot 75 or 90% ot
occurrences were set tor O1 or O2 species because
thev can be tound nowhere else and are limited in
their range and number ot populations. For more
common but declining species (O3O5). such as the
chuckwalla (Sourooius ot.r). the goals were set
lower. at 50 or 60%.
6#0)'*&%+/#0!=+%+;)!4%0G)!

The Calitornia Natural Diversitv
Database and the various state Natural
Heritage Programs use a standardized
svstem to assign conservation status
ranks to plant. animal and tungal
species. The rank is designated bv a
number trom 1 to 5. preceded bv a
letter retlecting the geographic scale ot
the assessment (O - Olobal. N -
National. and $ - $tate) and it provides
an estimate ot extinction risk tor the
species. The numbers have the
tollowing meaning.
1 - criticallv imperiled
2 - imperiled
3 - vulnerable
+ - apparentlv secure
5 - demonstrablv widespread.
abundant and secure.
!
For ecological svstem targets. goals were based upon
their tvpical patch size (matrix. large patch. small
patch. or linear) as well as their global distribution
(widespread. limited. or endemic). An example ot a
matrixtorming natural communitv in the Mojave
Desert is CreosoteBursage $crub with a goal set at
25% ot its spatial coverage in the ecoregion. $mall
patch communities such as Mesouite Bosoue were
assigned a goal ot 60%. while that tor seeps and
springs was 90%. Table A3 lists all the conservation
goals tor all targets.
For example. O1 indicates that a
species is criticallv imperiled across its
entire range (i.e.. globallv). In this sense
the species as a whole is regarded as
being at verv high risk ot extinction. A
rank ot $3 indicates the species is
vulnerable and at moderate risk within
a particular state (or province). even
though it mav be more secure
elsewhere.
http.www.natureserve.orgexplorerr
anking.htm

It is important to note that these goals were set using
general criteria commonlv used in ecoregional
assessments. As such. however. thev should be
considered to be statements ot an initial hvpothesis
tor viabilitv ot that target. As more detailed. target
specitic intormation becomes available regarding
needs ot targets. protection goals mav need to be
adjusted. and the overall analvsis adapted
accordinglv.

=+*%+/C/-%+/#0!#C!+9'!S1%00/0.!2*'%!

Due to the large size ot the Mojave Desert Ecoregion and the signiticant vegetative. climatic
(temperature and precipitation). and associated biotic ditterences across it. we sought an
appropriate method ot subdividing the ecoregion into subsections that would assist us in capturing
the variation in representative target elements. Adhering to standards ot ecoregional conservation
reserve design used bv The Nature Conservancv throughout the world. we stratitied (subdivided)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
the Mojave into six subregions. These were the same subregions used and discussed in the 2001
Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment (The Nature Conservancv 2001
10
). These are a
combination ot previous Desert Tortoise Recoverv units and divisions suggested bv Dr. Peter
Rowlands based upon dominant vegetation communitv variations throughout the Mojave Desert
(Figure 22). This subdivision has also more recentlv been supported bv Webb et al. (2009). The
original Mojave Desert Ecoregional assessment (The Nature Conservancv 2001) provides
additional details on the development ot these subregions.

"%*I%0!20%1<)/)!
!
The methods used in this assessment are based on the principles ot svstematic conservation
planning ($CP). as originallv described bv Margules and Pressev (2000). and currentlv broadlv
adopted bv government agencies and nongovernmental organizations worldwide as a tramework
tor prioritizing conservation investments. One ot the primarv components ot $CP is the use ot a
transparent method to select areas as conservation priorities and the detinition ot design criteria
that can be used to evaluate the ettectiveness ot the regional network in maintaining longterm
ecological viabilitv. These design criteria are based on broad principles ot conservation biologv that
are meant to applv to multiple levels ot biological organization (genes. species. populations.
ecosvstems) and provide opportunities tor successtul adaptation to rapid environmental change.
To guide our selection ot conservation priorities. we detined the tollowing criteria.
x Representative. encompass tull range ot variabilitv and tull complement ot biodiversitv
x Redundant. include multiple examples ot targets stratitied across biophvsical gradients
x Etticient. build on existing network ot conservation lands where possible and appropriate
x Resilient. large enough to withstand disturbance. environmental change. and provide
retugia
x Connected. maintain connectivitv at multiple spatial and temporal scales tor species and
ecological processes.

Interestinglv. manv ot these design criteria echo the recommendations tor the creation ot Desert
Wildlite Management Areas in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recoverv Plan (L$FW$
199+). In this assessment. these methods were implemented at various times during the planning
process. trom the selection ot targets. detinition ot goals. assignment ot subregions and suitabilitv
tactors. selection ot the boundarv length moditier parameter. and assignment ot planning units
(259hectare hexagons) to our tiered prioritv categories.

One kev component common to manv $CP processes is the use ot sottware tools with reserve
selection algorithms to generate multiple contigurations ot areas that meet conservation objectives.
This allows planning teams to ouicklv generate reasonable solutions and test various assumptions
regarding suitabilitv. inclusion ot existing conservation ettorts. and goal levels. The choice ot

10
The 2001 assessment. Ecor..:oroos.c Cors.r:ot:or :r ti. Moio:. D.s.rt" is available tor download at
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VB@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
ouantitative representation and replication goals (discussed above) and the tactors used to
represent suitabilitv tor conservation (discussed below) have a signiticant ettect on the location and
total size ot areas selected.

For this assessment. we used the conservation planning sottware tool Marxan. which has been the
tool ot choice tor manv Nature Conservancv projects around the world over the past decade (Ball
et al. 2009). Also emploved bv manv other organizations and governments. Marxan has been used
in a total ot 110 countries and is the most widelv adopted conservation planning tool in the
world. Hundreds ot assessments and plans that emploved Marxan have been published in peer
reviewed scientitic publications
|1l
(Watts et al. 2009). It also has an active and connected user
communitv and a peerreviewed Oood Practices Manual" that discusses appropriate and ettective
methods tor integrating Marxan in to conservation planning processes (Ardron et al. 2008).

The utilitv ot Marxan is in the tlexibilitv ot inputs that can be used and the etticiencv with which it
can show the user what areas are important to achieve ditterent conservation objectives. It uses a
simulated annealing algorithm to meet an ooi.ct::. /urct:or. which incorporates multiple input
tactors including the suitabilitv or cost" ot conservation in a given area. the level ot dispersion ot
selected areas (measured bv total length ot boundaries ot selected areas). a penaltv tor not attaining
representation goals. and an optional penaltv tor exceeding total reserve cost. Within one scenario
(same inputs. settings and goals). the sottware is run several times and each run selects areas that.
as a group. etticientlv meet the goals. Because the sottware does not use a strict optimization
approach (which greatlv increases computational time). each run selects a slightlv ditterent set ot
areas. Theretore. the number ot times a planning unit is selected across the ditterent runs is an
important indicator ot how important the planning unit is to meet the goals. This selection
treouencv is output bv the model as the summed solution" and is otten used as a proxv tor the
:rr.tioc.oo:i:t ot a location with respect to its contribution to overall goals. That is. it the user has
Marxan run 10 (the number use used in the assessment) ditterent runs. those planning units that
get selected in eight ot the ten runs are more irreplaceable than those that are selected less
treouentlv.

The suitabilitv or cost laver is one ot the tactors that can have a strong intluence on the sites
selected bv Marxan. This can represent the actual monetarv cost ot land acouisition and
management. but more commonlv represents a proxv tor the teasibilitv ot successtullv
implementing conservation such as the degree ot anthropogenic disturbance or tragmentation ot
natural habitats. Lsed in this wav. tragmented areas are more costlv" and are avoided bv Marxan.
These tactors will steer Marxan to areas that are more intact and less degraded to meet goals. with
the assumption that conservation targets will be more viable when embedded in intact landscapes.

In this assessment. we used a composite ot multiple inputs to calculate an anthropogenic
disturbance score tor each planning unit. This value was derived trom the length ot roads present
in the planning unit and the extent ot agricultural land. The urban tootprint is otten used in
similar cost calculations. However. we opted to use the road network as a proxv tor development.

!"#
For more intormation about Marxan. see . http.www.uo.edu.aumarxan
For a briet list ot Marxan reterences. see. http.www.uo.edu.aumarxanindex.html.page-80365
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
as there are manv areas in the Mojave Desert where there are extensive road networks both with
and without paved areas between them. This allowed us to assign high scores to highlvroaded but
unpaved areas. which are highlv disruptive to the ecologv ot the desert. We weighted the scores
(length ot road in meters per planning unit) bv the tvpe ot road. with Interstates. $tate Highwavs.
Divided Roads. and Railroads being given the highest weight (5x). tollowed bv paved streets (3x).
and then other roads (1x). We moditied this laver to account tor the relative intluence ot ditterent
management ot road use and access. In particular. we reasoned that roads have a relativelv low
impact in National Parks. National Preserves. designated Wilderness. and Wilderness $tudv Areas
because ot the greater emphasis placed on patrolling and limiting trattic and illicit ottroad use in
these areas. Following this reasoning. we created a Potential Vehicular Impact index to adjust the
cost score due to roads tor each planning unit in these areas bv multiplving the road score bv 0.5.

The area ot intensive agriculture (e.g.. row crops. orchards. and irrigated pasture) in hectares was
also calculated tor each planning unit and added to the road score. The resultant raw
anthropogenic disturbance scores had a wide range ot values. We used a log transtormation to
narrow the range ot the anthropogenic disturbance scores to 0 to 1.500. $cores talling within this
range have been used ettectivelv in other planning ettorts bv The Nature Conservancv in
Calitornia that used Marxan with planning units ot roughlv the same size. We added 125 to the
planning units with an anthropogenic disturbance score ot 0 to dissuade Marxan trom selecting
them solelv because ot their extremelv low cost relative to other planning units.

Marxan allows the user to automaticallv lockin" protected areas to act as nodes tor selecting new
areas to meet goals. We opted not to lockin anv existing protected areas into the runs because
these areas are so extensive and were not designated based on their ecological value. This also
allows Marxan to select planning units solelv based on their contribution to the conservation
objectives.

Another tactor which intluences the areas selected bv the Marxan model is the boundarv length
moditier (blm). This parameter determines the maximum boundarv to internal area ratio ot areas
selected bv the model. A blm ot 1 places the greatest restriction on the ratio. torcing the model to
aggregate the sites selected. while lower values place tewer restrictions on the total boundarv length
allowing it to select areas based more on their individual contributions to the conservation goals.
We tried multiple blm values and evaluated the degree ot clumping and the goal attainment. In
the end. in order to identitv the set ot areas that would both etticientlv meet conservation goals
and comprise a networked set ot conservation areas vital to the longterm persistence ot our
targets. we conducted two scenarios ot the Marxan model. one with a blm ot 0.75 and another
with a blm ot 0.25.

We combined the summed solution results trom both Marxan scenarios and the anthropogenic
disturbance scores to assign each planning unit to one ot tour categories ot conservation value.
Ecologicallv Core. Ecologicallv Intact. Moderatelv Degraded. or Highlv Converted (categories
described in more detail below). Planning units that were selected in at least 8 ot the 10 runs in
either Marxan scenario were classitied as Ecologicallv Core. Planning units that were identitied
tewer than eight times in both scenarios but that had an anthropogenic disturbance score ot less
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
than 250 (lower scores represent less disturbance) were classitied as Ecologicallv Intact. Planning
units that had an anthropogenic disturbance score ot 800 or greater were classitied as Highlv
Converted. and the remaining planning units were then classitied as Moderatelv Degraded. These
cutotts were not statisticallv derived. but were based on evaluation ot the level ot disturbance
evident trom OI$ data and aerial imagerv. The process bv which these detault" assignments ot
conservation value were revised and veritied is described below.

(/)+/0.;/)9/0.!6#0)'*&%+/#0!L%1;')!#C!D%05)!/0!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
!
Tvpicallv. an ecoregional assessment results in the identitication ot a porttolio ot conservation
areas that will ideallv meet the conservation goals set tor the protection ot all ot the targets while
optimizing the shape and size ot the proposed conservation areas to minimize both the inclusion
ot converted lands and the ratio ot area to boundarv. The aim ot this approach is to design a
porttolio that will protect as much biodiversitv bv preserving as little land (and water) as possible-
that is. in the most etticient. costettective contiguration ot conservation sites. The Nature
Conservancv utilizes such a porttolio to prioritize our work in an ecoregion with limited statt and
other conservation resources.

In conducting our assessment. we initiallv tollowed the tvpical ecoregional assessment process bv
selecting targets and setting goals tor these targets. We attributed high conservation value to areas
with high landscape integritv. high target occurrence densitv (ecological svstems and species
occurrences). and unioue examples ot targets. These included areas with assemblages ot targets not
tound elsewhere and areas with seeps and springs because these support high densities ot target
plants and animals. especiallv narrowlvdistributed endemic species. However. since the purposes
ot this assessment ditter in part trom those which tvpicallv drive ecoregional assessments. it was
determined that it would be more usetul to represent the relative conservation value ot all ot the
land in the Mojave Desert using a tourcategorv scheme. designating each souaremile planning
unit ot the Mojave Desert as either Ecologicallv Core (greatest conservation value). Ecologicallv
Intact. Moderatelv Degraded. or Highlv Converted. Our categorization is explained in Table A2.

An important principle in categorizing the whole ot the ecoregion (rather than a collection ot
discrete sites) is that the ecological context in which conservation lands are embedded matters.
Being complex and interconnected. ecosvstems tunction across mvriad scales. This assessment
translates that concept into a spatial representation ot relative conservation value across the desert.
Fundamental to our thinking is that large. intact landscapes are more resilient to adverse changes
and easier and more etticient to manage. thus. thev should be a tocus ot protection and resource
investments. It is important not to misconstrue the more altered categories as not having
conservation value. however. We underscore that all areas. even those in the most altered categorv.
mav have important roles to plav in protecting the tull suite ot the Mojave Desert's diversitv. For
example. a given site with a Highlv Converted area mav be important tor the protection ot a local
population ot a rare plant. or as a wildlite corridor between protected areas.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
8%?1'!2V@!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!&%1;'!-%+'.#*/')!
6%+'.#*<! ,I>1%0%+/#0!
Ecologicallv
Core
These lands have the highest conservation value. Thev are largelv undisturbed and
untragmented. support conservation targets (species. ecological svstems. springs
and seeps). and were identitied as critical to tullv protect tor the longterm
conservation ot the ecoregion's biological diversitv. Despite the high inherent
value ot Ecologicallv Core lands. thev do not stand alone. their conservation value
is highlv dependent on the connections between them and the buttering that the
Ecologicallv Intact and even some ot the Moderatelv Degraded lands around them
provide. It signiticant portions ot surrounding Ecologicallv Intact and Moderatelv
Degraded lands are disturbed. developed. or otherwise compromised or turther
degraded in the tuture. then the conservation value ot nearbv Ecologicallv Core
lands will diminish as well.

Ecologicallv
Intact
These lands are relativelv undisturbed and untragmented and support
conservation targets. Thev reouire levels ot protection that will allow them to
remain relativelv undisturbed and to continue to support ecological processes and
provide habitat and habitat connectivitv tor native animals. plants. and
communities within and between ecoregions. The majoritv ot Ecologicallv Intact
lands are tunctionallv eouivalent to Ecologicallv Core lands and mav contain
manv ot the same conservation targets. including sensitive species. There are a
number ot reasons these lands mav have classitied as Ecologicallv Intact rather
than Ecologicallv Core. including. but not limited to. the tollowing.
x Ecologicallv Intact lands mav support more widespread ecological svstems (e.g..
creosotescrub) that have lower conservation goals.
x Ecologicallv Intact lands mav be located in closer proximitv to Moderatelv
Degraded and Highlv Converted lands and. theretore. are at higher risk ot
degradation due to edge ettects or expansion ot human disturbance.
Areas that contain isolated conservation targets are more likelv to be classitied as
Ecologicallv Core. as thev are needed to attain the conservation goals.

Moderatelv
Degraded
These are lands tragmented bv roads or OHV trails. or are in close proximitv to
urban. agricultural and other developments. Moderatelv Degraded lands are
partiallv to moderatelv compromised bv tragmentation and other human impacts
such as rural development. agriculture. OHV use. and militarv use. Thev otten
maintain ecological tunctionalitv (e.g.. maintain groundwater intiltration and
tlow. serve as sand sources. provide connectivitv). provide habitat tor native
species. or are known to have conservation target occurrences. The potential tor
Moderatelv Degraded lands to provide longterm conservation value and to be
restored is greater where thev are located adjacent to Ecologicallv Intact lands
rather than Highlv Converted lands. Without protection and perhaps restoration.
the abilitv ot Moderatelv Degraded lands to maintain tunctionalitv and sustain
conservation targets will be reduced.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
8%?1'!2V@!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!&%1;'!-%+'.#*/')!
6%+'.#*<! ,I>1%0%+/#0!
Highlv
Converted
Lrban. agricultural and suburban lands were classitied as Highlv Converted.
These lands are heavilv altered. $ome can support important conservation targets.
although the ecological context ot these targets is compromised. There are a tew
conservation targets. such as Burrowing Owls. a varietv ot migratorv birds. and
bats that use or congregate in these heavilv moditied landscapes. Highlv
Converted lands also subsidize predatorv species such as covotes and Ravens that
can have detrimental ettects on conservation targets such as the desert tortoise.

It should be noted that our assessment did not include an analvsis ot migratorv bird pathwavs. an
important component ot a regional conservation assessment. Theretore. the utilitv ot this
assessment as a means ot evaluating the appropriate siting ot wind power generating tacilities to
avoid contlicts with migrating raptors or neotropical migratorv bird species is limited.

The tollowing postMarxan processing was used to most accuratelv designate land categories.
1. All planning units within 0.5 mile ot an Interstate or $tate highwav road were designated
as Moderatelv Degraded (or remained Highlv Converted it alreadv classed in this categorv).
Planning units that intersected large paved roads (Class 3 trom TIOER) were designated as
Moderatelv Degraded (or remained in the Highlv Converted categorv). An exception to his
latter rule was made tor those planning units within lands managed tor conservation such
as National Parks or Preserves. Further. we adjusted these latter areas through inspection ot
current imagerv (ArcOI$Online.com) and corrected the designation where appropriate.
Images exemplitving these categorical variations are provided in Figure A1.

2. All planning units immediatelv adjacent to Highlv Converted lands associated with most
tvpes ot human land use such as residential. industrial. or agricultural land were designated
as Moderatelv Degraded (unless thev were alreadv designated as Highlv Converted). This
rule did not applv to mining areas where the contained operations ot a mine and private
land surrounding the mining operations contributed to less disturbance and degradation
ot lands immediatelv adjacent to mines when compared to lands immediatelv adjacent to
other human use areas such as suburban housing development or designated OHV open
areas.

3. We evaluated the accuracv ot the designation ot each planning unit using satellite and
aerial imagerv to look tor disturbed and otherwise degraded areas. Where appropriate. we
also smoothed the edges ot large landscapescale blocks ot each categorv tvpe. Finallv. we
used the porttolio site polvgons trom the 2001 Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment
(TNC 2001) and presentdav intormation trom expert interviews conducted in 2009 and
2010 to intorm our categorization ot the land. The porttolio site polvgons trom 2001
represent the status ot lands at the time thev were assessed. and there are cases where the
conservation status ot lands has changed in the interim. Theretore. intormation trom the
old porttolio was included in the current assessment tollowing an audit using current
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
satellite and aerial imagerv and expert opinion trom the 2009 and 2010 interviews. Oiven
the investment that The Nature Conservancv has made in placebased conservation work
in the Mojave Desert. our own knowledge ot ontheground conditions served as an
additional means tor groundtruthing the Marxan results in specitic locations.

Through these veritication processes. we attempted to ensure that our mapping ettort represents
the most accurate representation ot lands according to our tourcategorv scheme. This was a
departure trom the tvpical ecoregional assessment exercise ot trving to capture as much biodiversitv
bv preserving as little land as possible. Instead. we have endeavored to ensure that all lands are
accuratelv categorized. and that highconservation value lands are not designated as tragmented or
as having urban or agricultural uses.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Figure A1 Illustration ot the Methods Lsed to Assign Disturbance Categories. While much ot the historic land division is based
on the souare TownshipRange section boundaries. with alternating sections being either publiclv or privatelv owned. our planning
units are hexagonal. This incongruitv resulted in a broad range ot land use densitv impacts within each categorv. particularlv within
the Moderatelv Degraded (MD) categorv. The predominance ot impact in a planning unit overrides the presence ot intact
landscape and results in that planning unit receiving the lower categorical value. However. in manv cases the integritv ot the
adjacent planning units can intluence the resultant classitication.

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VBR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Figure A1 (cont.) Range ot land use impacts in the Highlv Converted (HC) categorv. showing industrial development in Las Vegas
(lett) and rural residential development in the West Mojave (right). Both were classitied as Highlv Converted because. even though
the rural residential development still contains natural habitat. the tuture viabilitv ot anv conservation targets in that setting is low
as the area is projected to continue to degrade.

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@A! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Figure A1 (cont.) The existence ot active agriculture across more than 25% ot a planning unit resulted in its assignment to the
Highlv Converted (HC) categorv. This designation retlects both the surtace degradation due to leveling and the subsurtace aouiter
depletion due to groundwater extraction tor irrigation.

"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

F/.;*'!2VB!X-#0+EY!On the edge ot development in Parhump. Nevada (lett). the densitv ot rural residential development and the
associated habitat degrading activities (i.e.. trash. OHV. pets. subsidized predators. etc.) lead to designation ot the planning units as
Moderatelv Degraded (MD) or Highlv Converted (HC). On the outskirts ot Calitornia Citv. Calitornia in the West Mojave (right).
the densitv ot roads associated with uninhabited speculative development was used to designate planning units as Moderatelv
Degraded (MD) or Ecologicallv Intact (EI).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@B! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

F/.;*'!2VB!X-#0+EY Lnused roads in speculative land development areas. showing older roads that have begun to rehabilitate
naturallv and have regained their natural tunction (lett). and newer roads that still compromise the integritv ot the landscape. This
ditterence accounts tor their inclusion in separate categories.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

F/.;*'!2VB!X-#0+EY Degradation associated with vehicular use in the desert. showing landbased militarv training activities (lett) and
otthighwav vehicle recreation on public lands (right). both ot which cause high amounts ot road and trail proliteration and
subseouent loss ot landscape integritv. These lands are degraded tor the longterm (hundreds ot vears). but have not been
completelv converted with structures and paved roads. and were theretore designated as Moderatelv Degraded (MD) instead ot
Highlv Converted (HC).
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@K! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

F/.;*'!2VB!X-#0+EY Resolution ot imagerv. showing how the imagerv server (ArcOI$ online Bing Maps) sets a scale threshold. such
that lower resolution imagerv (lett) is shown until the scale ot the view is set to 1.50.000 or larger (right). This can lead to errors ot
classitication during the visual assessment. emphasizing the need to view the landscape at the proper scale in order to capture the
most current land conversions.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@M! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!

F/.;*'!2VB!X-#0+EY When important conservation targets. such as mesouite bosoues (lett). and chuckwallas. gila monsters. and rare
plants (right). are in close proximitv to development. we generallv assigned the Moderatelv Degraded (MD) categorv to planning
units adjacent to Highlv Converted (HC) planning units. In some instances. however. the relativelv high densitv or raritv ot the
conservation targets warranted inclusion ot the planning units in the Ecologicallv Core (EC) or Ecologicallv Intact (EI) categories.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@N! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Aoror:o ::iioso :or. our:to chaparral sandverbena 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Aout:ior tor:uiu dwart abutilon 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Acortiosctius tor:si:: :or. .oocor:oro Cushenburv oxvtheca 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Aciroti.ru or:cu Mormon needle grass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
A..:oi:o ir:.it: aegialian scarab beetle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
A..:oi:o o.r:/:co large aegialian scarab 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
A.o:. utoi.rs:s :or. .oor:st:ro ivorvspined agave 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
A..io:us tr:coior Tricolored Blackbird 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
A..rot:ro i.rooc.o desert ageratina 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ai:c:.iio r:ti.: Riplev's aliciella 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ai:c:.iio tr:ocor covote gilia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Aorsus oor.osus Ash Meadows naucorid 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Aorsus /ur.or:s Nevares $pring naucorid bug 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Aos.i:ru .:.ort.u desert sandparslev 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Asor:o ior.s:: lones blue star 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Arorus coi:/orr:cus arrovo toad 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Arorus .sui black toad 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Arcr.ro ooisoori::o. Mojave gvpsum bee 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Arcrost.ti:u or.::/ioru smalltlowered androstephium 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ar..i:co scoor:co rough angelica 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Art.rror:o soi:c.ts Charleston pussvtoes 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Artro:ous toii:cus pallid bat 60% regional population trends are poorlv known
Aroo:s c:stor pinvon rockcress 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Aroo:s tuiciro :or. urc:.rs:s Darwin rockcress 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Aroo:s siocii.: $hocklev's rockcress 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Arcto.cor coi:/orr:co Las Vegas bearpoppv 95% O1 - endemic. dramatic population declineshabitat conversion
Arcto.cor iu:i:s dwart bearpawpoppv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@O! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Arcto.cor .rr:o:: Merriam's (white) bearpoppv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ar.ror:o cor..sto :or. ciori.stor.rs:s Mount Charleston sandwort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ar.ror:o i:r.:: sst. ros.o King's rosv sandwort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ar.ror:o st.ro.r.s Meadow Vallev sandwort 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ar.rocioso i::tor.o :or. i::tor.o southwestern talse cloaktern 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Asci.t:os rcto.:r:/oi:o Mojave milkweed 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ast:cosc.i:s t:.r:s st.ir...r: coastal whiptail 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ass::r.o :r/:o Badwater snail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius oci.ror:: Ackerman milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius ocut:rostr:s beaked milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius o.ouoi:s Clokev milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius oio.rs Cushenburv milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius oiiocirous :or. tioorus plava milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius oti:os :or. us:oru $heep Range milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius otuiior:o:c.s $hivwits milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius otuiior:us Oumbo milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius otrotus :or. .rsorus Darwin Mesa milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius coicosus :or. orotiii:c:us Oneleatlet Torrev milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius c:o. :or. c:o. Cima milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius c:o. :or. su//iotus intlated Cima milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius .rs:/or:s Pagumpa milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius /ur.r.us black woollvpod 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius ...r: :or. tr:ou.trus threecorner milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius .:ior:: Oilman's milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius ioi.r.r:oru Holmgren (Paradox) milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius io...r:orus Lane Mountain milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius i.rt:.:rosus :or. oo:.uus treckled milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@P! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Astro.oius i.rt:.:rosus :or. ortor:us $an Antonio milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius i.rt:.:rosus :or. :cors shining milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius i.rt:.:rosus :or. s.sou:.troi:s $odaville milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius i.rt:.:rosus :or. stro:r.us straw milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius oio:.rs:s :or. i.:.rus haltring milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius oi:oc.rs:s Mokiak milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius r.rs:s Nve milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius ootiorus :or. cioi.orus Clokev eggvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius tio.r: Ash Meadows milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius tiottrot:s broadkeeled milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius tr.uss:: :or. io:/iorus Littletield milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius tr.uss:: :or. tr.uss:: Preuss' milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astro.oius r.otus $pring Mountains milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius strotur.rs:s $ilver Reet Milkvetch 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Astro.oius t:c.stro:: Tidestrom's milkvetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Astroi.t:s coci:s.rs:s sst. coci:s.rs:s scalv cloak tern 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ati.r. cur:cuior:o Burrowing Owl 60% O+O5 species. same habitat loss as Desert tortoise. wider range
Atr:ti. or..rt.o :or. i:iior:: Hillman's silverscale 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Atr:ti. or..rt.o :or. ior.:tr:cioo Pahrump silverscale 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Atr:ti. tor:si:: Parish's brittlescale 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Boisoori::o iooi.r: :or. i:st:cuio a balsamroot 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Bi.tior:cocir. i:r.:: King's evelash grass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Bo.ci.ro ori:: Last Chance rockcress 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Botrci:u osc.rc.rs upswept moonwort 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Bout.iouo tr:/:co threeawned grama 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Bucci.io utoi.rs:s Ltah buttertlv bush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Bu/o :croscotius Arizona toad 60% Declining to stable (10% tluctuation to 30% decline)
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@Q! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Bu/o r.isor: Amargosa toad 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
But.o r..oi:s Ferruginous Hawk 60% Local declines have been noted
But.o suo:rsor: $wainson's Hawk 60% Numbers have declined in the western L.$.
Coi:/orr:o ocrotiiio roundleaved tilaree 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Coii:sourus crocoro:c.s Mojave zebratailed lizard 60% Relativelv stable ( 25% change)
Coiociortus .co:otus Invo Countv startulip 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Coiociortus toi.r: :or. toi.r: Palmer's mariposalilv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Coiociortus tiu.ro. Plummer's mariposalilv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Coiociortus str:otus alkali mariposa lilv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Co:ssor:o oooti:: sst. oooti:: Booth's eveningprimrose 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Co:ssor:o oooti:: sst. :rt.r.c:o Booth's hairv eveningprimrose 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Co:ssor:o or.::t.s golden suncup 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Co:ssor:o .:i:s slender eveningprimrose 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Coroo corc:co white pvgmvpoppv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Corc:roi:s corc:roi:s Northern Cardinal 75% tound along Colorado River
Cost.io .or: Emorv's crucitixionthorn 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cost:ii.io st.rortio Calitornia indian paintbrush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cotiorus ustuiotus $wainson's Thrush 60% Relativelv stable ( 25% change)
Cotostous ciori:: sst. 2 Meadow Vallev Wash desert sucker 90% limited to Meadow Vallev
Cotostous iot:t:rr:s tlannelmouth sucker 75% Declining (decline ot 1030%)
C.rtour:u rooti:iu springloving centaurv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cio.toc.itio ui..i.r: Wheeler's dunebroom 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cioo.sc. ooros:oro Abrams' spurge 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cioo.sc. torr: Parrv's spurge 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cioo.sc. tiotst.ro tlatseeded spurge 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ciorocr:us oi.orcr:rus r::osus Western $nowv Plover 75% uses alkali and mud tlats tor nesting awav trom coast
Ciorocr:us ortorus Mountain Plover 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2V@R! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Ci.:iorti.s uootor:: Wooton's lace tern 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ci:oroct:s occ:t:toi:s occ:t:toi:s Mohave shovelnosed snake 60% some disagreement about distribution ot subspecies
Ciioroc.ri. o.r:coro Oreen Kingtisher 75% $table
Ciiosr. ocostus roousto $pring Mountains acastus
checkerspot
90% Declining to stable (10% tluctuation to 30% decline)
Cirsotiorus .r.oo:us remote rabbitbrush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cirsotiorus .r..r.: Oreene's rabbitbrush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cirsotiorus t.r.t:/oi:us roundleat rabbitbrush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
C:rs:u or::or:cu :or. t.ru:s.ctu desert mountain thistle 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
C:rs:u .otor:: :or. cioi.: Clokev thistle 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
C:rs:u ::r.:r.rs. Virgin River thistle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
C:stotiorus toiustr:s Marsh Wren 60% apparentlv stable
Cioc:u coi:/orr:cu Calitornia sawgrass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ciori:o ort:oro sst. tor::/ioro Kern Canvon clarkia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cocc:us o.r:corus occ:c.rtoi:s Western Yellowbilled Cuckoo 75% Verv large decline (decline ot >90%)
Coi.or :or:..otus banded gecko 60% $table
Coi.or :or:..otus utoi.rs:s Ltah banded gecko 60% unknown level ot threat
Coiuor:ro coi:/orr:co Las Animas Colubrina 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Corciortius tor::/iorus smalltlowered bird'sbeak 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Corciortius t.cot.rs:s Tecopa birdsbeak 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cor:st.ru o.r:coru :or. o.r:coru American bugseed 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Corrori:rus tours.rc:: Townsend's bigeared bat 60% More data needed
Cortiortio oi:.rsor:: Alverson's toxtail cactus 75% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cortiortio ciiorortio desert pincushion 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cortiortio ::::toro :or. ros.o viviparous toxtail cactus 75% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cr.r:citis oo:i.: oo:i.: White River springtish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cr.r:citis oo:i.: .rorc:s Hiko White River springtish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Cr.r:citis oo:i.: ooto. Moapa White River springtish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cross:c:u s.r:otu rough tringemoss 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Crotoius c.rost.s desert sidewinder 60% Relativelv stable ( 25% change)
Crotoius c.rost.s c.rost.s Mojave desert sidewinder 60% less threatened
Crotoius :tci.ii:: trrius' southwestern speckled rattlesnake 60% *not in natureserve. used Crotalus mitchellii
Crotoius scutuiotus scutuiotus Mojave rattlesnake 60% less threatened
Crttortio cioi.: Clokev's crvptantha 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Cur:cuiot:rus .ro:r.us Panamint rockgoldenrod 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cott.rus c.s.rt:coio desert cvmopterus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cott.rus .:ior:: Oilman's cvmopterus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cott.rus uit:r.r:otus purplenerve cvmopterus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cott.rus r:ti.: :or. sor:cuio:c.s sanicle cvmopterus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Crorciu utoi.rs. Ltah swallowwort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Cros tor::c.rs Ltah prairiedog 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor c:oooi:s Devils Hole puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor ocuior:us desert puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s oor.oso. Amargosa puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s :or.ct.s Ash Meadows Amargosa puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s r.:oc.rs:s $aratoga $prings puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s t.ctoroi:s Warm $prings Amargosa puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor r.:oc.rs:s siosior. $hoshone puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor roc:osus Owens puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor soi:rus :ii.r: Cottonball Marsh puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ctr:rocor soi:rus soi:rus $alt Creek puptish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
D.c.ci.ro .ur.i.rs:s lulv gold 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
D.:rorcro or:co Red Rock tarplant 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
D.:rorcro oio:.rs:s Mojave tarplant 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
D.rcro:co t.t.ci:o or.ust.r: Yellow Warbler 75% $ubstantial to moderate decline (decline ot 2575%)
D.rcro:co t.t.ci:o sorororo $onoran Yellow Warbler 75% less threatened. broad range but depends on riparian habitat
D.rotocortor iur:cu a toliose 'umbilicate' lichen 90% $treamside or lakeside rocks where treouentlv wetted
D.rotocortor iur:cu $tream $tippleback Lichen 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
D:cocor r.:oc.rs:s Oold Butte moss 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
D:.:tor:o coi:/orr:co Arizona cottontop 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
D:tocos :crots c.isus a chiseltoothed kangaroo rat 60% less threatened
D:tocos toro:rt:rus or.us.rs:s Argus Mountains kangaroo rat 90% entire range within China Lake
D:tsosourus corsoi:s desert iguana 60% O+. limited range. sandv habitat losssolar energv development
D:to:s s.rroto :or. coi:/orr:co Calitornia ditaxis 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Drooo orocisti:s Wasatch draba 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Drooo io...r: laeger whitlowcress 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Drooo touc:/ructo Charleston draba 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Duci.o ooros:: sst. o//:r:s $an Bernardino Mountains dudleva 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Duci.o tui:.rui.rto sst. or::or:co chalk livetorever 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Eci:rococtus toic.tioius :or. toic.tioius clustered barrel cactus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Eci:rococtus toic.tioius :or.
.rorti.o:c.s
Orand Canvon cottontop cactus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Eci:roc.r.us .r..iorr:: :or. iou.: Howe's hedgehog cactus 75% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ei.or:o toro:rt:ro Panamint alligator lizard 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Et.tr:citis iotos iotos Pahrump pooltish 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Et:coro tro:ii:: .t:us $outhwestern Willow Flvcatcher 90% Verv large to large decline (decline ot 75% to >90%)
Erc.i:ots:s or.otiiio silverleat sunrav 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Erc.i:ots:s ruc:coui:s nudestem sunrav 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Erc.i:ots:s ruc:coui:s :or. corru.oto Ash Meadows sunrav 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Err.oto.or c.s:ou:: nineawned pappus grass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Eti.cro /ur.r.o Death Vallev Mormon tea 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VK@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Et:ioo:u r.:oc.rs. Nevada willowherb 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er.or:orto rou.ii: ooi.r.rs:s Baker's desertsnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:ostru c.rs:/oi:u sst. sorctoru $anta Ana River woollvstar 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:ostru ioruooc:: Harwood's eriastrum 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:co.r:o c.r::ro tawnv turpentine bush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:co.r:o cotocto Charleston goldenbush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:co.r:o .:ior:: Oilman's goldenbush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:..ror coroor: Canaan daisv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:..ror o::rus sheep tleabane 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:..ror tor:si:: Parish's daisv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:..ror urc:oi:s :or. urc:oi:s limestone daisv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:..ror utoi.rs:s Ltah daisv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:oc:ctor or.ust:/oi:u narrowleaved verba santa 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru o:/urcotu Pahrump Vallev buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru corc:rru Darin buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru cort:.uu Amargosa buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru coroosu :or. r:i.s:: Las Vegas buckwheat 75% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru corro::: Darrow's buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru .r.:coio Wildrose Canvon buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru .:ior:: Oilman's buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru i..rorr:: :or. cioi.: Clokev buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru io//orr:: :or. io//orr:: Hottmann's buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru io//orr:: :or. rooust:us robust Hottmann's buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru :rtro/roctu jointed buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru .rs:coio Pinvon Mesa buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru :croti.cu :or. toro:rt.rs. Panamint Mountains buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru o:oi:/oi:u :or. ::r.u Cushenburv buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Er:o.oru tuo.ruiu downv buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru tiotsor:o. :or. oio:/ioru Whitetlow Thompson wild
buckwheat
60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru tiorr.: Thorne's buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:o.oru uo.iiotu :or. iur:tor:ru juniper sulphurtlowered buckwheat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:o.oru ::sc:cuiu stickv buckwheat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Er:or.uror t:iosu hairv erioneuron 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Er:otiiiu oio:.rs. Barstow woollv suntlower 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Esciscioi::o :rut:/ioro sst. tu:ss.iorr:: Red Rock poppv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Euc.ro ocuiotu spotted bat 60% $table
Euti:iot.s orc:iio .:ui:or:: Oiuliani's blue 90% Inhabits ecological retugia. or specialized or unioue habitats
Euti:iot.s orc:iio turturo $pring Mountains dark blue 90% Few (13) occurrences appropriatelv protected and managed
Euti:iot.s o.rrorc:ro :roortoro Bret's blue ($pring Mtns phenotvpe) 90% Verv narrow range
Euticros or:c:o ororc: Morand's checkerspot 90% $table. verv limited range
F:or:sti:s ti.roi:s hot springs timbristvlis 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Goi:u o:/oi:u twoleat bedstraw 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Goi:u i:i.rc:o. sst. corr.u Panamint Mountains bedstraw 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Goi:u i:i.rc:o. sst. i:r.stor.rs. Kingston Mountains bedstraw 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Goi:u itotr:ci:u sst. to.rt.iiu Telescope Peak bedstraw 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Goi:u troi:/.ru desert bedstraw 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Goi:u ur:.it:: Wright's bedstraw 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
G:io o:coior oio:.rs:s Mohave tui chub 90% Declining (decline ot 1030%)
G:io o:coior src.r: Owens tui chub 90% $table
G:io .i..ors bonvtail chub 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
G:io orcutt:: arrovo chub 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
G:io roousto iorcor: Pahranagat roundtail chub 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
G:io s.:ruco Virgin River chub 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
G:io s.:ruco tot. 2 Virgin River chub (Muddv River
pop.)
90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
G:ior:o iut.oio goldencarpet gilmania 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Giossot.toior cioi.: Clokev greasebush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Giossot.toior tur..rs pungent glossopetalon 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Giossot.toior tur..rs :or. .iooru smooth dwart greasebush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Giossot.toior tur..rs :or. tur..rs rough dwart greasebush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Goti.rus o.oss:::: desert tortoise 50% O+O5. but experiencing major dieotts. multiple use mgmt across
its limited range. tederallv listed as Threatened
Gr::o o.r:coro American grimmia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Gr:rc.i:o /ro:rotrot.rs:s Ash Meadows gumplant 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Grusor:o tor:si:: Parish's clubcholla 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Hoi:o..tus i.ucoc.tioius tot. 3 Bald Eagle $onoran Desert area
population
90% edge ot range
Hotiotottus cr:stus Pine Vallev goldenbush 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
H.c.oo cruorc:: Drummond's talse pennvroval 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
H.i:ortius c.s.rt:coio dune suntlower 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
H.i:rtio.itto oio:.oro Victorville shoulderband 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
H.i:rtio.itto toior: Westtork shoulderband 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
H.ioc.ro sust.ctu c:rctu banded gila monster 75% Largelv unknown range status. public lands multipleuse mgmt
H.st.r:o coioroco oio:.rs:s $pring Mountains comma skipper 60% $table
H.t.roti.co ior.s:: lones goldenaster 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Huooorc:o siosior.rs:s $hoshone Cave whipscorpion 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Huis.o :.st:to sst. :ro.rs:s Invo hulsea 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
H.rotottus /:i:/oi:us :or. .r:otocus hairvpodded tineleat
hvmenopappus
60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
H.rotottus /:i:/oi:us :or. rorus little cutleat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Icor:c:o :cor:o:c.s oust:roru $pring Mountains icarioides blue 90% $table. 5 or tewer metapopulations
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Icor:c:o siosto ciori.stor.rs:s $pring Mountains blue 90% $everelv declining to declining (decline ot 50% to >70%). verv
possiblv extinct
Ic:orct.r:s tiiiot:s Allen's bigeared bat 60% Relativelv stable ( 25% change)
It.roto or.::/oi:o Calitornia satintail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ioroct:s co.i.st:s Red Rock Canvon aster 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Itroo:us rooustus robust trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
I:.s:o or::or:co :or. or::or:co vellow ivesia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
I:.s:o crttocoui:s hidden ivesia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
I:.s:o io...r: laeger ivesia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
I:.s:o i:r.:: :or. .r.:co Ash Meadows mousetails 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
I:.s:o tot.ii:/.ro Kingston Mountains ivesia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ioorcius .:i:s Least Bittern 75% Declining to stable (10% tluctuation to 30% decline)
urco i.oi:s cor:c.ts Oravheaded lunco 75% less threatened. broad range but depends on riparian habitat
urcus :rt.r:or inland rush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
urcus rocosus knotted rush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Lotrot.it:s tro.ioro :r/roioo:oi:s Ltah Mountain Kingsnake 75% broader range than state rankings indicate. also tound in NV e LT
Los:orct.r:s roct::o.ors silverhaired bat 60% Presumed stable. trends are poorlv known.
Los:urus c:r.r.us hoarv bat 60% Widespread throughout the Americas
Lotirus i:tcicoci:orus Bulltrog Hills sweetpea 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
L.t:co.co oii:st:r:s Virgin spinedace 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
L.t:co.co oii:st:r:s oii:st:r:s Virgin River spinedace 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
L.us soi:rus sst. oio:.rs:s hillside wheat grass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
L:.r:t:s u.:c...r:: r.:oco. Nevada admiral 90% $table. not surveved recentlv in 1 ot 2 ranges where tound
L:rocor:s oot.rs:s Warm $prings naucorid 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
L:rortius ocuiotus Little $an Bernardino Mtns.
linanthus
90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
L:ru tuo.ruiu plains tlax 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
L:tiooot.s orco relict leopard trog 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
L:tiost.ru :rc:su plains stoneseed 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Lo./i:r.:o souorroso :or. ort.:s:oru sagebrush loetlingia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Loot:u /o.r:cuioc.u :or. occou.oi:: Macdougal's lomatium 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Lotus or.ro.us :or. uit:coui:s scrub lotus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Lut:rus ioi.r.r:orus Holmgren's lupine 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Lut:rus iot:/oi:us sst. i.ucortius broadleat lupine 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Lut:rus o.r:/:cus :or. o.r:/:cus Panamint Mountains lupine 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Lc:u torr.: Torrev woltberrv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Mocio.rorti.ro o:..io::: :or. o:..io::: Bigelow's tansvaster 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Mocrooo.r.t.s i.iso.rs:s Kelso giant sand treader cricket 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Mocrotus coi:/orr:cus Calitornia leatnosed bat 60% less threatened. with broad range
Mot.i.o tor::/oi:o spearleat matelea 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Mourorco ort:rri:r:/ioro sst.
ort:rri:r:/ioro
violet twining snapdragon 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Mourorco t.troti:io rock ladv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M..orcr.ro .rt:.i:o. redtailed blazing star bee 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M.ior.rt.s urot.:oi:s Oila Woodpecker 60% nonsigniticant decline. needs more monitoring
M.rocoro scooro rough menodora 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
M.rt:.i:o :ro.rs:s Invo blazing star 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M.rt:.i:o i.ucotiiio Ash Meadows blazingstar 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M.rt:.i:o toi:to polished blazing star 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M.rt:.i:o tt.rost.ro wingseed blazing star 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
M.rt:.i:o tr:c.rtoto creamv blazing star 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M:croti.r. ui:tr.: Elt Owl 60% Declining in Calitornia
M:crociio.tus /or:co:c.us Furnace Creek rittle beetle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M:croc:tocots ..oc.tioius oio::.rt.r desert vallev kangaroo mouse 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
M:crotus coi:/orr:cus oio:.rs:s Mohave river vole 90% endemic to $an Bernardino Co.. CA
M:crotus coi:/orr:cus sc:rt.rs:s Amargosa vole 90% Most ot known occupied habitat is privatelv owned
M:crotus coi:/orr:cus :oii:coio Owens Vallev vole 90% endemic to Invo and Mono Co.. CA
M:crotus ortorus /ucosus Pahranagat Vallev montane vole 90% endemic to Lincoln Co. NV
M:ioc.r.s r.isor: Nelson's miloderes weevil 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M:ioc.r.s st. ! Big Dune miloderes weevil 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M:uius oio:.rs:s Mojave monkevtlower 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
M:roo:i:s cocc:r.o red tour o'clock 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Mooto cor:oc.o Moapa dace 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Mororco t.ct:roto plains bee balm 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Mororc.iio roo:sor:: Robison's monardella 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Muii.ro.r.:o oiot.curo:c.s wolttail 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Muii.ro.r.:o ors.r.: tough muhlv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Muii.ro.r.:o /ro.:i:s delicate muhlv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Muii.ro.r.:o touc:/ioro tewtlowered muhlv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Murroo souorroso talse buttalograss 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
M:orcius trorruius Browncrested Flvcatcher 75% less threatened. broad range but depends on riparian habitat
Mot:s coi:/orr:cus Calitornia mvotis 60% $ecure
Mot:s c:i:oiooru western smalltooted mvotis 60% Population trend data are not available
Mot:s tisoroc.s tringed mvotis 60% Widespread but abundance is low
Noo c:ciotou :or. c:ciotou torked purple mat 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Noo tus:iiu littleleat nama 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
N.::or. r.rs:s endemic ant 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
N.ocoui:s c.rucoto :or. .roc:i:s slender cottonheads 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
N.oto:os toi.r: Palmer's chipmunk 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
N.oto:os uor:rus r.:oc.rs:s Hidden Forest Linta chipmunk 90% possiblv extinct. endemic to Clark Co.. NV
N:troti:io oio:.rs:s Amargosa niterwort 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Nct:roots /.orosoccus pocketed treetailed bat 60% tairlv common through range
Nct:roots ocrot:s big treetailed bat 60% widespread throughout range but not contiguous
O.roti.ro coi:/orr:co sst. .ur.i.rs:s Eureka Dunes eveningprimrose 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
O.roti.ro co:.rro. cave eveningprimrose 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
O.roti.ro ior.:ss:o longstem eveningprimrose 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Orcios torr:cus tuior.rs:s Tulare grasshopper mouse 60% extirpated trom much ot historical range
Oturt:o oos:ior:s :or. orocicioco shortjoint beavertail 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Oturt:o cur::st:ro curvedspine beavertail 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Oturt:o ui:tti.: :or. ui:tti.: Whipple cholla 75% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Or.oi.i: i.ti:ii: Whitepine mountainsnail 90% Terrestrial snail. verv limited range
Orct.s r.:oc.rs:s Nevada orvctes 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
O::s coroc.rs:s r.isor:: desert bighorn sheep 50% Landscape scale species. common. widespread. O+O5
Oti.co uotsor:: Watson's oxvtheca 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pororci:o io.s:: lames Whitlow wort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.c:o.iu costor.u Beaver Dam scurt pea 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.iio.o trurcoto spinv clittbrake 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.iocor:s siosior. oor.osus Amargosa naucorid 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.iocor:s siosior. siosior. Pahranagat naucorid bug 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or oiooor.:rotus Whitemargined beardtongue 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or ooti:ius Canaan Mountain beardtongue 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or or.ror:us Nevada Dune beardtongue 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or o:coior sst. o:coior vellow twotone beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rst.or o:coior sst. ros.us rosv twotoned beardtongue 75% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rst.or coicor.us limestone beardtongue 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or /rut:c:/or:s :or. oor.oso. Amargosa beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rst.or i.:otiiius :or. i.ci:: Charleston beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rst.or toiut.rs:s Pahute beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VKR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
P.rst.or t.t:oiotus $heep Range beardtongue 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or st.ti.rs:: $tephens' beardtongue 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.rst.or tiotsor:o. Thompson's beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rst.or tiotsor:o. sst. io...r: laeger beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rst.or utoi.rs:s Ltah beardtongue 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.rc:to .cor:s Mojave poppv bee 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.r:ti. ::iioso Hanaupah rock daisv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.ro.rotius oit:coius :r.t.ctotus Tehachapi pocket mouse 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.toior r:t:cus shinvleaved sandpaper plant 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.toior torr: Parrv sandpaper plant 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
P.toior tiuro.r: sst. .:ior:: Death Vallev sandpaperplant 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P.t.r:o tiotsor:o. spinenoded milk vetch 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o or.isor:: Aven Nelson phacelia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pioc.i:o oorr.ooro Barnebv's phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o co.rui.o skvblue phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o corstorc.: Constance caterpillar weed 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o /:i:o. Clarke phacelia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pioc.i:o ..ror::/oi:o Oeraniumleat scorpionweed 60% Drv rockv habitats. usuallv with carbonate substrate. clitt walls
Pioc.i:o :ro.rs:s Invo phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o oro.rs:s Mono Countv phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o ust.i:ro weasel phacelia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pioc.i:o rosi:oro Charlotte's phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o tor:si:: Parish phacelia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pioc.i:o t.r:tio:c.s :or. io...r: laeger's phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o t.r:tio:c.s :or. io:/ioro noddingtlower scorpionweed 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pioc.i:o tuici.iio :or. .oocc:r.:: Ooodding's phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pioc.i:o ro/o.i.rs:s a phacelia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Pio:rot.tio r:t.rs Phainopepla 75% $ecure riparian species
Piio ciut.oro Navajo Mountain phlox 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pisoi:s ioooto lobed groundcherrv 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pisor:o cioo.rs:: Chambers' phvsaria 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pisocortus oit.rrors Nevada ninebark 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P:t:io cr:ssoi:s .r.oti:ius Invo Calitornia Towhee 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P:ttoti.ru :crortiu smalltlowered rice grass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
P:ror.o /io:o Hepatic Tanager 75% less threatened. broad range but depends on riparian habitat
P:ror.o ruoro $ummer Tanager 75% Has declined along lower Colorado River w loss ot native habitat
Pio.:oootirs tor:si:: Parish's popcorntlower 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pio.:oootirs soisus desert popcorntlower 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pio.ott.rus or..rt:ss:us Woundtin 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pi.oui:ro .:.c:or:s $an Emigdio blue buttertlv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pi..oc:s ci:i: WhiteFaced Ibis 75% tairlv common through range
Poi.oio ocortiocioco thornv milkwort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Poi.oio i.t.rorircio notchbeaked milkwort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Poitiiio ort.ror::.o $aline Vallev snowtront lune beetle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Poitiiio .rrot:co Death Vallev lune beetle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Potuius or.ust:/oi:o narrowleaved cottonwood 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Porotiiiu t.o.u pvgmv poreleat 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Prurus .r.oti:io Mojave Desert plum 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ps.ucocotoito .:ui:or:: Oiuliani's dune scarab 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ps.ucocross:c:u cr:r:tu bearded screwmoss 90% Two populations in the Mojave Desert. more common in $onoran
and Chihuahuan
Psorotiorus oroor.sc.rs :or. tuo.sc.rs Mohave indigo bush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Pucc:r.ii:o tor:si:: Parish's alkali grass 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pursi:o .iorcuioso waxv bitterbrush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Pr.uiots:s o:.rroi:s Moapa pebblesnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s ooccius Orand Wash springsnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s cor:r:/.ro Moapa Vallev pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s cor:co Kingman springsnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s crstoi:s Crvstal $pring pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s c.ocor: $pring Mountains pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s c.s.rto desert springsnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s .rtirotoo Ash Meadows pebblesnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s /o:rooris.rs:s Fairbanks pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s /ousto Corn Creek pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s iuoos: Hubbs pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s :soioto elongategland pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s .rr:o: Pahranagat pebblesnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s :crococcus Oasis Vallev springsnail 90% Found in springs in the Amargosa River drainage and in the Death.
Panamint. and $aline Vallevs
Pr.uiots:s rorus Distalgland pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s t:st.r: mediangland Nevada pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s turootr: southeast Nevada pvrg 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Pr.uiots:s uor.: Wong's springsnail 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Proc.tioius ruo:rus Vermilion Flvcatcher 75% decline in southwestern L.$.
Roiius ior.:rostr:s uor.rs:s Yuma Clapper Rail 90% Recent survevs indicate a total population ot 17002000 along
lower Colorado River
Roro crotor:: Calitornia redlegged trog 90% $ubstantial decline (decline ot 5075%)
Roro orco relict leopard trog 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Rorurcuius orc.rsor:: :or. iur:t.r:rus luniper buttercup 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Ri:r:citis oscuius ooto. Moapa speckled dace 90% endemic to Clark Co.. NV
Ri:r:citis oscuius r.:oc.rs:s Ash Meadows speckled dace 90% Now protected in the Ash Meadows National Wildlite Retuge
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VM@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Ri:r:citis oscuius sst. ! Amargosa Canvon speckled dace 90% Verv small range in the Amargosa River and tributaries
Ri:r:citis oscuius sst. !! Meadow Vallev speckled dace 90% $mall range in Meadow Vallev Wash. Nevada. tewer than 10
occurrences
Ri:r:citis oscuius sst. 6 Oasis Vallev speckled dace 90% endemic to Nve Co.. NV
Ri:r:citis oscuius :.i:/.r Pahranagat speckled dace 90% Occurs onlv in the White River Vallev svstem. Nevada
Riotoioi.o roo.rts: Roberts' rhopalolemma bee 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Roo:r:o r.o.:coro New Mexico locust 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Soitu.:i:o iot:.r: Latimer's woodlandgilia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Soi::o .r.oto. Orocopia sage 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Soi::o tocitiiio sst. .r.ot:ctus Arizona rose sage 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Sor::toi:o oo.rt:: Abert's sanvitalia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Sorcocorr:o utoi.rs:s Ltah glasswort 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Sourooius ot.r chuckwalla 60% Commerciallv collected. declining. limited distribution. O+
Sciiuir:o uit:/ioro :or. uit:/ioro manvtlowered schkuhria 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Scio.rus r:.r:cors black bogrush 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Sci.rococtus ioirsor:: lohnson's beehive cactus 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Sci.roto.or or.::/oi:us burro grass 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S.io.:r.iio i.ucooro:c.s Virgin Narrows spike moss 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S.io.:r.iio utoi.rs:s Ltah spikemoss 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
S.io.:r.iio uotsor:: alpine spike moss 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S.i:rocortus r.:oc.rs:s desert wingtruit 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S.rro oroto desert cassia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S:coic.o co::ii.: Owens Vallev checkerbloom 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S:coic.o r.o.:coro $alt $pring checkerbloom 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
S:i.r. cioi.: Clokev catchtlv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
S:sr:rci:u /ur.r.u Death Vallev blueeved grass 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Soi:co.o st.ctoo:i:s remarkable goldenrod 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Soior:ro stor.:oso a lichen 90% lichen species. rare in moss mats with calcareous seepage
Soior:ro stor.:oso tringed chocolate chip lichen 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Sor. t.r.iius Invo shrew 60% Trend is not detinitelv known but probablv stable
St.roti:ius oio:.rs:s Mohave ground souirrel 90% Onlv 9% ot habitat within the historical range is protected
St..r:o coroio. Carole's silverspot 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Stio.roic.o .:.r:sci:: Oierisch globemallow 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Stio.roic.o ruso: :or. .r.:coio Rusbv's desertmallow 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Stio.ro.r:o cotocto Charleston tansv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Stio.ro.r:o ruti:o. Zion tansv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
St.r.i:s coi:co coi:co Devils Hole warm spring rittle beetle 90% Found onlv in Devil's Hole
St.r.i:s ior::.rs: Ash $prings rittle beetle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
St.r.i:s ooto Moapa Warm $pring rittle beetle 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
St.r.i:s occ:c.rtoi:s Nearctic rittle beetle 60% widespread range
Suoii.r:o oi.orcro. Eureka Vallev dune grass 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Stiotr:ciu c./oi:otu $an Bernardino aster 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Srtir:s rorurcui:ro Charleston kittentails 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tocor:co oros:i:.rs:s Brazilian treetailed bat 60% suitable sites tor large colonies are extremelv limited
T.trococcus :i:c:/oi:us hollvleaved tetracoccus 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
T.troc:o or.ro.o silver telt thorn 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
T.troc:o o:iior:s :or. ior.:st:ro Longspine cotton thorn 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
T.troc:o st.roi.t:s Owens Vallev cotton thorn 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
T.ucr:u cuo.rs. sst. c.tr.ssu dwart germander 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
T..iio ioiou../ Kokoweet Crvstal Cave harvestman 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
T..iio siosior. $hoshone Cave harvestman 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tioroti:s ioorc:: twostriped garter snake 75% $table O3
Ti.itoc:u :rt..r:/oi:u sst.
cotiorotu
toxtail thelvpodium 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Tours.rc:o s:ti:: blackrock ground daisv 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tr:corc:o uotsor:: three hearts 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Tr:ciostou su..t:: sweet trichostomum 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tr:/oi:u c.c.ci.ro. Dedecker's clover 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tr:/oi:u i:r.:: sst. oc:i.rtu King clover 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Tr:tt.rocoi :crortius smalltlowered sandverbena 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Tror:o or.uioto sportinggoods trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tror:o ciotiroto grated trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tror:o .ioto Point ot Rocks trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tror:o .r:co. minute trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tror:o or.o. Orapevine $prings elongate trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tror:o rouiorcs: Orapevine $prings souat trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Tror:o :or:..oto Amargosa trvonia 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
V.r::oro iuc:o. Lucv's Warbler 75% less threatened. broad range but depends on riparian habitat
V.r::oro ::r.:r:o. Virginia's Warbler 75% positive survevwide population trends
V:oio our.o golden violet 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
V:r.o o.ii:: or::oro. Arizona Bell's Vireo 75% less threatened. broad range but depends on riparian habitat
V:r.o o.ii:: tus:iius Least Bell's Vireo 90% Has declined dramaticallv in both numbers and distribution
V:r.o ::c:r:or Orav Vireo 75% signiticant survevwide population declines
Vuit.s ocroto kit tox 60% $ame habitat loss as Desert tortoise. but wider range
V:si::.r:o r./rocto sst. r./rocto jackassclover 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Voocs:o tiu.ro. Plummer's woodsia 60% all O3O5 plants with $1 or $2 ranking were given a goal ot 60%
Xorotus:o ::.:i:s ::.:i:s desert night lizard 60% No evidence ot a signiticant overall decline has been reported
Xrouci.r t.orus razorback sucker 90% all O1 and O2 species were given a goal ot 90%
Ecological $vstem alkali seep 90% rare waterdependent communitv
Ecological $vstem Annual Orassland 60% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Aspen Forest and Woodland +0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Ecological $vstem Barren 60% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Blackbrush $hrubland 25% matrix communitv
Ecological $vstem Chaparral +0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Clitt and Canvon +0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Coastal $crub 50% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem CreosotebushWhite Bursage Desert
$crub
25% matrix communitv
Ecological $vstem Crucitixion Thorn Woodland 60% relativelv small. isolated locations
Ecological $vstem Curlleat Mountain Mahoganv
Woodland and $hrubland
+0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Desert Pavement 80% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Dunes 80% relativelv small. isolated locations
Ecological $vstem Oambel OakMixed Montane
$hrubland
50% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Oreasewood Flat 60% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Marsh 80% rare waterdependent communitv
Ecological $vstem Meadow 80% rare waterdependent communitv
Ecological $vstem Mesouite Bosoue 60% relativelv small. isolated locations
Ecological $vstem Mesouite Lpland $crub 80% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Mixed Coniter Woodland and
Forest
Ecological $vstem Mixed $alt Desert $crub 50% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Mojave MidElevation Mixed Desert
$crub
Ecological $vstem Mojave Mixed $teppe 50% relativelv small. isolated locations
Ecological $vstem Montane Woodland and Chaparral +0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Mountain Mahoganv Woodland
and $hrubland
+0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Open Water 60% rare waterdependent communitv
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!"'+9#5)!
!
8%?1'!2VK!!6#0)'*&%+/#0!8%*.'+)!#C!+9'!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0!
=-/'0+/C/-!:%3'! 6#33#0!:%3'!
"%*I%0!
T#%1! 4'%)#0/0.c:#+')!
Ecological $vstem Pinvonluniper Woodland +0% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Plava 80% relativelv small. isolated locations
Ecological $vstem Riparian Woodland and $hrubland 85% rare waterdependent communitv
Ecological $vstem $agebrush $hrubland and $teppe 20% matrix communitv
Ecological $vstem $crub OakMixed Montane
$hrubland
80% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $emiDesert Orassland 80% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $emiDesert $hrub$teppe 50% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $onoran MidElevation Desert
$crub
Ecological $vstem $onoran PaloverdeMixed Cacti 50% large patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $outhern Rockv Mtn Mixed Coniter
$avannaWoodlandForest
Ecological $vstem $outhern Willow $crub 25% matrix communitv
Ecological $vstem $parselv Vegetated 80% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $ubalpine LimberBristlecone Pine
Woodland
80% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $ubalpineMontane Mesic Meadow 80% rare waterdependent communitv
Ecological $vstem Transmontane Alkali Marsh 80% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Vallev Needlegrass Orassland 90% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Vallev Oak Woodland 60% small patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem Wildtlower Field 90% $mall patches ot this communitv exist within the Ecoregion
Ecological $vstem $eeps and $prings 90% Provide habitat tor manv ot the Ecogregions animals

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 2VMP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! D%05)-%>'!4')/1/'0-'!"'+9#5)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! aVB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2>>'05/I!a!!"'+9#5)!C#*!6%1-;1%+/0.!+9'!D%05)-%>'!4')/1/'0-'!J05'I!
!
The International Panel on Climate Change detines resilience as the abilitv ot a social or ecological
svstem to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and wavs ot tunctioning
(IPCC 2007). The teatures ot a landscape can enhance the resilience ot species and ecosvstems bv
providing access to relativelv cool areas during extended heat waves and surtace water during
drought (Dobroski 2010. Beier and Brost 2010). Although manv teatures ot the landscape can
provide retuge. the Landscape Resilience Index tor Calitornia tocused on those that are likelv to
endure tor hundred ot vears and can be mapped. It was calculated as the summation ot the tive
eouallvweighted tactors.
x Coastal Proximitv. The ocean heats and cools more slowlv than the land. so as air tlows
trom the ocean over land it tends to moderate the coastal climate. Coastal proximitv was
calculated as described in a recent climate publication (Dalv et al. 2008) using an advection
model that incorporates the prevailing wind patterns and minimizes the number ot
mountains and the distance air must traverse as it tlows trom the ocean to the land.
x Elevation Oradients. Elevation has a direct attect on temperatures and otten intluences
precipitation patters. A diversitv ot elevations in a small area will give species access to
ditterent climatic zones as climate changes. We calculated the elevation range in a 10
kilometer moving window using the 30meter National Elevation Dataset (L$O$ 2008b).
x Topographic Diversitv. Northtacing slopes receive less solar radiation during the dav and
tend to be cooler and have more soil moisture than their southtacing counterparts. Areas
with a diversitv ot slopes and aspects will provide a diversitv ot microclimates tor species as
the climate changes. We calculated the incoming solar radiation using the 30meter
National Elevation Dataset (L$O$ 2008b) and ArcOI$. We then calculated the range in
solar radiation values in each 800meter grid cell.
x Distance to Water. Droughts mav become more treouent and severe as the climate
changes. so species will need reliable sources ot tresh water to survive. We identitied all ot
the seeps and springs and large perennial water bodies (>100 hectares) as the water sources
that are most likelv to persist even in a drought. We calculated the straightline distance to
these water sources as mapped in the National Hvdrologv Dataset (L$O$ 2009b) using
ArcOI$.
x Riparian Corridors. For manv species. rivers provide low gradient habitat connections
between ditterent climate zones. In addition. riparian vegetation tends to be more dense
than the surrounding vegetation and provides ample shade on hot davs. To map riparian
corridors. we calculated the maximum elevation in each stream svstem and then subtracted
the lowest elevation that stream svstem tlows to (either the ocean or a landlocked lake or
salt tlat) using the National Hvdrologv Dataset (L$O$ 2009b).

Landscape resilience teatures in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion include some ot same teatures as
mapped in the Calitornia index. such as sources ot treshwater (seeps. springs. and riparian
corridors) andor teatures ot terrain (northtacing slopes. narrow shaded canvons. and steep
elevational gradients). Other enduring teatures that mav be more important tor the resilience ot
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! D%05)-%>'!4')/1/'0-'!"'+9#5)!
!
species in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion that are not included in the Calitornia index include large
rock outcrops and areas ot loose soil tor burrowing and accessing ground water. $patial data on
these teatures were not readilv available tor the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. but should be
considered in tuture analvses.

We assessed the landscape resilience teatures that are included in the various areas ot conservation
value identitied through the Marxan analvsis. To do this. we tocused onlv on the areas ot the
Calitornia Landscape Resilience index that tall in the Mojave Desert Ecoregion. This covered 76%
ot the ecoregion. and does not include the northeast portion ot the ecoregion (Figure B1). We
then identitied the top ouartile (top 25% bv area) ot the ecoregion with the highest resilience
index scores (Figure B1) and compared these areas with the tour categories ot conservation value.
The Ecologicallv Core areas cover 37% ot the ecoregion. but thev capture 52% ot the areas ot
highest landscape resilience. On the other hand. areas that are identitied as Degraded and
Converted cover 1+% ot the ecoregion. but thev onlv cover 5% ot the areas ot highest landscape
resilience. Thus. the Ecologicallv Core areas do a proportionallv better job at capturing areas ot
high landscape resilience than areas ot low landscape resilience.

The Landscape Resilience Index is designed to be used at a large scale such as a state or an
ecoregion. It provides a simple metric tor comparing landscapescale projects and to support initial
thinking on climate change adaptive strategv development. However. the Landscape Resilience
Index cannot intorm decisions about where or how to engage in specitic locations. It is designed to
be one element to consider in a longer climate change adaptation planning process. In general. a
climate change adaptation planning process involves setting goals. determining target species and
svstems. projecting the climate change impacts to those target species and svstems. and developing
strategies to help abate those impacts.

The Landscape Resilience Index is meant as a coarse and general screening tool to ouicklv assess
resilience tor a large suite ot species. However. some important caveats are needed in interpreting
the landscape resilience index to help develop climate change adaptation strategies. For example.
an area ot high landscape resilience does not guarantee that all the species tound in that area will
be able to successtullv adapt to climate change at this location. In particular. species with narrow
climate tolerances or low dispersal abilitv. as well as species alreadv approaching ecological tipping
points. mav still be stressed bv climate change and mav not be able to access retugia such as north
tacing slopes and seeps and springs. Other species mav be dependent on other landscape teatures
such as mountain meadows or rare soils so thev cannot move to other areas ottering more
resilience.

89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! aV@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !D%05)-%>'!4')/1/'0-'!"'+9#5)! !
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! aVK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
58
!"
395
!"
14
!"
190
!"
127
!"
160
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Vall ey
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Mojave Desert
Landscape Resilience
Figure B 1
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Landscape Resilience Index
Low
Moderate
High
Highest
Not Mapped
"#$%&'!(')'*
!
89'!:%+;*'!
+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I>'*+)!J0+'*&/'H'5!
6#0)'*&%0-<! 6VB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2>>'0
!
5/I!6!!D/)+!#C!,I>'*+)!J0+'*&/'H'5!
8%?1'!6VB!!,I>'*+)!/0+'*&/'H'5!/0!@AAR!%05!@ABAE!J0-1;)/#0!#0!+9/)!1/)+!/0!0#!H%<!)/.0/C/')!+9%+!
+9'!/0+'*&/'H''!#*!+9'/*!#*.%0/^%+/#0!'05#*)')!89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<d)!"#$%&'!(')'*+!
,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!
!
:%3'! 2CC/1/%+/#0!
1.
Edith Allen Lniversitv ot Calitornia. Riverside
2.
Ileene Anderson Center tor Biological Diversitv
3.
lim Andre Lniversitv ot Calitornia Natural Reserve $vstem
+.
David Austin Lnited $tates Forest $ervice
5.
lohn Baker PRBO Conservation $cience
6.
Cameron Barrows Lniversitv ot Calitornia. Riverside
7.
lill Bavs Transition Habitats Conservancv
8.
Roxanne Bittman Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
9.
Ashleigh Blacktord Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
10.
Pete Bloom Lniversitv ot Idaho. private consultant
11.
Mark Borchert Lnited $tates Forest $ervice
12.
Rav Branstield Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
13.
Patricia Brown BrownBerrv Biological Consulting
1+.
Mike Connor Western Watersheds
15.
Brian Crott Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
16.
Neal Darbv Mojave National Preserve
17.
Catherine Darst Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
18.
Danielle Dillard Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
19.
Clinton Epps Oregon $tate Lniversitv
20.
lulie Evens Calitornia Native Plant $ocietv
21.
Patricia Flanagan Mojave Desert Land Trust
22.
Rick Freidel Ltah Division ot Wildlite Resources
23.
Oeottrev Oeupel PRBO Conservation $cience
2+.
Frazier Hanev The Wildlands Conservancv
25.
Codv Hantord $helton Douthit Consulting
26.
$uzanne Harmon Calitornia Native Plant $ocietv
27.
$cott Harris Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
28.
Chrissv Howell PRBO Conservation $cience
29.
Brian Hobbs Nevada Department ot Wildlite
30.
Brendan Hughes $helton Douthit Consulting
31.
Debra Hughson Mojave National Preserve
32.
Nicholas lensen Calitornia Native Plant $ocietv
33.
Rebecca lones Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ,I>'*+)!J0+'*&/'H'5!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! 6V@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
8%?1'!6VB!!,I>'*+)!/0+'*&/'H'5!/0!@AAR!%05!@ABAE!J0-1;)/#0!#0!+9/)!1/)+!/0!0#!H%<!)/.0/C/')!+9%+!
+9'!/0+'*&/'H''!#*!+9'/*!#*.%0/^%+/#0!'05#*)')!89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<d)!"#$%&'!(')'*+!
,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!
!
:%3'! 2CC/1/%+/#0!
3+.
Nancv Karl Mojave Desert Land Trust
35.
Todd KeelerWolt Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
36.
Tasha La Doux loshua Tree National Park
37.
Larrv LaPre Bureau ot Land Management
38.
Philip Leitner private consultant
39.
$teven Loe Lnited $tates Forest $ervice
+0.
Michael Long Los Angeles Countv Department ot Parks and Recreation
+1.
Carl Lundblad Ash Meadows National Wildlite Retuge
+2.
Margaret Margosian Bureau ot Land Management
+3.
Tonva Moore Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
++.
Kristeen Penrod $cience and Collaboration tor Connected Wildlands
+5.
Philip Rundel Lniversitv ot Calitornia. Los Angeles
+6.
Connie Ruthertord Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
+7.
April $all The Wildlands Conservancv
+8.
Kellv $chmoker Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
+9.
Oregorv $uba Calitornia Native Plant $ocietv
50.
Kirk Waln Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
51.
$tephanie Weigel $onoran Institute
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2>>'05/I!(!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Atton Canvon s Bat populations
Atton Canvon t Bedrock torces river to tlow aboveground. once tull ot Mojave Tui chub. but now
dominated bv hitch (invasive tish sp. trom $ac. River)
Algodones Dunes to Death
Vallev
s t Irreplaceable Cresent. most intact ecosvstem in North America. lack ot development.
high biodiversitv
Aliso Creek s Calitornia redlegged trog
Amargosa Creek (West
Mojave)
h s m Mitigation opportunitv tor Alkalai Mariposa Lilv. residual tloodplain areas
Mojave)
h m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. Alkali Mariposa Lilv in residual
tloodplain areas
Mojave)
t Ditterent trom Amargosa River in East Mojave. nonnavigable and theretore not under
ACOE regulation. IRWMP has called tor water diversion ot creek to recharge
groundwater. but this is problematic because the water delivers silt to Edwards AFB. and
because Piute ponds are a signiticant wetland that would be attected
Amargosa River Area
(Eastern Mojave)
h s Chicago Vallev mesouite bosoue. Resting springs ranch. Willow Creek $outhwestern
Willow Flvcatcher. Vireos (could be LB). speckaled dace. snails. Amargosa vole.
$hoshone springs puptish (Don $ada at the Desert Research Institute has been working
on this)
Amargosa River Area
(Eastern Mojave)
h In good condition
Amargosa River Area
(Eastern Mojave)
s Amargosa River. voles. birds
Amargosa River Area
(Eastern Mojave)
m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Amargosa River Vallev to
Mojave National Preserve
c Connectivitv needs protection
Amargosa River Vallev to
c Connectivitv needs protection
Amargosa Vallev t Millennium $olar proposed project. reliance on wet cooling is bad
Antelope Vallev h s t loshua Tree woodland. little protection
Antelope Vallev h s t loshua tree woodland. threatened bv ag clearing. higher elevation populations tound
near Tejon and 5 Fwv. clonal and perhaps more tire adapted
Antelope Vallev s High densitv ot burrowing owls
Antelope Vallev m Antelope Vallev Conservancv is a new entitv which is not state designated like the $anta
Monica Mountains Conservancv. but mav be able to take mitigation lands and manage
them.
Antelope Vallev o $anta Monica Mountains Conservancv and LA Parks and Rec in conjunction with Co.
Assessor's Ottice look tor properties in Antelope Vallev that are in tax detault status and
prioritizes these tor acouisition.
Antelope Vallev (higher
elevations)
h s Calitornia luniper woodland
AnzaBorrego s Longeared owls nest in trees
Apple Vallev Ridge s Bat populations
Argus Canvon h Oood habitat
Argus Range h In good condition
Ash Meadow m Mitigation opportunitv. inholdings would be nice to acouire
Baker $ink m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. contains mostlv state lands
Barstow s t Proposed development in tringetoed lizard habitat
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Bats h t BLM land. a lot ot ettort on abatement. but mining can start up again bc land not
withdrawn trom ineral entrv
Bats h t Prior to mining. bats were more evenlv distributed throughout the area. roosting
separatelv rather than together. Once mines were created. all bat 'eggs' went into one
basket. and mine closures can eliminate an entire population
Bats h Abiotic teatures are important tor bats. clitts. caves. mines. bridges. dams. reservoirs.
bouder outcrops
Bats h Anvwhere with riparian areas roosting - good bat habitat
Bats h Desert bats don't necessarilv need water. and springs and seeps are otten buried in
vegetation and not accessable to bats
Bats h Mines are important tor bats. but the importance ot mines to bats has not been mapped
Bats h $nags are important biotic teatures tor bats
Bats h When mapping bat habitat. vegetation is not as important as abiotic teatures
Bats t Migratorv pathwavs ot bats are not wellklnown
Bats t Wind and solar attect migratorv bats teathering windmill blades at low wind speed can
help avoid bat impacts
Big Rock Wash h s Mountain lions use this area. some riparian habitat is lett
Big Rock Wash h t Bulldozed bv Caltrans tor decades
Big Rock Wash h t Oood habitat. little protection
Big Tujunga s t $uckers and dace trapped and relocated in anticipation ot mudslides tollowing $tation
Fire
Bighorn $heep s Populations straddling I+0. culverts under I+0 have a ridged metal bottom. ditticult tor
hooved animals. looks like it is onlv being used bv predators (bobcats and covotes). area
could be good tor building an overpass. bridge with wash underneath it might be used
as passage as well
Bighorn $heep s c Cushenburv herd is linked to $an Oorgonio herd. but not Newburv herd
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Bighorn $heep s c populations south ot I+0. northsouth connection
Bighorn $heep h h Drv lakebeds and large tlat areas are less important tor sheep movement
Bighorn $heep s c Newberrv herd is expanding. blocked bv I+0 trom moving north
Bighorn $heep s Populations to the north ot I15. Clark mountain herd mav be moving south. but this is
unknown
Bighorn $heep s Populations in and around loshua tree
Bighorn $heep s c Highwav 62. old evidence ot sheep movement. but blocked bv barrier in the middle ot
the highwav
Bighorn $heep c No obvious place tor connectivitv
Bighorn $heep c Canal is complete barrier but still some movement between populations
Bighorn $heep c Anv population could have a positive intluence on anv other
Bighorn $heep c Bighorn sheep move over larger areas in the winter. onto bajadas that give them green
torage later into the drv season
Bighorn $heep s CDFO moved sheep trom -53 to -80. and trom there thev recolonized -7+
Bighorn $heep t Higher elevation sites can be problematic tor bighorn because ot higher tree cover and
risk ot predation. introduced deer and mountain lions. diseases with insect vectors
Bighorn $heep c Movement models in Epps paper based on microsatellite data. so map shows what males
are willing to do. temale movement is more conservative
Bighorn $heep c $ome uncertaintv exists about how trattic attects sheep's willingness to cross roads.
behavioral barriers can be mitigated (i.e. sound butters) to help crossing
Bighorn $heep s $tatus ot polvgons (trom Cons Bio paper) in regards to bighorn populations has
changed in several cases due to recolonizations and extinctions
Bighorn $heep c m Translocation ot individuals is too expensive to be sustainable in the longterm. it would
be better to plan tor natural connectivitv
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Bighorn $heep c t Transmission lines don't hinder movement once thev are in place (sheep on Old Dad
move underneath lines). problem is disturbance when lines are going in. and increased
human access via roads
Bighorn $heep t Lower elevation sites are prone to drought
Blvthe m o $ome good options tor siting on abandoned ag areas
Brisbane Vallev m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. between Mojave River and I15
Brisbane Vallev s t Brisbaine Vallev. threatened bv development. solar plants. has desert tortoise and
Mohave ground souirrel habitat. rare plants
Bristol Mountains s c Bighorn sheep and new species ot buckwheat. sheep trv to cross treewav. tenced area.
good place tor Banttstvle overpass
Broadwell Drv Lake s Crucitixion thorn. tlower tields. new species ot lupine. bighorn. Brightsource project got
pulled
Burros t roundup started in 1999. about 3000 captured. 200+ and 2005 helicopter roundups.
burrows are widespread. activelv managed in Clark Mts.. Woods Mt.. Midhills. Cima
Volcanic Area. some burro damage to springs. but most ot impact is due to cattle
Cactus Flat h Oood habitat. publicallv owned
Cadiz t $talled water pumping project. general drawdown ot watertable. raven subsidies would
have been the result
Cadiz m t Checkerboard ot inholdings at eastern edge ot Mojave National Preserve. proposed
pumped storage ot water project. trading land tor conservation here could be a good
option
Cadiz Dunes h s Everv dune has endemics (particularlv beetles). tast track solar site in this area
Cadv Mountains to Bristol
Mountains
c Bighorn movement across road. dirt road there should not be paved or improved
Cadv Mountains to Fort
Irwin
c t Bighorn sheep are moving because ot drought
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Cajon Pass c Important migratorv bird pathwav
Cajon$B Mt. to $an Oabriel c Connectivitv. with treewavs. powerlines. railroad. and tuture wind development as
threats
Camp Cadv s Mojave tui chub
Camp Cadv s Mojave Tui Chub. L$F$ is considering putting Mojave Tui Chub into headaters ot the
Mojave River Deep Creek and luniper $prings
Castle Mountain Kevhole m o Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. signiticant investment in restoration
when mine went in. a lot ot plant salvage. set standard tor a number ot vears. plantted a
varietv ot species on overburden piles. but not a lot ot recontouring ot site
Castle Mountain Mine m o Inholding in Mojave Preserve. proposed tor inclusion in Preserve. reclaimation and
cactus rehab tor solar development mitigation
Castle Mountain Mine m Limited restoration success
Castle Mountains s Bighorn $heep population
Centennial Flat h Oood habitat. publicallv owned
Charleston Peak s Oood bat location
Chemehuevi h t Microphvll woodland. OHV problems. PRBO survevs. Lazv Daisv cattle allotment is
biggest problem
ChemehueviWhipple
Mountain Area
h s t $onoran saguaro and gila monster population. rare intlux ot sonoran desert in CA.
burros are problematic. could be a good strategv to have them removed or reduced.
$ahara Mustard is a problem. leatnosed bat research bv Oarv Bell
China Lake s Low nesting densitv ot Oolden Eagles. Priarie Falcons. tew burrowing owls near
Invokern in housing areas
China Lake (checkerboard
area to the southwest)
Chuckwalla t Invasive plants ($ahara mustard). problematic it tortoises eat them
Chuckwalla Bench t no longer grazed
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Cima Dome Volcanic Area h t Livestock grazing bought out in 2001. recovering $hrub $teppe. not too manv invasive
species
Cima Dome Volcanic Area t Burros. roundup started in 1999. about 3000 captured. 200+ and 2005 helicopter
roundups. burrows are widespread. activelv managed. some burro damage to springs.
but most ot impact is due to cattle
Clark Mountain s Big Horn sheep lambing (laeger studv)
Clark Mountain s Bighorn $heep population managed with 1 guzzler
Clark Mountain s Oila monster occurrence
Clark Mountain s Oood bat location
Clark Mountain t Burros. roundup started in 1999. about 3000 captured. 200+ and 2005 helicopter
Clark Mountain (and area to
the northeast)
h o Wilderness onlv to toe ot slope. need to go turther into bajada to capture toraging area
tor sheep
Coachella Vallev h s c 50 km radius circle around Coachella Vallev. 30 lizards. 56 species more than
anvwhere else in L$. linkages are critical because ot 3 or + biogeographical provences
overlapping here
Coachella Vallev s Burrowing owls (30 pairs)
Coachella Vallev c m planning that occurred to take into account linkages. habitat conservation areas.
riparian areas is a good example ot what should happen in the tuture
Coachella Vallev t $ahara mustard tirst tound here in 1927. spreads in wet vears
Coachella Vallev to loshua
Tree National Park
h s t o Coachella Vallev lTNP highest prioritv tor conservation based on threat and resources.
2nd prioritv would be ChemiweviWhipple area in great need ot threat abatement. ag
development bv river. OHV. weeds. all others in good condition (Argus Range.
Panamint MountainsDeath Vallev. Oranite Range in Mojave Preserve. KingstonsAsh
MeadowsAmargosa River Vallev and Watershed)
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Colorado Desert s o In the Colorado Desert. eastern population and northern Colorado population ot
desert tortoise are somewhat similar. but are recognized as separate units at this point
Coolgardie Mesa s Lane Mountain Milkvetch Armv and Connie have thousands ot plants mapped
Copper Citv s t Copper citv. problems with OHV. good Mohave ground souirrel and desert tortoise
habitat
Copper Mountain m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. between loshua tree and Twentvnine
Palms
Covote Drv Lake (to the
south)
s Parish's phacelia. onlv known occurrence in CA
Covote Hole s Oeneticallv distinct population ot tlattailed horned lizard
Dagget Ridge s t On top ot tortoise longterm disease studv area
Dagget Ridge s Desert tortoise
Dagget Ridge s t Wind project in bighorn sheep habitat
Death Vallev lunction s Ash meadows gum plant. Amargosa niterwort
Death Vallev to Mojave
National Preserve
Death Vallev to wilderness
turther south
c t Congrentris renewable energv project planned. good connectivitv will be threatened
Deep Creek h s m Mojave River headwaters area. includes horse thiet canvon and the west tork ot the
Mojave. Arrovo toad. contluence ot Deek Creek and Mojave important tor
$outhwestern Willow Flvcatcher. private land desireable tor acouisition
Deep Creek s $wainson's hawks tound here
Desert Center h s t Oood bat location. disruption ot drainage and toraging habitat tor bats in ironwoods
and paloverde
Desert Tortoise h m o To ettectivelv conserve tortoise. we should put ettort into Desert Tortoise Conservation
Areas. not elsewhere
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Desert Tortoise h t o Food is critical to Desert Tortoise success. and this depends on raintall and invasive
species presence (get Mustard maps trom Connie)
Desert Tortoise h t o Important desert tortoise areas could have been missed when Desert Tortoise
Conservation Areas were designated
Desert Tortoise s c Habitat tor tortoise through Nevada used to be verv wellconnected all the wav to Beaver
Dam $lope
Desert Tortoise s Desert Tortoise genetics. each recoverv unit has a geneticallv distinct population
Desert Tortoise s Long lags in genetic ettects on desert tortoise populations some places are a population
sink
Desert Tortoise m Desert Tortoise Reserve Committee. expandingtunding a group like this would be
usetul
Desert Tortoise m Habitat restoration could be good. but it is not a welldetined concept
Desert Tortoise t o Biggest problem tor desert tortoise is human access. treat with environmental education.
signs. kiosks. etc.. need to tigure out patterns ot human use and adapt areas to enhance
gentle use
Desert Tortoise t Cattle grazing most ot desert tortoise habitat
Desert Tortoise t DTRO has a lot ot data on threats. not on species occurrence. threats data comes trom a
varietv ot sources
Desert Tortoise t Renewable energv. how wind development attects tortoises is unknown. but solar
development is incompatable. and there will be edge ettects
Desert Tortoise o Management ot Desert Tortoise Conservation Areas will depend on $ spent and policies
ot the entitv managing them (NP$ or BLM)
Desert Tortoise o Tortoise movement and genetlow is $LOW. and happens over long timescale. genetic
similaritv ot tortoise populations varies with distance (Bridget Haggertv. Ken Dossier.
Todd Esoue LNR)
Desert Tortoise o L$O$ desert tortoise model
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Desert Tortoise Natural Area h t ACECs in area NW ot DTNA have high biodiversitv bv no better land management
than anvwhere else BLM
Desert Tortoise Natural Area h Whole area is tenced
Desert Tortoise Natural Area m Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee has been purchasing private land near DTNA
Desert Tortoise Natural Area m Currentlv purchasing small lots at 2.5 acres at a time to expand the reserve
Desert Tortoise Natural Area m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. includes Calitornia Citv and OHV
areas
Desert Tortoise Natural Area t Ottroad staging area 'Camp C' that has been retired is nearbv
Desert Tortoise Natural Area o TNC was originallv involved in setting up DTNA. now it is an ACEC
Dinosaur trackwav ACEC t Wind proposal
Dos Palmas h Example ot where BLM is trving to manage well
Dumont Dunes h t Near Ibex wilderness. Amargosa River mav be the source ot sand. impacted bv OHV
users
Dumont Dunes s Oeneticallv distinct population ot tlattailed horned lizard
Dumont Dunes s Has a unioue subspecies ot tringetoed lizard
Eagle Mountain (Kaiser
Mine)
s Oood bat location
East Mesa s tlattailed horned lizard habitat
Eastern Mojave h o 30+0% higher genetic biodiversitv in eastern vs. western desert
Eastern Mojave t o Resource values in centraleastern Mojave are not wellstudied enough to recommend
good places tor siting
Eastern Mojave t o The tarther east we go in the desert. the less we know about occurrences ot anvthing
Eastern Mojave o Denning ot tortoise. more than one per burrow as vou move east
Eastern $ierra through
Bishop
t Lrban development threat
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Edwards AFB h s Mariposa Lilv reouires sheet tlow ot water to create the habitat it grows in
Edwards AFB h s t Alkalai mariposa lilv (CNP$ IB).reouires tlat alkaline salt pan soils which are also highlv
valued tor development. Much ot habitat lies within the citv ot Lancaster. or is soon to
be annexed bv Lancaster. Also tound on Edwards. but protection there is not assured.
Edwards AFB (Buttes to the
north)
Edwards AFB (east and
northeast)
Edwards AFB (east and
south)
m Mitigation opportunitv tor Alkalai Mariposa Lilv. residual tloodplain areas
Edwards AFB (north edge) c Losing corridors because ot renewable energv project and solar development. Mohave
ground souirrel present
El Paso Mountains s t $tate Park and nearbv ORV area. threateneing tar plant. red rock poppv. and
Charlotte's phacelia. eagle nests (kev raptor area designated bv BLM)
Elizabeth Lake s $outhwestern pond turtle
Fenner t Last active remaining grazing allotment. contains Colton Hills and Oold Vallev. lots ot
cattle. 2005 Hackberrv tire burned tences and cattle roamed into preserve
Fort Irwin h t Verv disturbed in lowlving areas when tanks can go. higher elevation habitats are in
better condition
Fort Irwin Expansion Area s t On west. desert tortoise and Mohave ground souirrel. CBI sued to prevent tortoise
movement until plan was completed. On east side. higher desert tortoise populations
than expected. tortoises not moved
Freemont Peak t Lnauthorized OHV use. critical habitat tor desert tortoise and habitat tor Mohave
ground souirrel
Ootts and Essex road t $ahara mustard invasion trom east ott railroad and trom recreation entrv points trom
south
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VB@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Oolden Vallev Wilderness
Extension
s Black hills lava chain boundarv between central and western desert tortoise popualtions
Oorman Triangle c Important tor movement ot wildlite through region
Oranite Range in Mojave
National Preserve
h In good condition
Orass Vallev s m Desert Cvmopterous 600 plants. resotration is more successtul when vou do it on a
small scale. i.e. camotlaging ot road or removing water tanks and bollards
Hackberrv Canvon s Bighorn $heep population
Halloran $ummit s Improve connectivitv tor Bighorn sheep
Harper drv lake s $wainson's hawks supported bv ag
Harper Lake h s t Burrowing owls in emptv lots in urban areas. clumping due to loss ot habitat
Harper Lake s t $horteared Owls. Harper Drv lake prior to 1978. this is no longer a nesting site
Harper Lake t $olar development was supposed to add a certain - ot acrett ot water to the lake. this
didn't happen atter tirst vear and lake is now drv
Hinklev s Oood species diversitv
Holidav Lake h s Tricolored blackbird tound in areas with seasonal water
Hwv 395 corridor s c Connectivitv along 395 is important to desert tortoise threatened bv ag and urban
development
I10 (to the north) h c Oiant ironwood torest. deer move across I10 trom Chuckwalla mountains. torest in
good condition
I10 corridor c Mountain range connections tor bighorn
I+0 (sand dunes nearbv) s Dune svstems south ot +0 Fwv might have tringedtoed lizard
Ibex Dunes s Oeneticallv distinct population ot tlattailed horned lizard
Imperial Vallev s Burrowing owls. no big colonies that need protection
Imperial Vallev s Highest densitv ot burrowing owls in desert
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Iron Mountains h t Verv intact. solar east studv area. verv remote
Iron Mountains h t Iron Mt. $olar $tudv Area should go awav bc it is a verv intact area with good
conservation value
Ivanpah h s t No analvsis ot impact to birds. and Ivanpah is hear an IBA
Ivanpah h s Desert tortoise rare plants bighorn sheep high water recharge
Ivanpah h Water teatures ot nearbv golt course attracts birds
Ivanpah m Mitigation strategv. buv out grazing allotments. water. and mineral rights. till in preserve
lands
Ivanpah t No survevs tor rare insects
Ivanpah t Power towers kill a lot ot birds Dagget. which is 1500th size ot Ivanpah
Ivanpah Vallev h s m Whole Ivanpah area should be desert tortoise DWMA
Ivanpah Vallev h s t Recommended as part ot the DWMA. lots ot rare plants. succulents. Renewable Energv
proposals trom Optisolar (First $olar). Desert Xpress H$R
Ivanpah Vallev h s t Bighorn sheep (onlv known white herd). gila monsters. desert tortoise (unioue
population in CA). 12 species ot rare plants. 2 proposed solar developments. highspeed
train alignment trom VictorvilleLas Vegas
Ivanpah Vallev s c highest elevation breeding population is in Ivanpah Vallev because this area gets some
monsoon
Ivanpah Vallev c Connectivitv tor desert tortoise into Ivanpah Vallev
Ivanpah Vallev c $olar plants proposed tor both sides ot I15. concern about adeouate connectivitv tor
Desert Tortoise
Ivanpah Vallev m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. should be DWMA. so it solar
development goes torward the rest should be conservation
Ivanpah Vallev and $hadow
Vallev
h s t Desert tortoise habitat. large desert tortoise population. not in a state ot collapse. not
included in critical habitat. powerline corridor trom Hoover Dam to LA. raven
problems. railroadroads avenues tor weed invasion
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBM! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
lackass Canvon s Bighorn $heep population managed with + guzzlers at Old Dad
lawbone Canvon h c t Citv ot Vernon wind proposal. Cottonwood creek stopover point tor migratorv birds
lohnson Vallev OHV Area s m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. King Clone. Mojave Yucca Rings. not
to hammered to date
loshua Tree National Park t Climate Change. reduction ot loshua Tree torest habitat
loshua Tree National Park
(Covington Flat)
t Fire in 1999. dirt road btwn Black Rock campground and main road into lTNP
(Pinto Basin)
h c Oood desert tortoise population in the middle ot it. good habitat to the NE and NW tor
movement ot the tortoise with climate change
(Pinto Basin)
t $urprisinglv invaded bv exotic grasses. tertile island ettect causes growth ot grass under
shrubs
(Quail $prings Rd)
s Lananthis occurrences. along Quail $prings Rd in northern loshua Tree Park
(southeast corner)
t $olar tield site. Probablv OK as long as it is not blocking the sand source tor Palen
Dunes
(to the east)
s Large desert tortoise population
loshua Tree National Park to
$an Bernardino National
Forest
s Bighorn. bobcats. tortoises
loshua tree to 29 Palms t Lrban expansion. distrubance. OHV use. Corridor plan done bv Mojave Land Trust.
luniper Woodlands near
Hwv 1+
t o Where thev burn. thev do not recover well. caused bv change in tire regime. more
treouent. more intense. more otten during cooler season
Kelso Dunes h o $tar dunes. wind pushing sand trom 3 or more directions. not as processdependent as
unidirectionallv tormed dunes. not as threated as other dunes. but sand could be
coming trom outside the Mojave Preserve
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Kings Canvon h Behind CA Poppv Preserve
Kingston Mountains h In good condition
Kingston Mountains s Oila monster occurrence
Kingston Wash h Important tor movement ot sand
Kramer lunction s Rare plants. Barstow woolv suntlower. some on public land near Kramer lunction.
Alkalai Mariposa Lilv. mostlv on private land
Lancaster h Conserving loshua Tree Woodland tor vears. ask Rav tor contact
Lancaster m Citv ot Lancaster has begun to begrudinglv acknowledge CDFO authoritv over
streambed alteration. and reouire mitigation tor this.
Lancaster m Citv ot Lancaster has collected tees ot $750acre tor mitigation. but has deterred using
the tunds tor 20 vears. CDFO has asked tor an audit ot this and gotten no response.
Lancaster t $utters trom urban sprawl. and little to no mitigation has been done to compensate tor
urban growth. $urvev ettorts reouired under CEQA can be done without serious ettort
(i.e. during the summer)
Lantair Vallev s t More tortoises that expected. private land is being purchased tor development (talk to
Annie Kearns about this 76025261++)
Lantair Vallev s Mountain plovers
Lantair Vallev s Possible Burrowing owls
Lantair Vallev s $wainson Hawk's used to nest in entire loshua tree torest around Lantair Vallev. now
onlv tound in 2 locations and nowhere else in Mojave
Lantair Vallev t Orazing allotment
Las Flores Ranch s Arrovo toad (most northernlv location)
Little Rock Wash h Riparian vegetation all the wav to the north side ot 138
Little Rock Wash h good habitat. little protection
Little Rock Wash s Arrovo toad
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBN! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Los Angeles Countv t o Level ot survev ettort is low. and sitings are otten not put into CNDDB
Lucerne Vallev s Mountain plovers
Lucerne Vallev t Freeroaming dogs
Marble and Clipper Mts. s Bighorn $heep populations
Mavtlower Park h In Riverside Countv. nice habitat
Mescal Creek h Headwater protection tor Mojave River
Mesouite $prings m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation
Mexico Borderlands Area s t $empra wind plants proposed. onlv 1+ condors lett
Militarv bases t Development associated with these is an issue
Mission Creek h s Calitornia Fringetoed Lizard HCP
Mojave Narrows h s Location ot Lewis Center $chool. in 2008 got a grant to relocate 500 Mojave Tui chub
trv trom China Lake to pond on campus
Mojave Narrows s Mojave Narrows. Mojave shoulderband
Mojave National Preserve h s Largest clutches ot eggs (5) observed anvwhere in southern Calitornia. mav be caused bv
high densitv ot raptor tood sources. cvcle is ditterent trom that on the coast
Mojave National Preserve s Manv raptors
Mojave National Preserve m Inholdings in MNP tor acouisition
(Henrv $prings)
s Oood soil crusts. near Henrv $prings. 17 mile point north. near Henrv springs on
western side ot Preserve
(north side. near Primm)
h s t $ite ot Brightsource Proposed Renewable Energv Development. high oualitv tortoise
habitat. viewshed tor Mojave Preserve. tirst solar development that will probabv get
underwav. would have been critical habitat it not tor poitics in 199+
(northern edge)
m t ATeT tiberoptic cable. mitigation opportunitv. has been asked to build a research
station tor desert tortoise. 15vear project. mitigation $ could be tunneled into this
tacilitv
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBO! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
(private inholdings)
m Mitigation opportunitv. manv restrictions ot buving private land tor preserve but area is
alreadv prioritized tor acouisition and could be a good opportunitv tor mitigation tunds.
tortoise habitat. rare plant species. some parcels are not worth buving because thev are
too small andor there is no easv access to them. cattle enter preserve trom here. but
also has unburned patch ot Oreat Basin sage
(southeast portion)
h $onoran desert intluence
(throughout)
m t Mitigation opportunitv. abandoned mines could be securedrestored
(throughout)
m t Mitigation opportunitv. denuded areas where cattle grazing has be concentrationed
around water troughs each area has taken a ditterent recoverv trajectorv. tunds could
help restore these areas
Mojave National Preserve (to
the north)
m t Molvcorp Mine. mitigation opportunitv. has been asked to build a research station tor
desert tortoise. 15vear project. mitigation $ could be tunneled into this tacilitv
Mojave National Preserve to
c m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. important tor connectivitv
Mojave River h s t Taken over bv tamarisk east ot Barstow. Victorville wants to clear entire riparian area tor
tlood control. least Bell's vireo. $outhwestern willow tlvcatcher. and arrovo toad are
there
Mojave River h s Fringedtoed lizard in drv areas. Camp Cadv. Atton Canvon
Mojave River h t Mohave ground souirrel vs. roundtail ground souirrel. have overlapping terrritories. but
roundtail likes more triable soil. some isolated cases ot interbreeding could be occurring
Mojave River s t Mojave River drvup. more roundail habitat. less Mohave ground souirrel habitat
Mojave River s t Mojave river pond turtle. and Mojave River vole. threatened bv dewatering
Mojave River t Manv invasive species trom the $acramento River pumped in through aoueducts.
escape trom reservoirs to river in wet vears
Mojave River Headwaters s $outhwestern Willow Flvcatcher. $outhwest pond turtle. Arrovo toad
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBP! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Mojave RiverDeep Creek h t Needs a coordinated plan because ot multiple uses and important species in the area
Morongo Vallev t $chismus growth is leading to burning. especiallv in 'desert chaparral'
Mountain Pass Mine t Owned bv Molvcorp Minerals to mine rare earth lanthonite series elements. tound in
missiles and hvbird vehicles. pipeline on northern part ot preserve burst. clean up
should occur when pipeline is removed. license in place to expand the mine tor 30 more
vears
New BLM Wilderness h Part ot omnibus legislation passed in 2009
New York Mountains s t Relict patch ot white tir. threatened bv global warming. rare plant associations report bv
lim Andre (have Brian get this tile trom NP$ personnel)
New York Mountains s Oila monster occurrence
New York Mountains s Oood bat location
New York Mountains to
Lantair Vallev
t Livestock grazing retired and some recoverv
Newberrv Mountains h m Bighorn. no weeds all the wav down to the treewav. alluvial tans area reallv nice. private
holdings could be cleaned up. kev raptor area designated bv BLM
Nitrogen Deposition. Fire.
and Weeds
m t Mitigation. clean up the air is easier than battling invasives on the ground. when a
tertilized area is lett alone. it 'cleans itselt up' over time
and Weeds
t BN$F rail line wind promote $ahara mustard invasion
and Weeds
t 1000 kgha enough tuel to carrv a tire
and Weeds
t Erodium. in CA since the 1800's. spread bv small mammals. will responde to a decrease
in N deposition
and Weeds
t Fire is occuring even without continuous cover spreads on wind through cinders
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBQ! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
and Weeds
t Herbicide use. cattle or sheep tor weed control. ettective in wet vears but narrow
window
and Weeds
t It exotic species were not around. natives could benetit trom increased N
and Weeds
t Increased precip in the Mojave is a potential threat that could increase invasive species
and tire. summer precip has neg correlation with tire. winter precip has positive
correlation with tire
and Weeds
t Rich Minnich tires historicallv occurred in desert everv 5001000 vears
and Weeds
t $ahara mustard does not appear to be linked to N. verv dense. grows large in wet vears.
spread bv small mammals uphill
and Weeds
t $chismus. seedbank becomes depleted in drv vears. above 1000m. what is schismus
habitat becomes dominated bv Bromus
Northern Colorado
Recoverv Lnit
t Lazv Daisv cattle allotment is a threat
Novaris springs s Nochorid bug (candidate species. Doug Treelott has intormation)
Oak Creek s $outhwestern Willow Flvcatcher
Old Dad Mountains s Bighorn $heep population managed with + guzzlers at Old Dad
Old Woman Mountains s Bighorn sheep area
Old Womans Ward Vallev h Oood habitat
Ord Mountains t Orazing allotment
Ord Rodman to Central
Mojave
c Connectivitv between Ord Rodman and Central Mojave DP$ ot Desert Tortoise
connectivitv along toothills at edge ot Cadv Mts.
Ord Rodman to loshua Tree
National Park
c t Not much connection between Ord Rodman and loshua Tree
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VBR! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Orocopia Wilderness (to the
north)
c Connectivitv
Owens Vallev s t $eeps around vallev teed lake and have rare plants. proposed tor development but could
be restored
Owens Vallev s $wainsons 10 pairs
Owen's Vallev (Cabin Bar
Ranch spring)
h Important wetlands
Palen Drv Lake s Could have unioue population ot tringetoed lizards that mav be ditterent trom
Coachella Vallev lizards
Palen Dunes h Verv dependent on phvsical processes. OK as long as source is not blocked
Palisades Ranch m Fish and Oame has $ection 6 $ to acouire this
Palm Canvon t Hvdroelectric power on NF$ land. green path north
Palm Oases s Oood bat location
Palm $prings to Yucca Vallev c Connectivitv tor bighorn sheep. mt. lions. opportunitv tor private land acouisition
Palmdale t $utters trom urban sprawl. and little to no mitigation has been done to compensate tor
urban growth. $urvev ettorts reouired under CEQA can be done without serious ettort
(i.e. during the summer)
Panamint Dunes h Oood habitat
Panamint Mountains s Oood bat location. canvons with streams important
Panamint Vallev h s Riparian canvons. Panamint lizard. possible Invo towhee. panamint daisv
Panamint Vallev h m Oreat views. linkage between Death Vallev and China Lake. Oabrvtch land
ownerspeculator purchasing privatelv owned land tor mitigation
Panamint Vallev s m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. state lands in checkboard. good tor
Mohave ground souirrel and other species
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@A! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Panamint Vallev m Indian Ranch. Ballarat. Post Ottice $prings. Hall Canvon all privatelv owned and worth
acouiring
Panamint Vallev (south end) t Briggs Mine is a threat
Paradise $pring h s Near Ft. Irwin. lukewarm spring. alkali Mariposa lilv. wetland orchids. tules. privatelv
owned
Peace Vallev c Important tor movement ot wildlite through region
Pinvon Pine Forest t Burned. cheatgrass invasion. pinvon takes 30+0 vears to get restarted
Pioneertown t $chismus growth is leading to burning. especiallv in 'desert chaparral'
Pisgah s Bighorn sheep
Piute Oorge h s Bird breeding areas. includes riparian bird species andor habitats such as Arizona Bell's
vireo. $W willow Flvcatcher (habitat). Least Bell's Vireo (habtitat). Oooding's willow and
elt owls
Piute Mountains s Bighorn $heep population managed with 1 guzzler
Poison Canvon s Manv Mohave ground souirrel and desert tortoise sightings in area where thev are not
expected to be
Primm Vallev t Multiple threats
Providence Mountains s Oila monster occurrence
Quail Mtns Watershed h good habitat
Rabbit $prings h s t Parish's alkalai grass. onlv known occurrence in CA. tvpe localitv tor several plants. dead
vole observed bv Rav (Mojave vole.). bisected bv road and proposed development bv
Edison Mission
Rabbit $prings s In Lucerne Vallev. Plagiobothrvs parishii
Rand Mountains h s t Oood desert tortoise habitat. ACEC. DTNA. proposed wind
Rand Mountains t Rand Mountain ACEC. was an OHV area. closed 10 vears ago. some routes reopened
and then closed again bv court order
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@B! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Razor OHV Area h t Near designated wilderness. boundarv is uncertain on ground. would like tence to be
built. $ahara mustard invasion trom the west
Red Pass s Oeneticallv distinct population ot tlattailed horned lizard
Red Rock Canvon (north
side)
c t Proposed PV solar development. narrow corridor tor wildlite movement north ot there
Red Rock Canvon to Desert
Tortoise Natural Area
c Loss ot connectivitv between DTNA and Rand Mt.Red Rock Canvon is minimal
Resting $prings h Near Amargosa River and Chicago Vallev. has extensive mesouite bosoue and water
Rice Vallev c t Proposed project. connectivitv tor bighorn and plants
Rice Vallev Dune $vstem h c All dunes where is sand coming trom.
Ridgecrest s t $olar Millennium project proposed. desert tortoise Mohave ground souirrel
Ridgecrest area h Northern lawbone ACEC. tortoise and Mohave ground souirrel
Ridgecrest tortoise
populations
s 69 tortoises on 1700 acres. good ground souirrel corridor
Ritter Ranch h Oood habitat. needs protection
Ritter Ranch s Calitornia redlegged trog
Ritter Ranch s $outhwestern pond turtle
Rodman Mountains h s Bighorn. no weeds all the wav down to the treewav. alluvial tans area reallv nice. private
holdings could be cleaned up. kev raptor area designated bv BLM
Rose Vallev s t Mix ot public and private land. geothermal power purchased much ot the land. Mohave
ground souirrel habitat
Rose Vallev s Oround souirrel sitings
Rose Vallev s Rose Vallev northernmost population ot desert tortoise on West $ide ot Mojave
$addleback Butte $tate Park c Oood connection to Edwards Air Force Base. could create corridor tor ground souirrel
and desert tortoise
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
$alt Creek ACEC lost ot
good bat habitat
$alton $ea s Oood bat location
$alton $ea s Peregrines. some wintering osprev
$an Andreas Fault h c Ecotone
$an Andreas Ritt h m Wetlands important tor migratorv birds. Lori Lisle is Palmdale citv planner working to
acouire wetland areas
$an Bernardino Mountains
to Oranite Mountains
c t Corridor tor sheep movement here is not tunctional. onlv a corridor in theorv. lots ot
rural development in Lucerne and Apple Vallev. big powerline keeps houses awav
$an Bernardino Mts. to
desert mts.
c t Connectivitv tor bighorn sheep. covotes. tox. badgers. probablv less important tor
plants. undeveloped private land with a power corridor as a threat
$an Bernardino Mts. to
desert mts.
c Another linkage
Forest (north side)
s Carbonate endemic plants
Forest (north side)
s t Carbonate plants. intormation in plan. bighorn sheep herd. spotted owls. threatened bv
mining. but plan helps to reduce threat
Forest (north side)
m t Mining exploration can be mitigated using the L$F$ permitting process
$an Oabriel Mts. To Baldv
Mesa
h s c t Coastalmost loshua tree population. important meeting place ot 2 ecoregions. across
hwv 138. concerned about tire and OHV's
$an Oorgonio Pass c Important migratorv bird pathwav
$an Oorgonio Peak s Limber pine and Clark's nutcrackers contined to this high elevation locatoin
$an $ebastian Marsh $an
Felipe Creek
h s Puptish area west ot $alton $ea. statetederal checkerboard with private lands
interspersed. has permanent water. ACEC
$an $ebastian Wash h s ACEC. tlattailed horn lizard. archaeological resources
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@K! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
$anta Clara River s Manv important species
$earchlight wind project h t In donuthole ot DWMA
$earles Vallev (east side) c Essential corridor tor groundsouirrel movementlinkage. metapopulation dvnamics
allow them to disperse in good vears
$enator Mine. near $enator
wash south ot Ferguson Lake
(Colorado River)
s Oood bat location
$hadow Vallev s Desert tortoise population
$hadow Vallev t Orazing allotment
$heep Creek h headwater protection tor Mojave River
$heep Creek h More vegetation than other washes nearbv. tvpicallv does not have surtace water. more
siltv sediment
$ierra Foothills s $ierra Foothills have rare plants
$ilurian Vallev c Linkage between Avawatz and Kingstons
$ilver Mountain m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. desert tortoise and Mojave
monkevtlower. unprotected areas outside ot ACEC
$kv Islands throught desert t Heavilv threatened bv climate change
$leeping Beautv Mountains
(west side)
s Dark morph ot sideblotched lizard. desert tortoise. bighorn sheep. crucitixion thorn.
whitemargined beardtongue
$oda Mountains s Desert Tortoise occurrence
$oda $pring s Includes MC $pring and Lake Tuende (natural pond). populations ot the Mojave Tui
chub
$olar 2 s Pennisular bighorn sheep unknown prior to survevs
$pangler Hills OHV Area s Desert tortoise and lots ot wildtlowers
$tate Line and I15 s Oila monsters
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@M! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
$tation Fire t Burned 160.000 acres. approximatelv 12 ot Angeles NF. concern about recoverv ot
bigcone douglas tir
$terling $olar phase 1 c Important tor connectivitv between DWMA and other habitats
$tirling $olar 2 s Flattailed horned lizard and newlv documented ewe group ot Penninsular bighorn
sheep
$toddard Vallev OHV Area s m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. Mojave Monkevtlower
Tecopa Hot $prings h Amargosa Vole Habitat
Tehachapi Foothills s Native grassland
Tehachapi Mountains s $earch tor Tehachapi $lender $alamander is underwav
Tehachapi$an Oabriel
Linkage
c Includes Tejon Ranch. linkages across Angeles NF to Los Padres NF
Throughout Desert h m Mitigation opportunitv. prettv much all BLM that is not Wilderness is desert tortoise
habitat
Throughout Desert h t o Vallevs in between Mountains haven't been included in protected areas. vet thev have
high value
Throughout Desert h Altalta tields are important toraging areas tor burrowing owls. patchwork ot activelv
tarmed and temporarilv tallow land is best
Throughout Desert s t Barsow woollv suntlower locations mav not be in CNDDB
Throughout Desert s t Low elevation species (coachwhip snakes. chuckwallas) CC mav not have an overlv
negative ettect because thev are alreadv adapted to hot conditions. but other species that
are living at higher elevations along the edges ot vallevs mav have a more ditticult time
because thev mav have to move over rough terrain along slopes to survive CC
Throughout Desert s o Both plants and wildlite can exist in verv small locations mav be underprotected bv
landscapescale conservation
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@N! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Throughout Desert s o Oolden Eagles. nests have existed in place tor centuries. L$FW$ is using the bald eagle
act to protect golden eagles and make stitt siting regulations tor wind tarms. some eagles
can nest in Edison towers that have the appropriate structure. so we could moditv
towers and build nests tor the eagles. or create large poles that could serve as nest sites.
but eagles will tlv trom nest when people are +00 vards awav (most likelv because ot
decades ot being shot at)
Throughout Desert s o Redtail hawks. Fledge and then head north into the desert trom the coast
Throughout Desert s Raptor nesting. Larrv LaPre has this intormation. Rav mav have it on a disk
Throughout Desert s Burrowing owls nest in low densitv throughout the desert vallevs. 1 pair in 105 souare
miles
Throughout Desert c m t Mitigation opportunitv. Bighorn sheep corridors. building and or tencing them up to
allow movement across roads
Throughout Desert c o Desert tortoise is moving up in elevation due to shitt in climate
Throughout Desert c Birds ot prev move trom north to south through vallevs
Throughout Desert c Desert Connectivitv Analvsis Mojave and $onoran Deserts. 23 ditterent connections.
tormal evaluation using biological irreplacabilitv and threats. based on size ot blocks and
other criteria. +3 species suitabilitv models. Focal species list kept species modeled
betore. took expert input. eliminated some based on small home range. used species
with good genetic data trom Pendergase studv
Throughout Desert m t o TWC will be releasing a document soon that states that 200.000 acres ot disturbed land
is available in Cal tor renewable energv siting
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. make powerline corridors less hospitable to ravens
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunities. Retiring ot grazing rights should be an option
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. better ORV entorcement bv BLM rangers
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. tencing ot major roads . providing culverts to prevent
tragmentation
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@O! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. Highwav tencing tor desert tortoise
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. Identitving highwavs. tencing them ott. would help restore dead
zone. tortoises will recover in areas that have been tenced
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. invasive species control
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. Rangersentorcement
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. Raven management
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. removing livestock grazing some allotments are available tor
buvout
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. Retire grazing allotments
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. route closures
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation opportunitv. Vertical mulching to close illegal OHV routes
Throughout Desert m t Mitigation. tencing and wildlite crossings. it is easier to get a tence approved when the
highwav is at complete buildout (i.e. the eastern portion ot the 15 and +0)
Throughout Desert m t No good examples ot restoration on a large scale exisit. the scale ot the threats is too
large to address on the ground
Throughout Desert m t Retiring ot grazing allotments needs to be part ot development. but is not proposed vet
Throughout Desert m o $uing wind industrv is the best tactic because it delavs their production schedule. which
is the onlv wav thev will participate in negotiations
Throughout Desert m Active translocation. make and maintain burrows. capture birds just prior to breeding
season. pult them into new nest location and teed them until thev lav eggs. must do 12
30 pairs at a time. works somewhat better. but groundsouirrel populations must be
sutticient to support burrowing owl populations
Throughout Desert m Department ot Fish and Oame is shitting to have more ontheground land
management. and could be a longterm holder ot mitigation lands
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@P! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv in Critical Habitat. resotration is otten reouired to make these
areas suitable tor the species that use them. 'critical habitat' is not alwavs the best
habitat tor a species
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. ACEC status is not good enough protection
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Acouisition ot private inholdings need massive amt ot
replacement habitat tor solar plants
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Allow tocused. scientiticallvbased research trom mitigation
tunds to answer specitic ouestions that could help guide species recoverv
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. BLM operates ditterentlv in NV than in CA. in NV. some BLM
land is set aside tor conservation use onlv. changing how BLM operates in CA could be
helptul
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Clean up illegal dumping grounds
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Concept ot a new designation ot land could be a good idea tor
BLM lands
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Crossprosecution rights across BLMDFO land
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. DFO land. benign neglect. not good into about where these
lands even are located
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. DWMAs should be signed
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Emplov educators rather than expensive rangers on OHV
routes
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. initial ettort should be tor acouisition. and then look at
endowmentmitigation tunds tor rehabilitation
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Land acouisition ot private checkerboard is highest prioritv in
areas where there is private land
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. Preservation ot natural water tlow
Throughout Desert m Mitigation opportunitv. $ign entrances to DWMAs
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@Q! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Throughout Desert m Mitigation. DFO mitigation ot 2.1 could be used tor management activites rather than
just land acouisitions
Throughout Desert m Mitigation. First need to do land acouisition to prevent development in the tuture
Throughout Desert t o 69% ot desert plants are undescribed
Throughout Desert t o A thorough inventorv ot desert species cannot happen on such a short timescale
Throughout Desert t o Need greater protection tor ecosvstem tunction how do we do this when we can't
entorce what is alreadv in place
Throughout Desert t o Probabilities tor success are not considered in mitigation plans
Throughout Desert t o The term 'avoidance' is being misused bv renewable developers
Throughout Desert t o There are some species that are not listed which should be
Throughout Desert t o Translocation has poor success tor plants
Throughout Desert t Burrowing owls. Passive relocation doesn't work verv well
Throughout desert t Invasive species are a threat. particularlv in riparian areas
Throughout Desert t $iting criteria document that TNC was also a signatorv on. prevent siting in remote
areas
Throughout Desert t Water table overdratt
Throughout Desert t Windtarms are a huge issue. because seasonalitv ot movement varies trom species to
species. it mav be ditticult to plan tor migrations to avoid bird strikes
Throughout Desert o Bitner and Linser survevs are a good source ot intormation
Throughout Desert o BLM has a map ot eagle nest locations (ask Larrv LaPre)
Throughout Desert o Burrowing owls are not diurnal. thev eat beetles and crickes at night in the tields
Throughout Desert o Densitv ot smaller nesting raptors is verv light
Throughout Desert o Improving longterm protection should be a high prioritv
Throughout Desert o Main objectives should be to conserve wintering habitat and nesting habitat
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (V@R! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Throughout Desert o Prairie Falcons nest throughout the Mojave
Throughout Desert o Processes are important. and can be crucial tor supporting species in an ecosvstem (i.e.
hvdrologv)
Throughout Desert o Range extensions ot plants (see Andre's inventories. burned area response and vascular
plant inventorv).
Throughout Desert o Roughlegged Hawks. Don't come this tar south anvmore
Throughout Desert o L$O$ has done studies at Newberrv $prings. Death Vallev ot the hvdrological tlow
svstems (Wavne Belcher. Dan Bright)
Throughout Desert (desert
vallevs)
h Places where raptors torage. and these are proposed areas tor solar development
Throughout Desert
(mountain tops)
s Oood bat locations
Throughout Desert (sand
dunes)
s Dunes. most have their own species ot tlies
Throughout Desert (sand
dunes)
s Mojave tringetoed lizard
Throughout Desert (skv
islands)
h t Each has its own pair ot Oolden Eagles. and everv mountain has a wind tarm planned
tor it this is a huge problem that could result in a loss ot all ot these eagles
Tributarv on north side ot
Bououet Canvon
s Redlegged trog
Trov Drv Lake t proposed renewable energv development
Twentvnine Palms h o Twentvnine Palms is more trashed than Ft. Irwin because ot training with tanks tor
decades
Twentvnine Palms c Important tor tuture movement ot tortoise with climate change
Lna Lake h s m Least Bell's Vireo. located behind lake Palmdale. mitigation work on retention basins
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VKA! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
Vicerov MineCastle Mt.
Mine
m t Revegetation standards are close to being met. interested in them selling their land.
wind and solar proposed. but NP$ would like to annex the area
Victorville Vulcan Mine m Limited restoration success
VictorvilleLancaster c Lrban development and loss ot habitat are huge threats. and will isolate desert
transition trom tloor to peak on north side ot mountain ranges
Virgin River c o Virgin River prevents dispersal dispersal to the west
Ward Vallev h t Microphvll woodland. OHV problems. PRBO survevs
West Mojave h s $wainson's hawks and other raptors. altalta can provide good toraging habitat tor
$wainson's
West Mojave s t Pronghorn antelope. tound near Tejon Centenial project
West Mojave s t $ierra $un Tower (E $olar). was built despite presence ot Alkalai Mariposa Lilv
West Mojave s o Mohave ground souirrel is tound as tar north as Olancha and as tar south as
VictorvilleHesperia
West Mojave s Mohave ground souirrel onlv tound west ot a certain line through central Mojave Desert
West Mojave s Burrowing owls. tound all over western Mojave. mapped bv consultant when school
land was slated tor development. Old ag tields and irrigation pipes can be good havitat.
but LA Co. $anitation district removes these
West Mojave s Calitornia tillarv
West Mojave s Desert tortoise
West Mojave s Mohave ground souirrel
West Mojave s Mountain plovers
West Mojave s $pinv hopsage. decrease because ot either drought andor high temps. used bv Mohave
ground souirrel
West Mojave s $wainson's hawks supported bv ag
West Mojave m t Clearing ot native vegetation tor agriculture not subject to CEQA and is not mitigated.
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VKB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
West Mojave m t Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. Areas with desert cvmopterus. occurs
to the east ot drv lakes. hardhit bv parcelization and other development good potential
tor E$A protection
West Mojave m Opportunities tor land acouisition
West Mojave m CDFO prioritv acouisition areas are detined bv a contidential 'bubble map' that is
partiallv based on the $igniticant Ecological Areas ot Los Angeles Countv
West Mojave m CEQA has no 'teeth'. and someone needs to tile lawsuits in the west Mojave to ensure
that CEQA is being tollowed. CDFO has tried to write letters. but mitigation
reouirements are not entorced.
West Mojave m Oood areas ot mitigation in LA Countv are identitied in the West Mojave Plan. and
include a big area north ot the $an Bernardino Mountains to Edwards Air Force Base.
with Big Rock Wash as the eastern boundarv.
West Mojave m Lake and streambed moditication. CDFO reouires mitigation occur in countv. some use
ot $anta Monica Mountains Conservancv land tor this. but little tollowup. due
diligence anavsis is reouired tor longterm management ot these projects
West Mojave m Private propertv could be aocuired tor mitigation. LA Countv signiticant ecological
areas. updated about 5 vears ago
West Mojave t 395 expansion
West Mojave t 58 expansion
West Mojave t E22. new expresswav 3951+ won't happen soon. 39515 will happen soon
West Mojave t The Los Angeles $anitation District uses wastewater to irrigate altalta tields. which can
negativelv impact resources
West Mojave t Threats to desert habitat. increased tire treouencv. predators (covotes. raves). dumping.
water shortages. climate change. N deposition
West Mojave o Environmental groups are not tullv engaged in the area. but this seems to be changing as
ot late
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VK@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! !!!!!,I>'*+!J0+'*&/'H!J0C#*3%+/#0!8%?1'!
!
6%+'.#*<!#C!J0C#*3%+/#0!
:%3'!#C!S1%-'!#*!
=;?$'-+!#C!(/)-;))/#0! 0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
9
%
?
/
+
%
+
!
0
#
+
%
?
1
'
!
)
>
'
-
/
'
)
!
-
#
0
0
'
-
+
/
&
/
+
<
!
3
/
+
/
.
%
+
/
#
0
!
+
9
*
'
%
+
)
!
#
+
9
'
*
!
0
#
+
'
)
!
,I>'*+!J0C#*3%+/#0]!U>/0/#0)]!%05!#+9'*!:#+')!
West Mojave (countv line
and Hwv 1+)
h Dune habitat. source ot sand is unknown
West Mojave (Intersection ot
Hwv's 138 and 18)
h loshua tree woodland. verv good habitat near intersectin ot 138 and 18
West Mojave (LA Countv
land)
m o LA Countv Parks and Recreation management strategv has been to tlv 'below the radar'
ot the public to avoid OHVillegal dumpingetc.. now working to acouire land within
the LA Countv $igniticant Ecological Areas
West Mojave to NE Mojave
Recoverv Lnit
c Connectivitv between west Mojave and Northeast Mojave Recoverv Lnites is along I15.
ACEC is small
Whitewater Canvon h Calitornia Fringetoed Lizard HCP
Whitewater Canvon s Desert lananthis occurance
Woods Mountain t Burros. roundup started in 1999. about 3000 captured. 200+ and 2005 helicopter
Yucca Vallev c Important tor tuture movement ot tortoise with climate change
Yuha Desert h Archaeological resources. ACEC
Zvzzx s Bighorn $heep population attracts a lot ot visitors to the Preserve
Zvzzx s Mojave tui chub
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! (VKK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2-*#0<3)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ,VB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2>>'05/I!,!!2-*#0<3)!b)'5!
!
2-*#0<3! "'%0/0.!
AFB Air Force Base
ACEC Area ot Critical Environmental Concern
AOFD Arizona Oame and Fish Department
ACOE Armv Corps ot Engineers
BMPs Best Management Practices
NECO BLM Northern and Eastern Colorado DesertCDCA Plan Amendment
NEMO BLM Northern and Eastern Mojave DesertCDCA Plan Amendment
WEMO BLM West Mojave DesertCDCA Plan Amendment
BIA Bureau ot Indian Attairs
BLM Bureau ot Land Management
CBC Calitornia Biodiversitv Council
CDFO Calitornia Department ot Fish and Oame
CDPR Calitornia Department ot Parks and Recreation
CDWR Calitornia Department ot Water Resources
CDCA Calitornia Desert Conservation Area
CE$A Calitornia Endangered $pecies Act
CEC Calitornia Energv Commission
CEQA Calitornia Environmental Qualitv Act
CalIPC Calitornia Invasive Plant Council
CNP$ Calitornia Native Plant $ocietv
CNDDB Calitornia Natural Diversitv Database
CRWQCB Calitornia Regional Water Qualitv Control Board
CTTC Calitornia Turtle and Tortoise Club
CBD Center tor Biological Diversitv
CCB Center tor Conservation Biologv at LC Riverside
CVAO Coachella Vallev Association ot Oovernments
CBI Conservation Biologv Institute
DOC Department ot Conservation (Calitornia)
DOD Department ot Detense
DOE Department ot Energv
DMO Desert Managers Oroup
DRECP Desert Renewable Energv Conservation Plan
DTC Desert Tortoise Council
DTD$$ Desert Tortoise Decision $upport $vstem
DTNA Desert Tortoise Natural Area
DTPC Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee
E$A Endangered $pecies Act
E$RI Environmental $vstems Research Institute
eVeg Existing vegetation data (L.$. Forest $ervice)
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2-*#0<3)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ,V@! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2-*#0<3! "'%0/0.!
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FLPMA Federal Land Policv and Management Act
tVeg ForestrvVegetation Management Concentration
OAP Oap Analvsis Program
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
IBA Important Bird Area
ITP Individual Take Permit
INRMP Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan
IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MOL Memorandum ot Lnderstanding
MBTA Migratorv Bird Treatv Act
M$(H)CP Multiple $pecies (Habitat) Conservation Plan
MRLC MultiResolution Land Characteristics Consortium
NDOW Nevada Department ot Wildlite
NEPA National Environmental Policv Act
NEPA National Environmental Policv Act
NHD National Hvdrographv Dataset
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NP$ National Park $ervice
NWR National Wildlite Retuge
NCCP Natural Communitv Conservation Planning
NRC$ Natural Resource Conservation $ervice
NDOW Nevada Department ot Wildlite
OHV Otthighwav Vehicle
PRBO Point Reves Bird Observatorv
PEI$ Programmatic Environmental Impact $tatement
PCTL Public Conservation and Trust Lands
Q$A Quantitication $ettlement Agreement
RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Qualitv Control Board
REAT Renewable Energv Action Team
RETI Renewable Energv Transmission Initiative
RP$ Renewable Porttolio $tandard
RCD Resource Conservation District
RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM)
$RTM $huttle Radar Topographv Mission
$CW $outh Coast Wildlands
TNC The Nature Conservancv
TWC The Wildlands Conservancv
LNE$CO Lnited Nations Educational. $cientitic. and Cultural Organization
(L$)EPA (Lnited $tates) Environmental Protection Agencv
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! 2-*#0<3)!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! ,VK! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2-*#0<3! "'%0/0.!
L$FW$ Lnited $tates Fish and Wildlite $ervice
L$F$ Lnited $tates Forest $ervice
L$O$ Lnited $tates Oeological $urvev
DTRO L$FW$ Desert Tortoise Recoverv Ottice
LDWR Ltah Department ot Wildlite Resources
WMA Weed Management Area
WHBMA Wild Horse and Burro Management Area
"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+! ! ! ! !!!!!@AAB!,-#*'./#0!"%>!
!
89'!:%+;*'!6#0)'*&%0-<! FVB! ='>+'3?'*!@ABA!
2>>'05/I!F!!"#$%&'!(')'*+!,-#*'./#0%1!2))'))3'0+!X@AABY!,I>'*+!S#1<.#0)!
!
Owens
Lake
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
Bishop
Palm
Springs
Yuma
Nevada
Cal i forni a
Arizona
Ut ah
V
i
r
g
i
n
R
i v
e
r
Moj ave
R
i v
e
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

V
a
l
le
y

W
a
s
h

A
m
a
r
g
o
s
a

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o

R
i
v
e
r

M
u
d
dy

R
i
v
e
r
!"
40
!"
15
!"
15
!"
40
!"
15
!"
14
!"
58
!"
395
!"
190
!"
160
!"
127
!"
62
!"
95
!"
95
!"
93
!"
93
Death
Valley
Baker
Lake Mead
Laughlin
St George
Las
Vegas
Barstow
Victorville
Twentynine
Palms
Kingman
Pahrump
Ridgecrest
Palmdale
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Beatty
#
Coso
Range
Argus
Range
Panamint
Range
Owlshead
Mountains
Ord
Mountains
Cady
Mountains
Bullion
Mountains
Bristol
Mountains
Providence
Mountains
Clark
Mountain
Range
New York
Mountains
Old Woman
Mountains
Pinto
Basin
Sacramento
Mountains
Hualapai
Valley
Spring
Mountains
Eldorado
Mountains
Spotted
Range
Sheep
Range
Mormon
Mountains
Virgin
Mountains
Grapevine
Mountains
Cottonwood
Mountains
Conservation Value and
2001 Porttolio Areas
Figure F 1
Hvdrologv
Transportation
Project Area
0 25 50 12.5
Miles
0 50 100 25
Kilometers
Major Road
Other Road
Major River
Boundaries
$tate
Countv
Mojave Desert
Ecoregional Assessment 2001
Conservation Porttolio Area
Conservation Value
Ecologicallv Core
Ecologicallv Intact
Moderatelv Degraded
Highlv Converted
!

The Nature Conservancy S Mojave Desert Eco Regional Assessment 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Nature Conservancy S Mojave Desert Eco Regional Assessment 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

! ! ! !

You might also like