¥66 



Hahittil Assi'wnu'nls — Our Li\'inii Resources 



Table 2. Wildlife species consid- 

 ered al risk based on Gap Analysi 

 Program criteria. 



addressed by the public kind managing agen- 

 cies. Many oak woodlands appear to be at risk 

 now or will be within the next one or two 

 decades. Most of the chapaiTal communities 

 seem reasonably secure: they are generally 

 found on steeper slopes, largely on public lands, 

 and in areas with 10'7f-2()9f Level 1 status. 



Wildlife Status 



Detailed field-based maps of the distribution 

 of wildlife do not exist for all species and would 

 be too difficult to compile in the time available. 

 Biolocists do know, however, what habitats 



For further information: 



Da\ id M. Stoms 



University of California 



Department of Geography 



Santa B;irbara. CA 93106 



most wildlife species prefer. We combined this 

 knowledge, contained in the California 

 Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (WHR) data 

 base (Airola 1988). with the vegetation map to 

 identify suitable habitat for all native wildlife 

 species in the region. These predictions do not 

 guarantee that a species occurs at a given loca- 

 tion, only that suitable habitat exists. 

 Threatened and endangered species usually had 

 less than 15% of their distribution in Level 1 

 areas. We used this proportion as our criterion 

 for identifying what other species breeding in 

 the region are at highest risk. 



Forty-two wildlife species are at highest risk 

 from inadequate habitat pnnection (Table 2). 

 Basically, the number of at-risk species is rela- 

 tively uniform throughout San Bernardino, 

 western Riverside, San Diego, and eastern 

 Orange counties. The western half of the region 

 in Los Angeles. Ventura, and Santa Barbara 

 counties has fewer species that are at risk 

 although some of these species may only occur 

 in the western half: thus, this area should not be 

 dismissed as less critical to preserving biodiver- 

 sity until a comprehensive nature reserve net- 

 work is designed. 



Future Plans and Concerns 



Implementation of protective measures 

 should occur soon. Land-management agencies 

 are the appropriate parties to set land acquisi- 

 tion priorities and to change existing manage- 

 ment practices. The Southern California 

 Association of Governments, for example, has 

 used the GAP data base to identify natural com- 

 munities of greatest concern throughout its 

 six-county planning area as part of its Regional 

 Comprehensive Plan Open Space Element. 

 Multi-species conservation plans are also using 

 biodiversity and land-management data to 

 select and design a network of nature reserves 

 to protect adequate habitat over large regions. 



References 



Airola. D.A. 1988. Guide to the California Wildlife Habitat 

 Relationships System. California Department of Fish and 

 Game. Sacramento. 74 pp. 



Davis, F.W.. D.M. Stoms. P. Stine, A. Hollander. M. 

 Borchert. M. Bueno. K. Beardsley. and V. Gray. 1994. 

 Gap analysis of the Southwestern California Region. 

 Report submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife 

 Foundation and the Southern California Edison 

 Company. Center for Remote Sensing and Environment- 

 al Optics and Department of Geography. University of 

 California. Santa Barbara. 107 pp. 



