![](media/image2.wmf)

February 12, 2002

**To:** Interested Parties

**From:** John Hamill, Department of the Interior

**Subject**: Summary: Coordinated Natural Resource Monitoring Workshop,
Jan 30-Feb 1, 2002, Palm Spring California

Attached is the summary of the presentations that were given at the
subject workshop. In addition, the Power Point slides for many of the
presentations are posted on the DMG website.

A goal of the DMG is to coordinate/integrate monitoring efforts in the
California deserts. The recommendations of the ad hoc group which met
following the Workshop are included in the meeting summary. These
recommendations will be discussed at the DMG meeting in Borrego Springs
on April 10-11.

I want to thank all of you who attended the workshop. Special thanks are
due to the workshop presenters and facilitators. The workshop could not
have been a success without you help and participation.

Attachment

![](media/image2.wmf)

Workshop Summary

Coordinated Natural Resources & Monitoring Inventory in the California
Deserts

30-31 Jan 02

Palm Springs, CA

**\*John Hamill** (Department of the Interior, Barstow, CA) provided
introductory comments. Identified future challenges: increased
population; increased development; increased demand for consumptive and
resource protection; increased T&E species listing; increased
restrictions; increased litigation. Explained why we monitor, and that
it is a good and essential investment. Emphasized that monitoring must
be done in the right way. Outlined elements of monitoring programs;
attributes of a good monitoring program. Displayed the DMGs Area of
Interest map to show variety of jurisdictions and interests. Questioned
whether all the groups involved would continue to evolve independently
or work together for a common goal. Expressed workshop goals.

**\*Bob Alverts** (BLM, Portland, OR) discussed monitoring the Northwest
Forest Plan. Methods, factors, criteria (handout -- Monitoring
Considerations). Results of direction from President Clinton in 1994,
implemented FY95 and going ever since. Involves many agencies, three
states (CA, OR, WA) and multiple tribes. Huge scale, from Canadian
border to Bay area, involving many forest types and ecosystems.
Challenge is getting the monitoring done in spite of all the interests
involved. Identified 3 types: Implementation monitoring; effectiveness
monitoring; validation monitoring. Showed manuals they use for
monitoring and management.

Adaptive management experiences changes as people move, as politics
shift. Things evaluated were: Kinds of monitoring; Scales of monitoring;
Management issues/Concerns driving monitoring; Politcal/Legal/Other
commitments already made; Cooperators/Partners of interest; Development
of indicators and monitoring protocols; Timeline; Budget needs/ Cost
commitments; Monitoring roles/Responsibilities.

**Dick Crowe** (BLM, Riverside, CA) discussed planning aspects of
monitoring plans. Showed map of planning efforts in the California
deserts. Discussed how the plans tie together as a cooperative effort,
and that if everyone goes their separate way it won't be effective or
affordable. Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat ties many of the plans
together, or how the plans cross. Discussed which plans were just
getting started, or in draft. Spoke extensively about the NECO Preferred
Alternative.

Emphasized the need for cooperation with DMG; USGS/Academia; and whether
to have a long/short list of things to monitor.

Showed maps of Existing Routes Inventory; Existing Water Sources; Plan
Boundaries; Bendire's Thrasher (a species of concern for many plans);
same with Big Horn Sheep; Chuckwalla; CA Leaf-Nosed Bat; Burros and Wild
Horses; Plant richness.

Ernie Quintana (NPS) questioned the idea of just using a long-term list,
as being too general and not having any priorities. He feels
prioritizing is what directs management decisions, and there are lessons
to be learned from the folks who put together the Northwest Forest Plan.

Question about how monitoring ecosystem health is done. BLM has
established standards that provide some indicators which are written up
in regulations. Easy to monitor impacts, but not easy to monitor health.
Still trying to determine the criteria of "health". Another difficulty,
is how broad an area to look at.

**\*Kris Heister** (NPS, Great Basin NP) discussed NPS Inventory &
Monitoring Program, the purpose of which is to revitalize and expand
NPS\'s natural resource program within the park service and improve park
management through greater reliance on scientific knowledge. NPS wants
to monitor to protect resources; make better strategies and practices to
meet threats before they happen. National Parks Omnibus Management Act
of 1998 was passed and requires them to work in coordination with
others. They have 12 Basic Inventory Datasets which are required.
Service is divided into different Vital Signs Inventory Networks,
including the Mojave Inventory and Monitoring Network. Talked about
inventory objectives and the funding they have. Data mining was
extremely useful and effective, worth the effort and cost. NPS is
concentrating on Amphibians; Birds; Mammals; Reptiles; and Plants
between 2002 and 2005 in various locations.

Addressed Goals of Vital Signs Monitoring and emphasized having clear
goals and objectives.

Discussed NPS organization/management structur for the program: Board of
Directors; Science Advisory (Technical) Committee. The WASO will provide
coordination; develop guidance documents; provide technical assistance;
assist regional staff in helping to coordinate scoping workshops.

Showed schematic of Integrated Natural Resource Data Management
Framework and template for Natural Resource Database. NPSpecies is
database system to manage species lists for each park. NPBib is card
catalog. Also have a Protocol Database.

NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program is at:
www.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor.

**\*Jim Weigand** (BLM, Sacremento, CA) discussed Monitoring OHV
Recreation in California Deserts. Main components include: baseline
inventory methods; monitoring protocols; institutional collaboration;
and database management. The Management Objectives are to: establish
thresholds for action; meet OHV trail maintenance needs; and restore
habitats.

The pathways to meet objective: partnerships; interdisciplinary
monitoring teams; technology investments; information access.

Interagency Partnerships include: Baseline Surveys NRCS, USGS;
Monitoring protocols USGS, CA Parks; Restoration NPS; Training USGS,
NGOs. Interdisciplinary Monitoring Team has been assembled with
expertise in: GIS; soils; botany; wildlife biology; and recreation
sociology.

Information Management: website information access; cross-agency data
sharing; standardize data collection; documentation and analysis.

Baseline Surveys: Soils: Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC; Johnson Valley OHV
Area; Chemueva ? something; Species: Desert tortoise, bats; Cultural
resources: Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC.

Monitoring Protocols (for this year): T&E/Sensitive Species; Biological
diversity, ecosystem functions; habitat fragmentation; restoration
techniques. T&E/Sensitive Species: Pierson's Milkvetch; Mojave Monk
flower; Mohave Ground Squirrel; Burrowing owls.

Biological diversity: Ants; herps and small mammals; raptors.

Ecosystem functions: air quality; surficial geology; downstream effects;
natural vegetation restoration.

Habitat Fragmentation: route proliferation; seed eating birds; noxious
weeds. This year will focus just on the first two, hope for funds for
weeds.

OHV Trail inventory & monitoring: Statewide protocol to GIS Cadastral
Expertise; Dove Springs OHV area, Eagle Lake FO, Ukiah FO.

Restoration: Two desert teams, three plant communities: creosote scrub;
Joshua tree woodland, riparian woodland.

Needs: diverse funding sources; establish BLM monitoring teams Palm
Springs and El Centro; coordinate with BLM monitoring efforts in Nevada
and Arizona.

BLM does comparison of wilderness areas and OHV use areas, including
time comparison. Monitoring helps to understand the different scales and
what is being compared.

**Dave Miller** (USGS, Menlo Park, CA) discussed USGS work in Delta
Springs and monitoring for OHV impacts (soils). Believe that to
institute a scientifically and legally viable system, there is a need to
understand the entire ecosystem. Trying to isolate the effects of
different vehicle impacts.

Developed two base-line data sets: surficial geology and map, using
digital techniques, camp and trail data. The entire study is designed to
generate methods exportable to all the California Desert OHV areas.

**\*Dave Sjaastad** (BLM, Ridgecrest, CA) discussed Range health and
wild burros. Showed what is being done for burro management in BLM
areas. Monitoring geared to burro impacts. Showed slide of Burro Herd
Areas; transects sampled for browsing by burros; and the Extensive
Browse Utilization transact/protocol for establishing utilization
thresholds. Results indicated moderate and severe grazing impacts and
that there were too many burros. Burros and deer still utilizing same
areas. Found tremendous regrowth in forage from having less burros
present. Very pleased with results. Showed key species and percent
utilization between 1996 and 2002, as well as percent composition by age
class for each species.

Showed DMG wetland inventory form, and how they are monitoring riparian
areas. Showed photograph of healthy spring. Will follow spring over time
to determine whether burros need to be removed.

Showed Burrow Spring, not so healthy as of 11-20-01. Question of whether
the burros have much impact, or whether there is enough water to support
vegetation.

Advocates top-down monitoring as the best way to make plans and get
funding support. Too big a program will collapse under it's own weight
and be well out of funding range. Recommended not to lose sight of short
term, practical goals.

**Gary Davis** (NPS, Channel Islands, CA) discussed Environmental Vital
Signs: An Interagency Approach to Monitoring the California Coast.
Emphasized that as daunting as monitoring can be, it's doable and cost
effective. Developed pilot program beginning in 1980.

NPS mission is to: conserve the parks; provide for their enjoyment;
leave them unimpaired for future generations. Need to know and
understand resources to know how to protect and restore. 4 main
objectives: Know; Restore; Protect; Connect. Emphasized that no one
group can do it alone. Requires teamwork and collaboration.

Vital Signs Monitoring. Hardest task is asking the right questions, and
a good monitoring program will help with that. Four-Step design process:
set goals; conceptual model; protocol development; implementation plan.

First in the design process is to ask "Why?" Determines everything else.
Early 19^th^ and 20^th^ century park managers relied on beliefs and made
decisions based on that. Fires were put out and predators killed. Today
we say, "What were they thinking?" because we have the science to know
better.

Factors driving the need to monitor -- stressors: habitat fragmentation;
unsustainable uses; altered air, water, soil; alien species. Goals of
monitoring vital signs: identify status and trends in ecosystem health;
define normal limits of variation; provide early warnings to reduce
costs and increase treatment success; suggest remedial treatments; frame
research hypotheses; determine compliance with law/regulation.

Conservation is health care for the environment and ecosystems. Ecology
is still in the 17^th^ century relative to medicine. Just on the edge of
beginning to understand how systems function and are put together.

A healthy ecosystem: has all its parts; has no extra parts; responds
normally to perturbation; is resilient, resists alien species invasion.

Approaches to monitoring: energetics; nutrients or constituents;
biodiversity; population dynamics. Looking at population dynamics has
been most helpful to predict future systems.

Start with Step-down Plan. Relied on expert opinion. Philosophy: Do
something, even if it's wrong, evaluate it and make it better. Make the
decision and don't look back. Move on.

Use stressors to: cross check comprehensive identification of potential
vital signs; set priorities on which vital signs to develop and monitor
first. If you know the functioning of the system, you can check against
it. But you don't know what the stressors of tomorrow will be.

Protocol design study objectives: select taxa and environmental factor;
develop and test sampling techniques; develop and test analytical
procedure; develop reporting formats ---print and other; provide
implementation protocols. Set priorities, usually using the stressors to
decide what to do first.

Biological vital signs selection criteria: representative, broad
ecological array; common, dominant, structural element; special legal
status; endemics; exploited; aliens; charismatic; practical.

Implementation Plan: obtain funding; implement protocols; obtain and
sustain personnel;; apply results to issues.

The Channel Islands National Park vital sign monitoring program:
structure follows function; integrated with other stewardship function;
three legged stool: info management; island ecosystems; marine
ecosystems. Many agencies contribute and benefit: CA F&G; USGS; USFWS; U
of CA; MMS; etc.

Information management: need three people to maintain continuity. Do it
by partnerships or within the organization, but do it. Showed two slides
of protocols for ecosystems.

Example of how monitoring info can be used to provide early warnings: 1)
DDT contaminated marine food webs reduced brown pelican, bald eagle, and
peregrine falcon reproduction. DDT has been banned and pelicans have
recovered. Peregrines are doing all right, but the bald eagles have not
recovered at all. 2) Sewer pipe broke next to Cabrillo Nat'l Monument,
San Diego, CA; 11 billion gallons treated effluent spilled; monument
tide pools closed to visitors Feb -- Apr 92. Respite from visitor
trampling, with nutrients and sediment from effluent, benefited
intertidal ecosystem. Dramatic demonstration of the impact of visitors.

Learned a lot about fisheries from monitoring. When we looked we found
they weren't being sustained. Monitoring shows ecosystem collapsed,
resulting frou over-fishing. Also showed effects of El Nino. Monitoring
helps to know when we're doing the right thing, and how to fix problems.
One difficulty is that no one likes to change. Keep pushing to get
beyond the anger and depression to get to a workable solution.

**Roy Woodward** (CA State Parks, Sacramento, CA) discussed monitoring
efforts in State Parks in the CA desert. State Parks consist of 266
units in CA. About 180-190 have a resource base, about half have any
great size. The State Park system is extremely decentralized, very much
controlled at a local level: they make their own decisions, have their
own legislation and funding.

Realized several years ago that monitoring must be ongoing. Parks never
had a systematic program for inventorying and monitoring. Inventory,
Management and Assessment Program is what developed. Have a couple of
teams working on this in Sacramento and San Diego, but haven't done
anything in the desert yet.

First thing done in the monitoring program was to go out physically and
see what's happening, who's doing what, where and to what effect. Have
technical committees to decide protocols, and will freely use what
everyone else is doing. You must budget for doing long-term monitoring,
plan to have someone in the field doing the work.

Don't yet have database for environmental data. Very interested in
cooperating with someone to add to a database. Have had to go back a do
the boundaries to update the maps, to include polygons, in holdings,
etc. Database adds a lot of valuable information, and all of this stuff
comes out of monitoring programs.

DPR will provide money to the extent they can. However, the state budget
is very tight.

Most of the push for State Parks acquisition has been along the coast
and in urban areas. There are no plans to add much in the desert.

California Native Plant Society has developed a manual they hope to
become standard on vegetation series. They have various committees, for
things like Vegetation and Rare Plants to come up with standard rating
for plants. They have found that about half a dozen plants listed as
extinct were actually still out there when someone went out to see.

**Eric Hollenbeck** talked about OHV issues at Ocotillo Wells and the
legal issues the off-road community confronted. Developed a portable
program to monitor impacts of OHV use. Simple program. Have different
plots at each OHV area. Impacts are monitored on vertebrates, vegetation
and soils. Will compare different years to see what changes occur over
time. The idea is to have enough data to give management the ability to
make informed decisions.

**\*Phil Medica** (USFWS, Las Vegas, NV) discussed Desert Tortoise
Monitoring which involves implementation of line distance sampling
method throughout the range of the tortoise.

In FY2001 all recovery units (RU\'s) were sampled.

Determined encounter rates for each RU; established first year of
population baseline; developed a centralized Data Management System; and
determined g~(o)~ within each RU.

Results of the 2001 Sampling were that the Mojave, East Mojave,
Northeast Mojave, Upper Virgin River rangewide mean encounter rate was
very low (0.13).

Kilometers sampled in 2002 will be doubled 5,499 km. Impossible without
all the assistance gained in cooperation with various agencies.

LDS training at Jean, NV March 25-31, 2002.

Sampling areas include: randomly selected transects in desert tortoise
critical habitat and ACECs; greater than 1,250 meters elevation; areas
greater than 30% slope, private land and playas are excluded.

The system has worked well. Funding is problematic. To continue, funding
needs to increase, but right now looks pretty stable. Hopeful in the
next 2-3 years for good baseline, then do it again a few years later.
This should continue for 25 years -- one generation of tortoises.

**\*Barbara Washburn** (Cal/EPA, Sacramento, CA) discussed Environmental
Protection Indicators for California. Overview and Ecosystem Health
Indicators.

An environmental indicator is scientifically based information on the
status of and trends in environmentally related parameters; example:
water clarity an indicator of the trophic status of Lake Tahoe.

EPIC project: launched Jan 02 as a joint effort to Cal/EPA and Resources
Agency -- complementary to Legacy Project; purpose: develop meaningful
objective measure for the outcomes of programs and work of agencies
involved in protection of the environment; move away from counting
issues and move to results data.

General indicators: land cover: showed graph of CA land cover, acreage,
ecosystems; land management: showed another graph of reserve, rural
residential, agriculture, urban, working landscape; CA threatened and
endangered species: showed graph of status.

Desert ecosystems: status of Desert Tortoise (type I) have declined
substantially in the past decade due to a wide variety of causes.

Impacts of OHVs on the Desert (type II) graph showing creosote bush
habitat used by OHVs, plant biodiversity is reduced compared to non-OHV
sites. Additional indicators are needed for the desert: indicator of
exotic desert plants, and others.

Asked for feedback on the desert indicators.

USGS is starting a program that will study amphibians nationwide. There
might be some long-term data from that. Suggestion to clearly define
"health" for indicators because that could mean a lot of things to
different people. Suggestion to monitor migratory bird species, but what
happens to them might be an indication of what happened to them
somewhere else rather than in CA; Morongo Basin is monitoring migratory
birds. Suggestion to look at grazing and that Kristin Berry has a lot of
information on that in relation to desert tortoise. Suggestion to look
at water sources, aquifers, springs, etc.; the function of the springs,
vegetation, erosion. Within the next few years the FWS will complete
Wetlands Habitat study, GIS based. Suggestion to look at exotics as
possible cause of increased wildfires in CA desert. Suggestion to look
at desert bighorn sheep as indicators.

Future plans for EPIC: improve process of finding and developing
indicators; develop policy-related indicators; build new and strengthen
existing partnerships; update biannually. First official report will
come out in a month and a half.

For more info: www.oehha.ca.gov; bwashburn@oehha.ca.gov, 916-324-6430;
information on status & trends report: rainer.hoenicke@resources.ca.gov

**Larry Norris** (NPS, Tuscon, AZ) discussed Cooperative Ecosystem
Studies Unit. The CESU program is 4 years old, with 10 units existing
across the nation. Interagency in scope. Desert SW Ecosystem hosted by U
of AZ that covers Mojave, Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert. National
website: www.cesu.org/cesu.

**\*Todd Esque** (USGS, Las Vegas, NV) discussed Monitoring Invasive
Plants and Other Vegetation in the Mojave Desert. Seven steps to design
a monitoring program: specify goals and objective; characterize
stressors and disturbances; develop conceptual models that outline
pathways from stressors to the ecological effects on one or more
resources; select indicators to detect how stressors are acting on
resources; determine detection limits for indicators to guide sampling
design; establish trigger points for mgt intervention; establish clear
connections to the management decision process.

Categories of monitoring programs: systems programs -- vital signs
versus topical programs -- particular resources. Probably will require
both types given adequate funding and logistics.

Systems monitoring should be integrated monitoring: hydrologic, edaphic,
atmospheric, biologic. Scale is important. Temporal: important questions
now and 10, 25 or 50+ years from now. Spatial: what is the appropriate
spatial scale, local, regional or continental.

Current Monitoring Questions: what is the status of representative plant
communities; status of flagship populations; status of invasive species,
what are thresholds; how will livestock removal affect vegetation; will
fuels/fires increase due to livestock removal; what is the role of
climate in vegetation change; how well does re-vegetation work; is
erosion more sever than should be expected, how will invasive species
affect natives.

Explore examples, what worked, didn't work, what was learned.

Inventory established plots: are there existing monitoring plots with
information to offer? Yes and no. Can we find the plots/ are we sure?
Can plots be fully reproduced; are plots confounded by design, shape,
habitat type, equal size, paired plots, recent disturbances, soils; are
methods comparable through time.

Invasive plants: monitoring, containment, eradication. Resources: park
protocols, CalEPPC, Weed Mgt Areas. Invasives: Other vegetation
monitoring won't work; when invasives show up in random sample it's too
late; identify at the gate (points of entry) prioritize (partnerships),
contain (partnerships), eradicate (partnerships).

Gripe list on yet another monitoring project: missing boundary markers;
erroneous compass bearings; which side of line transects to use; basic
rules (include/exclude bases of shrubs); use published standards or note
differences; provide definitions (e.g., bare ground); what data were
included/excluded (seedlings); Dbh 1.5 versus 1.0 meters follow
protocol; inconsistent reference to individual plots.

Are representative plant communities stable -- NO. Can we distinguish
change caused by our activities vs. climate.

The Beatley Plots; future value (est 40 ybp); simple, quantitative,
accurate and replicated; transfer of responsibility (but no field
notes); protected sites. This appears to have worked, incredible detail
on perennial and annuals.

Cover, Density, Richness: comuunity and species data; standing dry
biomass; species composition; longevity of species.

We can do this! Good study design, get it reviewed by experts; protected
sites; photos with good horizons; T-posts for corners (or subtle marker)
groups locations, maps; have methods reviewed (1-2 y, not 10); supply
field notes, archive them; transfer across generations.

**\*Robert Fisher** (USGS, San Diego, CA) discussed Monitoring Programs
for Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems of the CA Deserts. Monitor: To
watch, observe, or check, especially for a special purpose. Emphasized
the need to archive data to go back and test hypothesis and indicators
over time.

Current established programs: Desert Tortoise, bighorn sheep, burros.
Are we done? Not yet.

Overview of USGS Desert Study Areas: 29 Palms/BLM/Joshua Tree NM; Salton
Sea Enhanced evaporation test site; Amphibian Research Monitoring
Initiative (ARMI); spring/wetlands in Anza Borrego; OHV Dove Springs;
night driving surveys in JT and Anza Borrego SP.

Showed DMG area of interest map with USGS Focal Sites. Showed table of 5
different forms in CA of red racer snakes, where and what form. A lot of
diversity. Red racers at Joshua Tree NP won't be the same as red racers
in Edwards AFB.

29 Palms/BLM/JT: pitfall traps for herps and small mammals; funding from
SERDP, MCAGCC; began work in 1998 survey for 2+ years, completed; Study
1 impact of low level urbanization on desert biodiversity (29 vs. BLM
disposable lands); Study 2 biogeography across Sonoran to Mojave deserts
in JT, across elevation gradient.

Salton Sea enhanced Evaporative test site: test impacts of salt
evaporation on biodiversity; funding from USGS, BOR; began work in 2001
for 1-2 years; Study 1 impact of the sea on the terrestrial ecosystem;
Study 2 impact of enhanced evaporation system on terrestrial ecosystem.

ARMI Surveys (USGS): initiative to determine status/trends for
amphibians across DOI lands nationally using percent Area Occupied
statistics; funding USGS, USFS; began work in 2000.

Spring/wetlands in Anza Borrego State park: recovery of creek closure,
impact of horses; funding from CA state parks; began in 2000.

Study protocols: vertebrates; herps: pit-fall traps; night driving
surveys; stream/spring area searches; bats: acoustic; visual (roosting
or foraging: capture techniques; birds: point counts; carnivores: track
and scat transect; remotely triggered cameras. Invertebrates: ants,
beetles.

Showed data for lizards and snakes from pit-fall traps 29, BLM, Salton
Sea; also mammals. Bat detections at three different sites.

**Cameron Barrows** (Center for Natural Land Management, Palm Springs,
CA) spoke about Coachella Valley Center for Natural Land Management.
Discussed the sand dunes, the Fringe-toed Lizard, and the Coachella
Valley habitat conservation plan. The Fringe-toed Lizard was listed as
endangered in 1980, and the HCP conservation plan, signed in 1986,
resulted in three separate preserves being created in the Coachella
Valley.

Since then there have been many plants and animals that need to be
preserved. The conservation plan is starting to be a multiple species
plan, instead of being focused on just one. Hasn't quite happened yet,
but it's going that way, nearing finalization. Showed natural
communities of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Map. The plan includes 30 different species.

Adaptive management and monitoring plan is part and parcel for this
conservation plan. A monitoring plan has been submitted, but haven't
heard any comments or direction yet. Wildlife agency said there must be
quantitative monitoring for all 30 species.

Showed a graph of Annual Fringe-toed Lizard Fluctuations. This shows
their numbers go up and go down, but doesn't give any indication of why,
whether this is a healthy or normal event, or what causes it. The
species responds to a changing environment, having more numbers during
rainy years. The lizards are very cryptic (difficult to see) so are
difficult to monitor. Mark and recapture work is too impractical since
it would need 200 plots and more than 50 people to do the work.

Most of the stressors affect the lizards, making them a good indicator
of what affects the other species.

Showed Sand Sources & Sand Transport System for a Desert Sand Dune
Ecosystem diagram. Explained about the land they need to purchase to
preserve. 95% of the dunes are gone. Only 5 square miles are left.
Showed picture of a sand starved area, where the lizard can't live.
There's also been an invasion of weeds, especially Russian Thistle. But
the fringe-toed lizard loves it. There are a couple of other alien weeds
that are an increasing problem, but many only occur when it rains (every
few years), so it's difficult to say what the impact is.

Off-road vehicle use creates a significant impact. Showed graph of the
compaction of sand in relation to the lizard. When the ground is too
compacted the lizard can't live there. Sand penetration monitoring is a
good indicator for the species.

Monitoring plan looks at trophic levels. There are a group of beetles
highly selective to sand dunes and not found anywhere else.

Studying lizard scats is an excellent way to find out what a lizard is
eating. Showed graph of Lizard Reproduction vs. Diet. If they're eating
lots of ants they don't breed well, but if they have other things, like
beetles, to eat they reproduce well. Showed graph of Reproduction
Success vs. Rainfall.

Scale is a critical component of a monitoring plan. Using GIS image
software a map will tell you a lot about the habitat. Showed map
highlighting different areas for the species, which gives a good idea of
where to monitor and the overall abundance of the habitat. We don't
manage the species, we manage their habitat so understanding that
habitat aids in conservation.

Cleared an area of grape vines and left it to see what happened. Within
that area there was a 900% increase in habitat suitable for the
fringe-toed lizard and 125% increase for flat-tailed horned toad
habitat, vs. 9% and 11% for the control area.

Following tracks is an effective way of monitoring a population. Only
works if you can track them, which is not the case in all of their
habitat. Set up 8 hector plots, and over the past year marked 122 in one
plot. Exceed density of anywhere else. One of the problems is that at
any given point there were probably only 30 lizards, and the rest on
walkabout. Their ranges can be a kilometer or more.

So this is a pretty ambitious monitoring plan. Not as ambitious as it
could be. You can do the long list and have everything on the table, or
the short list and do each thing really well. So rather than have 200
plots for the lizards, have a few model plots as models to work with. If
we do everything it would cost \$100 mil, and that's not doable.

Ask the right questions. Not just how many, but what's affecting them.
There needs to be a balance between ecological studies and statistics in
a database.

**\*Danny Reinke** (Edwards Air Force Base, Lancaster, CA) discussed
Environmental Monitoring at Edwards AFB.

Types of monitoring: Compliance; Efficacy; Validation. There are a lot
of things, like NEPA and Sikes Act, to comply with, and we must show
efficiency. Groundwork has been laid to validate what's been done. There
is an internal enforcement program as check and balance to be sure the
job is being done.

Edwards has a fairly mature program. Has been in work for a little over
10 years. Looking at how things fit together, get smarter, get data that
will give information to use for management. Showed map of Edwards AFB,
a little over 300,000 acres.

One of the issues with INRMP is that bases have historically been
fenced. Sikes Act directed bases to look beyond their boundaries and
work with others. Monitoring data is critical to good management and
decisions. Showed diagram of EAFB Approach.

Showed map of Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. EAFB has a fair amount
of tortoise habitat. Showed maps of Regional Vegetation, and Plant
Species of Concern. Have a book with pictures of every plant that
grows/flowers on the base. Nice, but really need a forensic botany book,
since flowering doesn't happen that often. Showed maps of Rare Habitat,
Flood prone Areas, Surface Water Drainage Basins (Watersheds), 20 ft
Contour Interval.

Showed map of Desert Tortoise Corrected Sign Density. Tortoise is
driving a lot of the monitoring work. Line distance sampling isn't going
to work for the base management. Need more detail, something to be
comparable with information from 1992.

Showed Aerial Photographs of Edwards AFB. There are places that were
disturbed before the AF showed up: old homesteads, agriculture sites,
etc. The fields are still fallow. GIS is the only scale to work with to
get that information.

Have done many surveys, terrestrial vertebrates, bats and so forth. Not
on ants yet. Showed map of Long-term Monitoring Plots. Ground truth is
being backtracked to the aerial photographs.

EAFB is changing the way we look at things because of the data and what
it tells us for decisions. Good data that's helpful to the mission means
more funding. Showed maps Slope Analysis, Viable Population Areas,
Management Areas.

Currently doing a data scrub of all the data layers to determine whether
we keep or archive them, or use it to take the next step up. Better to
keep moving onward. EAFB has long-term plots (60), project driven
monitoring, restoration/exotic species removal program (but nothing
listed for removal), newcomers/contractor briefing required for all.

**\*Ruth Sparks** (Nation Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA) talked about
the DOD US Army NTC in Ft Irwin, CA. Refer to handout.

**\*Rhys Evans** (Marine Corp Base, Twentynine Palms, CA)Inventory and
Monitoring Programs, USMCAGCC 29 Palms. MCAGCC has 598,178 acres;
primary USMC base for live fir & weapons. Mission support live fire
military training; combined arms exercise; 22 day rotation, ten times
annually.

Inventories completed: vertebrates; soils; vegetation; rare plants;
bats; bighorn sheep.

Desert Tortoise Research completed: base wide relative density; high
elevation; mortality/predation; home range; disease.

Line Distance Sampling: Multi-agency approach.

Inventories ongoing: fairy shrimp; invertebrates; Mojave fringe-toed
lizard; reptiles.

Recent and Current Projects: bighorn sheep guzzlers; bat gates;
free-roaming dog trapping; tamarisk eradication.

Monitoring: Land condition trend analysis; land use contingency model;
land management system: ecological Dynamics simulation; erosion; change
detection/remote sensing in progress review, 21 February 2002.

MCAGCC has a good handle on their natural resources. Sustainability must
be linked to ecosystem management.

**\*Nina Chambers** (Sonoran Institute, Tucson, AZ) discussed the
Relevance of Social Indicators in Ecosystem Monitoring. Showed map of
Sonoran Desert Ecoregion: where we are and how we got here. The
ecological analysis showed over 100 sites that need conservation.
Looking at collaborative management across borders and jurisdictions.
Also working on collaborating to work a strategy on invasive plants.
Monitoring is a long way off yet, but want to take steps in that
direction.

Social Indicators: are a set of social, economic, and ecological
measures that are useful to ecosystem mgt decision making; allow for
comparison over an extended period of time and include the
identification of long-term trend, periodic change; fluctuations in rate
of change; are practical.

Characteristics of Human Communities at Different Spatial Scale. Scale
matters. Trends in social indicators may be examined at different
spatial scales. Showed graph of Population Change at Various Spatial
Scales: Regional; sub-regional; community.

Contextual Indicators that Describe the Characteristics of Human
Communities: population; economy; education; health and safety;
recreation; land use and land tenure.

Example of Stress-based Use of Integrated Social and Biological
Indicators: Valley Bottom Floor Plain: roads; recreation; UDA traffic;
invasive species; surrounding farmland; livestock grazing.

How social information may inform issue-specific management decisions
identifies who will be directly and indirectly affected by the decision;
identifies what the characteristics and attitudes of these groups are;
identifies how they are likely to react to the decisions; identifies how
the message of the decision can be communicated in a way more likely to
be accepted.

Benefits of Social Indicators in Ecosystem Monitoring: provide a more
complete description of the Sonoran Desert human ecosystem; provide a
baseline description and helps monitor trends in social conditions
affecting resources; describe the conditions of human communities; and
their impacts on national lands; involve a range of institutions and
communities.

**\*Clarence Everly** (DOD - MDEP, Barstow, CA) Spoke about how to share
data to facilitate land management decision making. MDEP was developed
for use by all land managers in the desert. Collaboration is necessary;
try to eliminate duplication of effort to save funds and resources;
design a spatial data clearing house.

Updated website for MDEP will be finished by the end of February.
Described the site, showed front page, explained some things that can be
done within the site. Also described the information MDEP needs to
expand the database.

**\*Robert Fisher** (USGS, San Diego, CA) talked about Integrated Data
Management, and how data can go from the field directly to the database
using Palm Pilots. Showed a protocol/draft/vision for what can be done.

Discussed the confusion between data, data sets, databases, etc. Gave
definitions for database and SQL. Showed Data Flow Diagram: Field
Observation to Standard/shared data forms (data definitions) if
different to Any program QA/QA to Data Set library; if same to
Standardized ACCESS/SQL Database -- QA-QC to Queryable database.
Displayed how data could go to their respective regional databases, but
also to MDEP.

Talked through the first step in using palm pilots.

Displayed paper data form to highlight specific points and show things
that are standard, that can be easily entered and accessed as a form on
palm pilot. Showed Handheld Data Form Diagram.

Showed how to manage multiple forms and multiple people, all from one
computer. Created a schema for the Palm Pilot that has everything you
might possibly need, but the user can use just what s/he needs. Items
can be added as necessary without affecting the base. The database is
standard nationally. Data entered can be validated before being sent to
regional database (or wherever).

Breakout Groups. The participants were separated into 3 groups and asked
to address 5 questions:

1\. Identify the top three questions that you think your agency/group
is/should be trying to address through monitoring.

2\. Group questions & identify common questions among agencies/groups.

3\. Identify the questions that are most important.

4\. Identify new opportunities to collaborate and how to effect that
collaboration.

5\. Identify major barriers to collaboration and how to overcome those
barriers.

**Group 1 Report** (Todd Esque):

1\) Identify the top 3 questions you think your agency/ group is/should
try to address through monitoring.

Are current management techniques helping us meet objectives, or is it
business as usual.

Are they experiencing unresponsiveness

Are present management prescriptions contributing to success or failure
of

Is the monitoring program sensitive to change (how sensitive can you
measure)

Does monitoring help you determine sources of change (natural versus
human), is it accurate enough

What are the most relevant questions to monitor

Should we focus on monitoring stressors rather than counting animals

Should we use monitoring in a more efficient way (precipitation instead
of counting lizards)

Are you looking at the right ecological scale.

Are managers prepared to use monitoring information -- will it be used,
how will it be included into the bureaucratic system

Core Elements -- fundamental to the big picture

Corporate/Compliance

Site Specific Things

Ecological trend, weeds, tortoise

Tortoise , weeds, and fire

What do we have, where is it (distribution), what are their
characteristics in the way of natural resources, what is significant

Fire, desert tortoise disease, desert tortoise density, exotic species,
Africanized honey bees, education,

Downstream effects (down-gradient effects) of disturbance

Upstream effects (power plants)

Ecological trend -- soil/vegetation units based on NRCS

Plant community vigor and composition, cover, structure

Sustainability (OHV, grazing, military training, current uses in
general)

Water issue

Meteorological data,

**5) ID major barriers to collaboration and how to overcome these
barriers**

fear of sharing information - lack of information by neighbors (i.e.
military installations)

so sharing information can be a liability

so, this is a problem of scale

solution -- share expertise and funding to help neighbors

Funding -- Congress is the barrier

Funding structure is not conducive to working on ecosystem approaches

The color of money -- can you spend money off site

Trust -- education of the public about what is going on, increase
awareness

Tortoises -- money pit and the way we do funding

Agencies respond to compliance issues and therefore never get to
ecosystem issues -

**Group 2 Report** (Jeff Lovich, USGS, Sacramento, CA):

[Top questions]{.underline}:

What is the current status and impact of exotic species across space and
time?

What are the long- and short-term effects of management strategies?

-removal of exotics

-restoration

-closures (carrying capacity/visitation)

What are the patterns of resource change over time with respect to
environmental factors (abiotic and human)?

# [Opportunities for collaboration]{.underline}

Common databases

Common datasheets

#### Common protocols across agencies

Saving data from being "retired"

# [Barriers to collaboration]{.underline}

Funding

Time

Management priorities

Bureaucracy/politics

## Lack of vision

Communication (solve with regional clearinghouses like mojavedata
{MDEP})

Agency culture/regulatory mandates

**Group 3 Report** Rob Fisher, USGS, San Diego, CA):

Facilitator: Robert Fisher Note-takers: Andrea Atkinson & Stacie
Hathaway

1\. Identify the top 3 questions you think your agency/group is/should
be trying to address through monitoring. (Numbers below indicate
groupings of questions)

Data Management

1 Carrying capacity - are visitor users impacting , can you monitor and
establish what these thresholds are

2 Impairment- Is there impairment of natural resources

of ecosystem function

of cultural resources

3 Connectivity- can monitoring tell you something about functionality
for example gene flow \...geographically between reserves, landscapes
etc.

What should be thresholds for monitoring?

2 Alien Invasions -- Detection of new species invasions, extent, rate of
spread (may go under Impairment)

2 How do we assess habitat quality and ecosystem function?

2 Do we have functionality? is there integrity in the system?

4 adjacent areas- What are the effects of extrinsic factors --effects of
adjacent urbanization- that may be driving biodiversity in the
park/reserve by biodiversity stressors, air quality, light effects (may
be more important in the future)

Global change effects?

5 site specific Research into interrelationships, cause and effect

6 site specific Effectiveness of actions (did it work)

Change through time -- Trends in resources condition

East Mojave monitoring

2 Do we have functionality? is there integrity in the system?

6 What do we do about species we know are in trouble \--\> identify
actions i.e., will be extinct in 50 years then need to revisit actions
and modify design of monitoring plan.

2\. Group Questions and identify common questions among the different
agencies/groups. **(Issues in step #1 that are similar were grouped
together, i.e. impairment, effectiveness of actions)**

1 Carrying capacity - are visitor users impacting , can you monitor and
establish what these thresholds are

2 Impairment- Is there impairment of natural resources

of ecosystem function

of cultural resources

2 Alien Invasions -- Detection of new species invasions, extent, rate of
spread (may go under Impairment)

2 How do we assess habitat quality and ecosystem function?

2 Do we have functionality? is there integrity in the system?

3 Connectivity- can monitoring tell you something about functionality
for example gene flow \...geographically between reserves, landscapes
etc.

What should be thresholds for monitoring?

4 adjacent areas- What are the effects of extrinsic factors --effects of
adjacent urbanization- that may be driving biodiversity in the
park/reserve by biodiversity stressors, air quality, light effects (may
be more important in the future)

Global change effects?

5 site specific Research into interrelationships, cause and effect

6 site specific Effectiveness of actions (did it work)

6 What do we do about species we know are in trouble \--\> identify
actions i.e., will be extinct in 50 years then need to revisit actions
and modify design of monitoring plan.

3\. From those groups, identify the most important questions.

(The group looked at the questions in step 2 and then took a big picture
look and identified the following 5 \"most important\" questions.
Questions a, d are not really monitoring. However the group felt all 5
questions are critical. The group then tried to identify the most
critical assistance needed under these 5 \"most important\" questions.)

a What resources do we have and where are they (varies among agencies --
some have done this?

b\. What is the condition of the resources?

*need to define resource quality*

*need help in making link between science and management; getting
data/info to management*

*need protocols and data management*

*needs to be institutionalized*

c\. What are the trends in resource condition?

Comment\-- are we monitoring natural processes? not just things?

*need help with interpretation and relating to regional and linking to
changes in other resource issues*

d\. if the resource is declining what can we do?

*need cause/effect relationships*

*need communication/networking*

e\. How effective are our actions in influencing resource conditions

*need protocol development*

4\. Identify new opportunities to collaborate and how to effect that
collaboration.

&

5\. Identify major barriers to collaborations and how those barriers
might be overcome. (Breakout group questions \# 4 and #5 were combined
in this section)

Meetings like this are important

Need multi-agency planning

Need within-agency information sharing for effective multi-agency
planning

Websites/computers critical for increasing collaboration

Money- Sometimes easier to generate funding by partnerships (this meets
some agency objectives)

Economy of scale --collaborations may bring costs down.

Opportunities for resource sharing (trading resources such as office
space, horses, etc. for monitoring people and assistance)

General public -- we need greater outreach to generate interest by
providing information and incorporate into collaborative process -- this
gets you volunteers and public support can get you money from government

Data Management Committee for DMB already exists. Each group must make
sure it has someone involved to coordinate data management among
agencies

Money flow across agencies is a barrier

Land access can be an issue/barrier -- inaccessibility of some sites
because of geography, water etc. (really this issue is under sampling
design)

Collaboration on training would help

post protocol & other training sessions on DMG website

Write down and making available protocols and data forms

**Management Recommendation (John Hamill)**: Following is a summary of
an open discussion of recommendations/conclusions:

Suggestion that the question that will come up is "What will it cost?"
and there should be an answer for that as far as funds necessary, people
to do the work and timeframe.

From a business standpoint, it's all very inefficient. We should work on
creating better efficiency, work together more.

From a recovery standpoint the tortoise issue is driving a lot. But
there needs to be a standardization of methods and protocols in the
work, something everyone can use. However, it will be difficult to get
things changed. Everyone's got their own plans and techniques although
they're looking for the same answers.

Suggestion that the Northwest Forest Plan might be a good model to work
with. They managed the collaboration and funding.

Rather than crying about all the inefficiencies, we should identify what
they are specifically. At this point there is not enough solid to take
to managers, everything is still too general. Suggestion to work out why
things should be done differently, why things should be done on an
over-arching, desert-wide scale.

Suggestion to sit down together, get a common protocol draft together,
send it out and get responses. Try to reach an agreement on what drives
everyone across agency boundaries. Set policies that will help the
people on the ground do their job.

One way to get it going is to have a group of stakeholders provide
support. That's what happened with the Forest Service model. Gave them
direction. The agencies then went after funding, legislation to do that.

There was a regional, grass-roots program in the Appalachians to do an
assessment. Has led to an approach to monitoring for the region. NW
Forest Plan was driven by having to come up with something, and they
took a scientific approach -- got the science and made the decisions.
Suggest doing an assessment, State of the Desert; could be a driving
force. In the Appalachians it generated data sets and mobilized the
community. They have annual meetings. More than monitoring. There are
other models for regional ecosystem initiatives. So the question
becomes, what is the driving force? Problem is, there is such a mix of
driving forces.

Find a common goal that crosses boundaries, that everyone has in common,
and do the analysis and data collecting across the large scale, over the
ecosystem. Let the ecology set the scale, not the jurisdictions.

Too good at reporting what's bad. Report on what's good as well, if
you're looking at the big picture.

Everyone seems to agree that protocols for monitoring and data
collection should be standardized. That can help across boundaries, and
help with correlation. But there is the consideration of temporal
disconnect -- what's already done and what is collected in future under
standardized methods. Need to overlap the systems.

**Ad Hoc Monitoring Work Group Meeting (February 1, 2002)**

Purpose: Discuss/draft recommendations for integrating/coordinating
monitoring efforts for presentation to the DMG on April 10-11, 2002.

Group members:

-   Jim Kenna (BLM) (Chair)

-   Roy Woodward (Cal State Parks)

-   Kris Heister (NPS)

-   Debra Hughson (NPS)

-   James Weigand (BLM)

-   Phil Medica (FWS)

-   Craig Palmer (UNLV)

-   Richard Wood (Edwards AFB)

-   Danny Rienke (Edwards AFB)

-   Bruce Soderberg (Marine Corp)

-   Andrea Atkinson (USGS)

-   John Hamill (DOI)

-   Clarence Everly (DOD)

Results:

1.  The group identified the following principles related to monitoring
    in the California deserts:

-   The purpose of monitoring should be to accumulate useful knowledge
    to help managers make decisions

-   A framework is needed to tie various agency monitoring efforts
    together

-   Standard (interagency) protocols should be established for
    collecting data

-   Agencies should cooperate to improve efficiency and effectiveness

-   Start small

2.  The group recommended that the following be presented to the DMG:

-   Jim Kenna will present the workshop results, management implications
    and recommendations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Hamill will provide a summary of the Workshop to Kenna for
    distribution to the Managers

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Kris Heister will discuss the purpose and value of developing a
    conceptual framework for monitoring (Kris Heister)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Kris identify the schedule and process for NPS's developing a
    conceptual framework and recommend that the effort look at the
    entire desert.

-   Phil Medica will develop and present a preliminary conceptual
    framework for the desert tortoise (John Hamill will assist).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Debra Hughson will report on the status of her assignment to
    identify current research and monitoring efforts in the desert

-   John Hamill will request that Rob Fisher make a 20 minute
    presentation on the use of Palm Pilots to standardize data
    collection

-   Hamill and Everly will develop and present a proposal for developing
    a network of weather stations in the Cal deserts