DRAFT

DESERT TORTOISE CONSERVATION

WORK PLAN

FY 2003

Project Summary:

The federally threatened desert tortoise occupies portion of the Mojave
and Colorado deserts in California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. The
desert habitat supporting this species lies within a short driving
distance of more than 14 million people in southern California and over
one million in the Las Vegas area. Approximately 93 percent of the
designated critical habitat for desert tortoise occurs in California and
Nevada. The primary delisting criterion requires that desert tortoise
populations, within each of the six recovery units, exhibit a
statistically significant upward trend or remain stationary for at least
25 years, determined by a scientifically credible monitoring procedure.
Line distance sampling has been chosen by the Management Oversight Group
(MOG) as the method to determine the status of tortoise populations
before and after recovery. Through rangewide monitoring both within and
outside recovery areas, the overall effectiveness of recovery actions
implemented through land use plans may be evaluated and compared to
areas outside planning areas to measure population responses to
conservation actions. As lead for desert tortoise, the Service's Nevada
offices have assumed the oversight responsibility for monitoring
activities. Such oversight requires the Service to provide a rangewide
coordinator (Coordinator), and this position was filled as of mid-August
2000, and rangewide monitoring was initiated in the spring of 2001.

The Coordinator will be responsible for developing a rangewide
monitoring plan for each recovery unit that identifies line distance
sampling activities. Sampling activities will involve conducting line
distance sampling transects within each recovery unit or Desert Wildlife
Management Area (DWMA). Focal animals will be monitored by
radiotelemetry to determine g~0~, or the probability of tortoises being
aboveground and detectable. The variable, g~0~, represents tortoises
that were not detectable during the survey based on concurrent
observations of focal animals.

As an initial step in the work plan implementation, the Coordinator
conducted workshops within each Recovery Unit (RU) during the fall of
2000 to define the number and location of strata. Due to limited
funding, during the spring of 2001 transects were randomly placed within
each recovery unit regardless of strata, a sampling protocols developed,
and rangewide monitoring initiated within each RU. The monitoring plan
is being developed based upon the monitoring handbook developed to
initiate sampling rangewide. The plan will include an adaptive
management component providing flexibility to modify the plan to
incorporate new data. Transects will be located both within and outside
recovery areas in order to evaluate the success of recovery actions. The
Coordinator will interface and work closely with the coordinator for the
Desert Managers Group Integrated Ecological Monitoring program, USGS
Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Department of Defense (DOD), National Park Service (NPS), state
wildlife agencies, and other Service Offices and cooperators.

-   In addition to the monitoring activities the Service's Ventura
    Office will provide added assistance and consultation to California
    planning teams developing and implementing the various land use
    plans in the California desert. Successful habitat conservation
    planning for current and future human uses while providing for the
    long-term conservation and protection for fish and wildlife
    resources will require additional Service staff and resources to
    work cooperatively with local communities, state and federal
    agencies and the military installations in the deserts.

Project Tasks/Objectives:

-   The Service has hired a Coordinator to oversee the development of a
    rangewide monitoring plan by recovery unit, conduct a monitoring
    workshop to develop the monitoring program, and prepare annual
    reports.

-   The Coordinator will work closely with the coordinator for the
    Integrated Ecological Monitoring program, exchanging and sharing
    data, and collaborating on common activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Initiate the development of a predictive model that will estimate
    g~0.~ Increase consultation

> and direction in the development of bioregional HCPs and provide
> technical assistance to Federal land managers in their regional land
> use plans for the California desert.

-   Provide data on the effectiveness of management actions within
    recovery areas to determine their overall success at achieving
    recovery of the desert tortoise through implementation of line
    distance sampling techniques.

-   Develop a prioritized list of recovery actions that are best
    accomplished in a coordinated manner: including line distances
    sampling, disease, predation, education, translocation, and hunting
    and the use of firearms.

Project Area:

The project area for monitoring activities includes critical and
non-critical desert tortoise habitat in the Mojave and Colorado deserts
in southern California and Nevada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern
Arizona. Monitoring activities will occur on Federal lands administered
by the BLM, NPS, and DOD, and non-Federal land conserved under HCPs.
Increased consultation efforts and technical assistance for regional
HCPs and bioregional planning for the protection of desert resources
will be focused primarily in the California desert.

Project Management:

Successful planning for current and future human uses in the Mojave and
Colorado deserts while providing long-term conservation of fish and
wildlife will depend upon the Service's ability to work cooperatively
with communities, local and state governments, Federal agencies, and
private industry and organizations. As a National Performance Review
laboratory, efforts are already underway in the Mojave and Colorado
deserts of California to implement this goal through establishment of
management and conservation groups such as the Desert Managers Group.
Regional interagency and private sector planning efforts include the
West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan (WMCMP) in California; Clark
County Desert Conservation Plan (CCDCP) in Nevada; and the Washington,
County HCP in Utah. The WMCMP covers over 9 million acres in California
in Los Angeles, Kern, Inyo and San Bernardino counties. Approximately 90
species are being considered for inclusion and the West Mojave planning
effort in which the State and federally listed desert tortoises and the
State-listed Mohave ground squirrel and considered keynote species. The
CCDCP conservation and planning area includes over 4 million acres of
Federal lands in southern Nevada. The CCDCP, and subsequent Multiple
Species HCP (MSHCP) recently completed will included the desert tortoise
and 77 other species initially, and another 103 species will be
evaluated for potential inclusion in the future. The Washington County
HCPs established a 61,000-acre desert tortoise reserve as mitigation for
the loss of 12,264 acres tortoise habitat on private and state owned
lands within the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit.

The President's budget for FY 2003 has not been identified funding for
the Service's budget for the California Desert Initiative of which
\$200K was provided in FY2001 and FY02 (at this time we presume that the
funding will be at least equivalent to FY2002). The \$200K would be used
for rangewide desert tortoise monitoring which could be combined with
monitoring funds presently being allocated by BLM (\$ 50K) along with
funding of \$ 500K anticipated from DOD (presuming no emergency military
situation occur). Approximately, \$ 629K was spent in FY 2001 and \$888K
in FY 2002 for development and implementation of monitoring activities
in California (this includes the desert tortoise coordinator).

Based on the sample sizes, encounter rates observed in 2001, and
estimated number of kilometers needed to identify and measure population
trends across the range of the desert tortoise needed to be increased.
Therefore, we increased the sampling within California by an additional
1000 kilometers or about a 50% increase to obtain approximately 60-75
live tortoises per DWMA. Nearly 3300 kilometers of line distance
transects were sampled in California in 2002. Due to budgeting
shortfalls in FY02 the amount hoped for ([\$1.7M)]{.underline} was not
realized, which resulted in the removal of the Chemehuevi DWMA and
Shadow Valley portion of the Ivanpah DWMA from the sampling scheme. The
University of Redlands was kind enough to make a one-time contribution
to the field sampling effort by funding the sampling of the BLM portion
of the Chuckwalla DWMA, while the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery
Range funded sampling of the remainder of the DWMA.

The continued need for long term funding through the upper levels of
management should be perused to ensure that the recovery plan goal to
document the status of tortoise populations is achieved. In June 1999
the MOG agreed to use the Anderson and Burnham line distance sampling
design to document the status of desert tortoise populations rangewide.

. Additional funding is needed to be able to increase the capabilities
of the Service to meet the following: population sampling goals, and
initiation of other priority recovery actions as well as, consultation,
HCP, and bioregional planning assistance in the California deserts.

Budget:

Funds would be identified among the Service, BLM, NPS and USGS-BRD to
match up to [\$500K]{.underline} from the DOD for implementing desert
tortoise monitoring. Once funds are identified, the Coordinator will
develop and implement the proposed work plan with funding available
(Table 1).

Table 1. Monitoring Funds Available (FY01-02) Anticipated (FY03?)

and requested (FY04) to conduct Line Distance Sampling in California.

> [Agency]{.underline} [FY2001]{.underline} [FY2002]{.underline}
> [FY2003]{.underline} [FY2004]{.underline}
>
> USFWS \$200 K \$200 K \$200 K \$500 K
>
> NPS 60 K 138 K 20 K? 200 K
>
> BLM 200 K 0 K 50 K? 500 K
>
> DOD 169 K 500 K 500 K 500 K
>
> Univ. of Redlands \-\-\-- 50 K \-\-\-- \-\-\--

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Totals \$ 629K \$ 888K \$ 770K \$ 1700K

Project Schedule Summary:

FY 2001: Rangewide Coordinator is providing guidance and technical
assistance for planning efforts in the California desert, and has
initiated a series of implementation plan meetings for each Recovery
Unit which took place during the fall of FY 2001. Each Recovery Unit is
presently being sampled as a single entity without stratification. The
Implementation Plan for "Line Distance Sampling" is based upon the
"Sampling Handbook" developed by the Coordinator and sampling was
initiated during the spring of FY 2001. A monitoring workshop was held
in January 2001 in Las Vegas, Nevada and sampling techniques were
explained, demonstrated, and performed in the field to provide agency
personnel with first hand knowledge of the techniques to be used in
"Line Distance Sampling". Each RU was considered a single stratum for
purposes of sampling during 2001, and will continue to do so in 2002.
Designation and placement of permanent transect lines on the ground were
distributed randomly based on a predetermined set of criteria, i.e.
transects could not be on private land, over 4200 feet in elevation,
occur on playas, fall on slopes \>30%, etc. In March of 2001 two 3-4 day
line distance training workshops were held for both contractors and
Student Conservation Association personnel to practice the sampling
technique and for FWS and cooperators (USGS/BRD from the Aldo Leopold
Research Center, Missoula, Montana, the Cooperative Wildlife Research
Unit from Colorado State University, and the Biological Resources
Research Center of the University of Nevada, Reno) to evaluate the
training effort. During FY 2001 tortoise density sampling was initiated
within each Recovery Unit and shall be expanded upon in subsequent years
as funding permits. The preliminary determination of encounter rate for
each strata shall be important in the subsequent determination of the
number of transects required to adequately sample the habitat. A
preliminary meeting was held during November 2000 to discuss data and
data management, and a plan shall be developed. The FWS suggested that a
permanent data base be located at 2 locations, one at the Desert
Managers Group Data Management Team headquarters and a second with the
FWS in Nevada. The DMG database shall be accessible via a server with
certain restrictions as per the data management plan that is being
developed. In early September 2001 a contractor debriefing meeting was
convened in Las Vegas, Nevada to discuss the results of the sampling
effort for 2001, provide insights as to how to better improve training,
data standardization, submission, and transcription, and ways to
increase sampling efficiency. The recommendations from that meeting were
implemented in 2002.

FY 2002 Expand implementation of line distance sampling within each
Recovery Unit to ensure an adequate sample size of live tortoises are
encountered. The grand mean encounter rate observed in 2001 was 0.13/per
kilometer. An additional 1000 kilometers were sampled within California
in 2002 in order to provide adequate sample sizes. We were able to
achieve a 25% gain in the number of kilometers by increasing the length
of each transect from 1.6 km to 2.0 km (Table 2). A minimum of 60 live
tortoises per RU with a preferred number of 70-75 per RU to provide
increased statistical significance. The number of tortoises observed in
2002 fell short of expectations. Drought conditions prevailed over the
majority of the Mojave Desert during 2002 resulting in a reduction of
tortoise activity. Through the leadership of USGS/BRD Western Ecological
Science Center, and the cooperative efforts and assistance of the
University of Redlands, Desert Tortoise Project, U.S. Army, Mojave
Desert Ecosystem Program, USGS/BRD Northern Rocky Mountain Science
Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Chambers Group, and Kiva Biological
Consulting an electronic field data collection system using a personal
data assistant (PDA) was designed, developed, and implemented for use in
the field in April 2002. This automated field data collection system
using PDAs reduced numerous errors in data collection, entry,
transcription, and proofing. Continue to assist in land use plan
development and implementation; initiate high priority recovery actions;
maintain database; prepare and disseminate progress reports; and track
budget. In April of 2002 the California Desert Managers Group (DMG)
convened an ad hoc committee to develop plans to assist in the recovery
of the desert tortoise. Those plans were submitted to the Desert
Tortoise Management Oversight Group (DMG) on October 7, 2002 and
accepted. The University of Redlands compiled a summary of all the land
use plans recovery actions by recovery unit which is presently being
edited. Plans for three workshops were developed in FY 02, one
pertaining to disease held November 14-17, 2002, another on monitoring
populations which is to discuss line distance sampling and permanent
study plots held November 24, 2002, and a threats planned for spring
2003.

FY 2003 Continue to expand the implementation of line distance sampling
by resampling transects sampled in FY 2002. Success in obtaining
adequate sample sizes was only partially successful in 2002 due to the
extended drought conditions which prevailed. Desert tortoise activity
was reduced in 2002 although the number of kilometers were increased, we
anticipate that the number of kilometers in Table 2 is adequate to
provide statistically valid samples provided drought conditions abate in
2003. It is anticipated that the findings of the General Accounting
Office (GAO) audit may corroborate the need of adequate long-term
funding to complete the inventory and monitoring of tortoise populations
rangewide. In 2003 two management actions shall be implemented. The DMG
shall initiate plans to deal with the feral dog issue particularly in
the Mojave Desert, and the Service will implement a raven management
strategy rangewide. Both management actions will assist in the long-term
survival of desert tortoises by reducing predation on the older as well
as the younger ages classes respectively. Additionally, continue to
provide assistance to land managers on recovery implementation through
land use plans; maintain database; prepare and disseminate progress
reports; and track budget.

Description of Final Products:

Implementation of this work plan will yield the following products:

1\. Comprehensive monitoring plans for each recovery unit to identify
rangewide desert tortoise population baseline density estimates and a
preliminary evaluation of recovery actions.

2\. A predictive model of desert tortoise activity patterns to provide
estimates of g~0~.

3\. A process through which issues and concerns proposed in the work
plan will be resolved.

4\. Data on effectiveness of conservation and recovery actions including
a database to maintain and archive data.

5\. Annual reports on work plan activities and a comprehensive report
with recommendations for future program activities every 5 years,
prepared by the Coordinator.

Principal Contacts:

> Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor Philip A. Medica, Desert Tortoise
> Coordinator
>
> Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office Southern Nevada Field Office
>
> 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234 4701 North Torrey Pines Dr.
>
> Reno, Nevada 89502 Las Vegas, Nevada 89130
>
> \(775\) 861-6300 (702) 515-5230
>
> bob_d_williams@fws.gov phil_medica@fws.gov

Table 2. Kilometers sampled and tortoises observed to determine
encounter rates in 2001 in the Mojave Desert of California. Kilometers
required to provide adequate sample sizes of from 60-75 live animals per
DWMA. By increasing the length of the transects in 2002 from 1.6km to
2.0km we will gain a 25% increase in kilometers sampled at the same cost
as 2001.

+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| DWMA      | K   | N     | Total | Ki       | E    | Cost  | Eff    |
|           | ilo | umber | live  | lometers | ncou | equi  | ective |
|           | met | of    | tort  |          | nter | v     | km     |
|           | ers | Live  | oises | needed   | rate | alent | added  |
|           | s   | tort  | n     | in 2002  | obse |       | in     |
|           | amp | oises | eeded |          | rved | 2001  | 2002   |
|           | led |       | 2002  |          | in   | sa    | to     |
|           | 2   | obse  |       |          |      | mples | cal    |
|           | 001 | rved/ |       |          | 2001 | vs    | culate |
|           |     | trun  |       |          |      |       | budget |
|           |     | cated |       |          |      | 2002  | costs  |
|           |     | at 15 |       |          |      |       |        |
|           |     | m     |       |          |      | sa    |        |
|           |     | eters |       |          |      | mples |        |
|           |     |       |       |          |      |       |        |
|           |     |       |       |          |      | 25%   |        |
|           |     |       |       |          |      | l     |        |
|           |     |       |       |          |      | onger |        |
|           |     |       |       |          |      | tra   |        |
|           |     |       |       |          |      | nsect |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Fremont/  | 338 | 58/49 | 75    | 338      | .145 | 33    | 94     |
| Kramer    |     |       | +53%  | +179=517 |      | 8=423 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Superior/ | 339 | 46/39 | 75    | 339      | .115 | 33    | 95     |
| Cronese   |     |       | +93%  | +315=654 |      | 9=423 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Ord/      | 317 | 72/56 | 75    | 317      | .178 | 31    | 25     |
|           |     |       | +33%  | +104=421 |      | 7=396 |        |
| Rodman    |     |       |       |          |      |       |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| MCAGCC    | 149 | 26/22 | 33    | 14       | .148 | 14    | 38     |
|           |     |       | +50%  | 9+75=224 |      | 9=186 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Joshua    | 131 | 18/15 | 22.   | 13       | .114 | 13    | 33     |
| Tree      |     |       | 5+50% | 1+66=197 |      | 1=164 |        |
| National  |     |       |       |          |      |       |        |
| Park      |     |       |       |          |      |       |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Pinto     | 128 | 24/20 | 30    | 12       | .156 | 12    | 32     |
| Mountain  |     |       | +50%  | 8+64=192 |      | 8=160 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| C         | 323 | 73/60 | 60    | 32       | .186 | 32    | 0      |
| huckwalla |     |       | +25%  | 3+80=403 |      | 3=403 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| C         | 322 | 64/54 | 75    | 322      | .17  | 32    | 38     |
| hemehuevi |     |       | +37%  | +119=441 |      | 2=403 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Shadow    | 133 | 7/7   | 7     | 13       | .05  | 13    | 0      |
| Valley    |     |       | +25%  | 3+33=166 |      | 3=166 |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+
| Eastern   | 113 | 11/8  | ap    | 113      | .07  | 11    | 459    |
| Mojave    |     |       | prox. | +487=600 |      | 3=141 |        |
|           |     |       | 60    |          |      |       |        |
| (MNP)     |     |       |       |          |      |       |        |
+-----------+-----+-------+-------+----------+------+-------+--------+

Total 2,293 2,865 818