[[Northern Colorado Plateau Network]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image1.png){width="5.197916666666667in"
height="5.473611111111111in"}

Prepared For

Vital Signs Monitoring

"Meeting of the Networks"

August 13-16, 2002

Denver, Colorado

Northern Colorado Plateau Network and Prototype Handout Contents

  --------------------------------------------------------------- -------
  List of Network Parks                                           3

  Staff List and Contact Information                              4

  Organizational Chart                                            5

  Network/Prototype Project Timeline                              6

  Biophysical Variation Figures                                   7

  Ecosystem Occurrence Table                                      9

  Acquisition of Park Input                                       10

  NCPN Resources of Concern                                       11

  NCPN Stressors of Concern                                       12

  Sample Park (ZION) Monitoring Needs                             13

  Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Models                     14

  Supplementary Models                                            17

  Works Cited and Other References                                21
  --------------------------------------------------------------- -------

## NORTHERN COLORADO PLATEAU NETWORK & PROTOTYPE PARKS

## ARCH Arches National Park\*

**BLCA Black Canyon of the Gunnison Nat. Park**

# **BRCA Bryce Canyon National Park**

**CANY Canyonlands National Park**

### CARE Capitol Reef National Park

# **CEBR Cedar Breaks National Monument**

**COLM Colorado National Monument**

**CURE Curecanti National Recreation Area**

# **DINO Dinosaur National Monument**

**FOBU Fossil Butte National Monument**

**GOSP Golden Spike National Historic Site**

**HOVE Hovenweep National Monument**

## NABR Natural Bridges National Monument

**PISP Pipe Springs National Monument**

**TICA Timpanogos Cave National Monument**

**ZION Zion National Monument**

**\*Denotes Prototype Park**

Northern Colorado Plateau Network and Prototype Staff

  -------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------
                                                    

  Program Manager      Dr. Angie Evenden            \(435\) 719-2342

  Ecologist            Dr. Mark Miller              \(435\) 719-2340

  Data Manager         Margaret Beer                \(435\) 719-2346

  Data Mgt. Specialist Libby Nance                  \(435\) 719-2352

  GIS Tech             Aneth Wight                  \(435\) 719-2348

  Program Biotech      Sonya Daw                    \(435\) 719-2343

  Data Biotech         Mike Estenson                \(435\) 719-2353

  Data Biotech         Mary Moran                   \(435\) 719-2139

                                                    
  -------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------

Mailing Address and Contact Info for All NCPN Staff:

Northern Colorado Plateau Network

National Park Service

2282 S. West Resource Blvd.

Moab, UT 84532

Fax: 435 719-2350

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE NORTHERN COLORADO PLATEAU INVENTORY &
MONITORING PROGRAM

![](media/image1.wmf)

NORTHERN COLORADO PLATEAU NETWORK TIMELINE AND PROGRAM TASKS

![](media/image2.png){width="6.496527777777778in"
height="6.564583333333333in"}

**[Biophysical Variation]{.underline}**

A major challenge in designing a network-wide monitoring strategy is
characterizing and designing for the *tremendous biophysical variation*
found in a network that covers over 1.1 million ac and spans 300 mi from
east to west, 350 mi from north to south, 7000 ft in elevation, and from
8 to 30 inches of average annual precipitation. The following figures
and table illustrate some of the ways we have chosen to describe and
illustrate natural variability across the network.

![](media/image3.png){width="3.575in" height="3.066666666666667in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="3.658333333333333in" height="2.775in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="4.300694444444445in"}

![](media/image6.png){width="2.925in" height="4.442361111111111in"}

![](media/image7.png){width="7.784722222222222in"
height="5.9944444444444445in"}

**[Acquisition of Park Input]{.underline}**

A variety have techniques have been used to acquire Park input regarding
key management issues, resources of concern, anthropogenic stressors,
and expectations of the Inventory & Monitoring Program. One of the main
approaches has been through the development of our Monitoring-Needs
Database. This database was designed to capture and manage park input in
the form of individual database records that characterize stressor \>\>
resource \>\> effect pathways. Park staff directly populated the
database following directions provided by network staff. The database
has been used as a tool for assessing and ranking generalized,
network-wide resources and stressors of concern, but it is most valuable
as a tool for quickly obtaining details concerning park-specific
resource issues.

In addition to the database, parks also have provided summary
descriptions of their priority monitoring needs. These products have
been supplemented by face-to-face discussions during park visits by
network staff and during network technical committee meetings. In
particular, technical committee discussions of park and network issues
and concerns have yielded numerous important insights. The following two
tables were developed by combining information from the Monitoring-Needs
Database with each Park's summary description of priority monitoring
needs.

![](media/image8.png){width="6.336111111111111in"
height="5.559722222222222in"}

![](media/image9.png){width="5.767361111111111in"
height="7.325694444444444in"}

The following is a good example of an individual Park's summary of
priority monitoring needs.

**[Zion National Park Monitoring Priorities, July 2002]{.underline}**

**Human Interface**: Monitoring recreational and operational human
impacts

-   Human Carrying Capacity relative to resource condition/resiliency,
    possibly related to Visitor Experience-Resource Protection (VERP)
    process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Biological soil crusts, soil compaction/social trailing

-   Hanging gardens

-   Aquatic invertebrates (river/streams, springs, hanging gardens) Zion
    snail

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Wildlife -- Human Interaction]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mexican spotted owl

-   Mountain lion

-   Peregrine falcon

-   Deer

-   Small animal damage from human feeding

**Habitat Restoration**: Monitoring the effectiveness of restoration
activities

-   [Aquatic habitats]{.underline}, especially removal of Virgin River
    channelization structures

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Virgin spinedace (managed under Conservation Agreement)

-   Invasive plants

-   Ground water table in floodplain (peziometers, elevation & distance
    from channel)

-   River flow rates (cfs)

-   Sediment loads below restored reaches

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Invasive Species]{.underline} throughout the park -- includes
    non-native plants and animals

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Distribution, rate of spread from epicenters

-   Efficacy of control/treatment

    -   [Fire Effects]{.underline} -- use in ecological restoration and
        fuels reduction

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Current monitoring based exclusively on vegetation

    -   Need to expand monitoring to consider soils, watershed, and
        animals as applicable to goals established for each planned
        burn.

**Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species**: to comply with legal
mandates, monitor viability of populations of these species.

-   [T&E]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Mexican spotted owl

-   Southwest willow flycatcher

-   Desert tortoise

-   Shivwits milkvetch

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Sensitive species]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Amphibians

-   Desert bighorn sheep

**Physical Resources**: condition of physical resources is critical
component of habitat quality for biologic communities/species

-   [Water Resources]{.underline} -- covered above; surface and
    groundwater quality, flow, condition

-   [Soil Resources]{.underline} -- covered above; soil crusts,
    erosion-sedimentation

-   [Air Resources]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Visibility (funded through NPS-ARD)

-   Ozone -- especially related to veg impacts (automated station
    on-line Sept. 2002 -- ARD funded)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Soundscape]{.underline} -- initial inventories completed FY 01-02

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Overflights: rate, timing, routes

-   Sensitive wildlife resources

**Long-term Ecological Change**: monitor change in biophysical resources
/ communities in relatively undisturbed locales; possible comparisons to
lands more actively used.

-   [Vegetation]{.underline} -- changes in composition, invasives

-   [Animals]{.underline} -- veg utilization, species occurrence,
    especially small mammals

-   [Soils]{.underline} -- condition of soil crusts, erosion / soil loss

-   [Hydrology]{.underline} -- watershed conditions, site-specific
    character

**[Theoretical Framework]{.underline}**

We consider the development of *a* *theoretical framework* to be a key
step in the design of a monitoring strategy. Such a framework functions
to guide the development of system- and issue-specific conceptual
models, and it provides insights applicable to the selection of
vital-signs indicators and the prioritization of monitoring efforts. The
framework that we have adopted is based on theoretical and applied
literature concerning aspects of ecosystem dynamics, sustainability, and
management. Here we present a variety of conceptual diagrams that
illustrate the development of our framework.

![](media/image10.png){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="3.5548611111111112in"}

Model (a) illustrating the four interactive controls of ecosystem
sustainability -- atmospheric resources and conditions, soil/water
resources and conditions, biotic functional groups, and disturbance
regime (modified from Chapin et al. 1996); and (b) the array of
stressors affecting network ecosystems arranged in the model in relation
to their first-order effects. The circle represents the boundary of the
ecosystem.

For vital signs monitoring, the key aspect of the interactive-control
model is the associated hypothesis that interactive controls must be
conserved for an ecosystem to be sustained. Large changes in any of the
four interactive controls are predicted to result in a new ecosystem
with different functional and structural characteristics than the
original system (Chapin et al. 1996). The interactive-control model is
an extension of Jenny's (1941, 1980) state-factor model for
understanding variations in soils and ecosystem structure and function
(see also Vitousek 1994).

![](media/image11.png){width="3.8in" height="5.826388888888889in"}

Integration of the interactive-control model with the ball-and-cup
heuristic to illustrate concepts of ecological thresholds and resilience
(see Scheffer et al. 2001).

![](media/image12.png){width="6.3597222222222225in"
height="2.729861111111111in"}

Application of the ball-and-cup heuristic to illustrate how abrupt
shifts among ecosystem states can be facilitated by environmental
conditions that alter system resilience to perturbations. In (a), the
resilience of an ecosystem to a generalized perturbation is shown to
vary in relation to environmental conditions. Examples indicate how
ecosystem resilience to land-use perturbations can vary in relation to
climatic conditions (b), and vice versa (c). (Adapted from Scheffer et
al. 2001 and concepts of Tausch et al. 1993).

[Theoretical Framework: Summary]{.underline}

-   [General model]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Factors governing ecosystem structure & function

-   Controls of ecosystem sustainability

-   Changes that can lead to alternative ecosystem \'states\'

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Corollary hypotheses]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Episodic events can cause ecosystems to cross thresholds between
    alternative states *[abruptly]{.underline}*

-   The probability of sudden state shifts is affected by declines in
    system *[resilience]{.underline}*

[Implications for Management and Monitoring]{.underline}

\"Efforts to reduce the risk of unwanted state shifts should address the
gradual changes that affect resilience rather than merely control
disturbance. Stability domains typically depend on slowly changing
variables such as land use, nutrient stocks, soil properties and biomass
of long-lived organisms. *These factors may be predicted, monitored, and
modified.* In contrast, stochastic events that trigger state shifts
(such as hurricanes, droughts or disease outbreaks) are usually
difficult to predict or control. Therefore, building and maintaining
resilience of desired ecosystem states is likely to be the most
pragmatic and effect way to manage ecosystems in the face of increasing
environmental change" (Scheffer et al. 2001:596).

[Supplementary Models Related to Concepts of Ecological
Thresholds]{.underline}

![](media/image13.png){width="5.423611111111111in"
height="4.526388888888889in"}

State-and-transition model -- a management-oriented tool for considering
and organizing information about ecological thresholds and transitions
among dynamic 'states'. Dynamics within the dark-lined boxes (i.e.,
within a dynamic state) are within the range of variability and include
normal successional changes. (Adapted from Stringham et al. 2001.)

For monitoring applications, state-and-transition models should be
accompanied by mechanistic models describing how stressors affect key
ecosystem components and processes (e.g., biotic functional groups,
disturbance regimes, and soil/water resources and dynamics).

![](media/image14.png){width="5.083333333333333in"
height="4.770833333333333in"}

Example of a state-and-transition model developed for sagebrush-steppe
communities of the Intermountain West (from Stringham et al. 2001 and
West and Young 2000).

![](media/image15.png){width="4.8597222222222225in"
height="3.4166666666666665in"}

Conceptual model illustrating the application of threshold concepts to
restoration and management (from Whisenant 1999). In this framework,
'primary processes' include water capture and retention, nutrient
cycling, and energy capture. Whisenant's approach is closely allied with
those of Ludwig and colleagues (1997), Ludwig and Tongway (2000),
Rosentreter and Eldridge (2002), National Research Council (1994), and
the interagency assessment protocol developed by Pellant et al. (2000).

**[Works Cited and Other References Potentially Applicable to Other
Arid-Land Networks]{.underline}**

Archer, S., and C. Stokes. 2000. Stress, disturbance and change in
rangeland ecosystems. Pages 17-38 in O. Arnalds and S. Archer, eds.
*Rangeland desertification*. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Belnap, J., and O. L. Lange, eds. 2001. *Biological soil crusts:
Structure, function, and management*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Chapin, F. S., III, M. S. Torn, and M. Tateno. 1996. Principles of
ecosystem sustainability. *The American Naturalist* 148: 1016-1037.

Dale, V. H., A. E. Lugo, J. A. MacMahon, and S. T. A. Pickett. 1998.
Ecosystem management in the context of large, infrequent disturbances.
*Ecosystems* 1: 546-557.

Davenport, D. W., D. D. Breshears, B. P. Wilcox, and C. D. Allen. 1998.
Viewpoint: Sustainability of pinyon-juniper ecosystems\--a unifying
perspective of soil erosion thresholds. *Journal of Range Management*
51: 231-240.

Díaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la différence: plant functional
diversity matters to ecoystem processes. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*
16: 646-655.

Ehleringer, J. R., S. Schwinning, and R. Gebauer. 2000. Water use in
arid land ecosystems. Pages 347-365 in M. C. Press, J. D. Scholes, and
M. G. Barker, eds. *Physiological Plant Ecology. Proceedings of the 39th
Symposium of the British Ecological Society, 7-9 September 1998,
University of York*. Blackwell Science, Boston.

Grimm, V., and C. Wissel. 1997. Babel, or the ecological stability
discussions: an inventory and analysis of terminology and a guide for
avoiding confusion. *Oecologia* 109: 323-334.

Gunderson, L. 2000. Ecological resilience \-- in theory and application.
*Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics* 31: 425-439.

Herrick, J. E., J. R. Brown, A. J. Tugel, P. L. Shaver, and K. M.
Havstad. 2002. Application of soil quality to monitoring and management:
paradigms from rangeland ecology. *Agronomy Journal* 94: 3-11.

Hobbs, R. J., and D. A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for
restoration ecology. *Restoration Ecology* 4: 93-110.

Holling, C. S. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems,
and incentives for people. *Ecological Applications* 6: 733-735.

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the
pathology of natural resource management. *Conservation Biology* 10:
328-337.

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation: a system of quantitative
pedology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

---. 1980. The soil resource: origin and behavior. Springer-Verlag, New
York.

Ludwig, J.A., D. Tongway, D. Freudenberger, J. Noble, and K. Hodgkinson,
eds. 1997. *Landscape ecology, function and management: principles from
Australia\'s rangelands*. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, Australia.

---. 2000. Viewing rangelands as landscape systems. Pages 39-52 in O.
Arnalds and S. Archer, eds. *Rangeland desertification*. Kluwer,
Dordrecht.

McAuliffe, J. R. In press (2003). The atmosphere-biosphere interface:
the importance of soils in arid and semi-arid environments. Pages
Chapter 2 in J. F. Weltzin and G. R. McPherson, eds. *Changing
precipitation regimes and terrestrial ecosystems: a North American
perspective*. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

National Research Council. 1994. *Rangeland health: new methods to
classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands*. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.

Paine, R. T., M. J. Tegner, and E. A. Johnson. 1998. Compounded
perturbations yield ecological surprises. *Ecosystems* 1: 535-545.

Pellant, M., P. L. Shaver, D. A. Pyke, and J. E. Herrick. 2000.
*Interpreting indicators of rangeland health. Version 3. Interagency
technical reference TR-1734-6*. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO.
\[Online at http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/glti/pubs.html.\]

Romme, W. H., E. H. Everham, L. E. Frelich, M. A. Moritz, and R. E.
Sparks. 1998. Are large, infrequent disturbances qualitatively different
from small, frequent disturbances? *Ecosystems* 1: 524-534.

Rosentreter, R., and D. J. Eldridge. 2002. Monitoring biodiversity and
ecosystem function: grasslands, deserts, and steppe. Pages 223-237 in P.
L. Nimis, C. Scheidegger, and P. A. Wolseley, eds. *Monitoring with
lichens \-- monitoring lichens*. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001.
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. *Nature* 413: 591-596.

Seybold, C. A., J. E. Herrick, and J. J. Brejda. 1999. Soil resilience:
A fundamental component of soil quality. *Soil Science* 164: 224-234.

Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and P. L. Shaver. 2001. States,
transitions, and thresholds: Further refinement for rangeland
applications. Pages 15. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR. \[Online at
http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/glti/pubs.html.\]

Tausch, R. J., P. E. Wigand, and W. J. Burkhardt. 1993. Viewpoint: plant
community thresholds, multiple steady states, and multiple successional
pathways: legacy of the Quaternary? *Journal of Range Management* 46:
439-447.

Vitousek, P. M. 1994. Factors controlling ecosystem structure and
function. Pages 87-97 in R. G. Amundson, J. W. Harden, and M. J. Singer,
eds. *Factors of soil formation: a fiftieth anniversary retrospective.
SSSA special publication no. 33*. Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI.

Walker, B. 1995. Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem
resilience. *Conservation Biology* 9: 747-752.

Walker, B., and N. Abel. 2002. Resilient rangelands \-- adaptation in
complex systems. Pages 293-313 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling,
eds. *Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural
systems*. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

West, N. E., and J. A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower
mountain slopes. Pages 255-284 in M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings, eds.
*North American terrestrial vegetation. Second edition*. Cambridge
Univesity Press, Cambridge.

Whisenant, S. G. 1999. *Repairing damaged wildlands: a process-oriented,
landscape-scale approach*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.